Lau v. Nichols 8212 6520
| Decision Date | 21 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72,72 |
| Citation | 39 L.Ed.2d 1,94 S.Ct. 786,414 U.S. 563 |
| Parties | Kinney Kinmon LAU, a minor by and through Mrs. Kam Wai Lau, his guardian ad litem, et al., Petitioners, v. Alan H. NICHOLS et al. —6520 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program and thus violates § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based 'on the ground of race, color, or national origin,' in 'any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,' and the implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pp. 565—569.
483 F.2d 791, reversed and remanded.
Edward H. Steinman, Santa Clara, Cal., for petitioners; Kenneth Hecht and David C. Moon, San Francisco, Cal., on the briefs.
Thomas M. O'Connor, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents; George E. Frueger and Burk E. Delventhal, San Francisco, Cal., on the brief.
J. Stanley Pottinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court; Solicitor Gen., Robert Bork, Deputy Solicitor Gen., Lawrence G. Wallace, Mark L. Evans and Brian K. Landsberg, Washington, D.C., on the brief.
Stephen J. Pollak, Ralph J. Moore, Jr., David Rubin, Washington, D.C., and Peter T. Galiano, Burlingame, Cal., for Nat. Ed. Assn. and others; W. Reece Bader and James R. Madison, San Francisco, Cal., for San Francisco Lawyers' Committee for Urban Affairs; J. Harold Flannery, Washington, D.C., for Center for Law and Ed., Harvard University; Herbert Teitelbaum, New York City, for Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Ed. Fund, Inc; Mario G. Obledo, San Francisco, Cal., Sanford J. Rosen, Berkeley, Cal., Michael Mendelson, and Alan Exelrod, San Francisco, Cal., for Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and others; Samuel Rabinove, Joseph B. Robison, Arnold Forster, and Elliot C. Rothenberg, New York City, for American Jewish Committee and others; F. Raymond Marks, Berkeley, Cal., for the Childhood and Government Project; Martin Glick, San Francisco, Cal., for Efrain Tostado and others; and the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Assn. and others, as amicus curiae.
The San Francisco, California, school system was integrated in 1971 as a result of a federal court decree, 339 F.Supp. 1315. See Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215, 92 S.Ct. 14, 30 L.Ed.2d 19. The District Court found that there are 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry in the school system who do not speak English. Of those who have that language deficiency, about 1,000 are given supplemental courses in the English language.1 About 1,800, however, do not receive that instruction.
This class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students against officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District seeks relief against the unequal educational opportunities, which are alleged to violate, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment. No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioners ask only that the Board of Education be directed to apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation.
The District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or of § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, which excludes from participation in federal financial assistance, recipients of aid which discriminate against racial groups, 483 F.2d 791. One judge dissented. A hearing en banc was denied, two judges dissenting. Id., at 805.
We granted the petition for certiorari because of the public importance of the question presented, 412 U.S. 938, 93 S.Ct. 2786, 37 L.Ed.2d 397.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that '(e)very student brings to the starting line of his educational career different advantages and disadvantages caused in part by social, economic and cultural background, created and continued completely apart from any contribution by the school system,' 483 F.2d, at 797. Yet in our view the case may not be so easily decided. This is a public school system of California and § 71 of the California Education Code states that 'English shall be the basic language of instruction in all schools.' That section permits a school district to determine 'when and under what circumstances instruction may be given bilingually.' That section also states as 'the policy of the state' to insure 'the mastery of English by all pupils in the schools.' And bilingual instruction is authorized 'to the extent that it does not interfere with the systematic, sequential, and regular instruction of all pupils in the English language.'
Moreover, § 8573 of the Education Code provides that no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from grade 12 who has not met the standards of proficiency in 'English,' as well as other prescribed subjects. Moreover, by § 12101 of the Education Code (Supp. 1973) children between the ages of six and 16 years are (with exceptions not material here) 'subject to compulsory full-time education.'
Under these state-imposed standards 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.
Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.
We do not reach the Equal Protection Clause argument which has been advanced but rely solely on § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, to reverse the Court of Appeals.
That section bans discrimination based 'on the ground of race, color, or national origin,' in 'any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.' The school district involved in this litigation receives large amounts of federal financial assistance. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which has authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting discrimination in federally assisted school systems, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d—1, in 1968 issued one guideline that '(s)chool systems are responsible for assuring that students of a particular race, color, or national origin are not denied the opportunity to obtain the education generally obtained by other students in the system.' 33 Fed.Reg. 4955. In 1970 HEW made the guidelines more specific, requiring school districts that were federally funded 'to rectify the language deficiency in order to open' the instruction to students who had 'linguistic deficiencies,' 35 Fed.Reg. 11595.
