-
Lee v. Johnson
Due to a law created after Lee v. Johnson, the San Francisco school district was required to desegregate their schools. -
Students lacking help
The San Francisco school district had 2,856 Chinese students who were not fluent in English, and of these students only about 1,000 students had any support to learn English; leaving the rest of the students to sink or swim in class. -
Edward Steinman to the rescue
A public lawyer, Edward Steinman reached out to a few Chinese students, including Kinney Kinmon Lau and his parents, offering to file a class action lawsuit against the district. They filed the lawsuit against the president of the San Francisco school district, Alan H. Nichols. The basis of their argument was that the students were being denied the 14th amendment to equal protection, and the school violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned educational discrimination. -
A Disappointment in Court
When the lawsuit went to the District Court for the Northern District of California, the defense argued that since the school district had a uniform policy for all students of SFUSD, they did not intentionally discriminate against the students who were limited in English. -
Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the court and said that the school provided the same treatment for all students and even though some students were disadvantaged, the school did not need to make up for the different levels of students. -
Success at the Supreme Court
The students appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lau, relying on Section 603 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court determined that since the school was provided with federal funding, it must provide equal opportunities, and access to English for ALL students. The Supreme Court said although the students were all treated equally, students who didn't understand English were disadvantaged to not having a meaningful education. -
“There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education”
This quote by Justice William O. Douglas proves that it is not enough to treat all students the same when they all have their own individual needs. Not knowing English and being taught lessons entirely in English is not fair to the students who do not understand. -
What now for SFUSD?
“Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.” The SFUSD is called to rectify the language deficiency in their schools so that every student can receive education without barriers. -
Importance of Lau v. Nichols
This case was so important during the time period because racism and discrimination was finally being challenged. Even though it does not seem as though this is direct racism, discriminating against students by not offering them the tools they need to succeed simply based on the language they speak is unethical. This case paves a way to a better America not only for ELL students but for immigrants as well. It was made known that ELL students deserve as much help as any other student. -
Legacy of Lau v. Nichols
Video: Link text
This case paved the way for ELL students to get the help that they need in school. Even if all students are treated equally, they will not get the education they deserve if they are unable to understand the lessons being taught to them. I am grateful that all students are given a better opportunity to learn because of this case.