By § 602 of the Act HEW is authorized to issue rules, regulations, and orders 2 to make sure that recipients of federal aid under its jurisdiction conduct any federally financed projects consistently with § 601. HEW's regulations, 45 CFR 80.3(b)(1), specify that the recipients may not
'(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;
'(iv) Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program.'
Discrimination among students on account of race or national origin that is prohibited includes 'discrimination . . . in the availability or use of any academic . . . or other facilities of the grantee or other recipient.' Id., § 80.5(b).
Discrimination is barred which has that effect even though no purposeful design is present: a recipient 'may not . . . utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination' or have 'the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.' Id., § 80.3(b)(2).
It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program—all earmarks of the discrimination banned by the regulations.3 In 1970 HEW issued clarifying guidelines, 35 Fed.Reg. 11595, which include the following:
'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.'
'Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of national origin-minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational deadend or permanent track.'
Respondent school district contractually agreed to 'comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation' of HEW (45 CFR pt. 80) which are 'issued pursuant to that title . . .' and also immediately to 'take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bakke v. Regents of University of California
...309, 479 P.2d 669), to require a school system to provide instruction in English to students of Chinese ancestry (Lau v. Nichols (1974) 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786, 39 L.Ed.2d 1), 10 and to uphold the right of certain non-English speaking persons to vote (Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966) 384 U.S.......
-
Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. State of Cal.
...(Department of Education). The starting point for analysis of this issue is with the Supreme Court's decision in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974). There, the Court held that Title VI itself forbade the use of federal funds in programs with a discriminatory eff......
-
Garrity v. Gallen
...VI and Title IX, and less than a year prior to the writing of that Report the Supreme Court had held in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 566, 94 S.Ct. 786, 788, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974), that Title VI created a private cause of action. The same Report stated that § 504 "would ensure administrative ......
-
NAACP v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc.
...'74, at pp. 6390-6391. Of course, in some cases, Title VI will impose affirmative obligations of some kind. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974). However, the affirmative component of Section 504 is much stronger, both because of the intent of Congress in enacting......
-
RLUIPA at four: evaluating the success and constitutionality of RLUIPA'S prisoner provisions.
...surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 568-69 (1974) (upholding condition that public schools receiving federal funds comply with Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964), overruled ......
-
Lines in the sand: the importance of borders in American federalism.
...of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 59495 (1983) (upholding private cause of action for Title VI disparate impact violation), and Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 56649 (1974) (granting relief under Title VI for disparate impact discrimination), with Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (holding ......
-
Addressing The Problem: The Judicial Branches
...had not held that there is such a private right of action under section 602. See id. at __, 121 S. Ct. at 1517-21 (citing Lau v. Nichols , 414 U.S. 563, 94 S. Ct. 786, 39 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1974) (holding that section 601 prohibits disparate impact discrimination); Cannon v. University of Chicago......
-
Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
...Act of 1964. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849 (1971). In its 1974 decision in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 39 L. Ed. 2d 1, 94 S. Ct. 786 (1974), the Supreme Court applied, without discussion, the disparate impact analysis articulated in Griggs to ......
-
34C.F.R. 104 app A to Part 104 Analysis of Final Regulation
...Act of 1964 with respect to the provision of educational services to students whose primary language is not English. See Lau v. Nichols,414 U.S. 563(1974). To be equally effective, however, an aid, benefit, or service need not produce equal results; it merely must afford an equal opportunit......
-
34 C.F.R. 104 app A to Part 104 Analysis of Final Regulation
...Act of 1964 with respect to the provision of educational services to students whose primary language is not English. See Lau v. Nichols,414 U.S. 563(1974). To be equally effective, however, an aid, benefit, or service need not produce equal results; it merely must afford an equal opportunit......
-
34 C.F.R. 104 app A to Part 104 Analysis of Final Regulation
...Act of 1964 with respect to the provision of educational services to students whose primary language is not English. See Lau v. Nichols,414 U.S. 563(1974). To be equally effective, however, an aid, benefit, or service need not produce equal results; it merely must afford an equal opportunit......
-
28 C.F.R. 42 app A to Subpart D of Part 42 Commentary
...it clear that OJARS need not demonstrate a nexus between the particular project funded and the discriminatory activity. See Lau v. Nichols,414 U.S. 563, 566(1974).Sections 28undefined42.203 (b) and 42.203 (e-i). These provisions are derived from 28 CFR 28undefined42.104(b) of subpart C of t......