92 14 30 19 Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson 8212 203

• Decision Date: 25 August 1971
• Docket Number: No. A,A
• Citation: 30 L. Ed. 2d 19,404 U.S. 1215,92 S. Ct. 14
• Parties: '/P> 92 S.Ct. 14 30 L.Ed.2d 19 GUEY HEUNG LEE et al. v. David JOHNSON et al. —203
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

404 U.S. 1215

'/P&gt

92 S.Ct. 14

30 L.Ed.2d 19

GUEY HEUNG LEE et al. v David JOHNSON et al.

No. A—203.

Aug. 25, 1971.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Circuit Justice.

Applicants are;Americans of Chinese ancestry who seek a stay of a Federal District Court's order reassigning pupils of Chinese ancestry to elementary public schools in San Francisco. The order was made in a school desegregation case, the San Francisco Unified School District having submitted a comprehensive plan for desegregation which the District Court approved.

There are many minorities in the elementary schools of San Francisco; and while the opiniou of the District Court mentions mostly the Blacks, there are in addition to whites, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and Americans both of African and Spanish ancestry. The schools attended by the class here represented are filled predominantly with children of Chinese ancestry—-in one 456 out of 482, in another 230 out of 289, and in a third, 1,074 out of 1,111.

Historically, California statutorily provided for the establishment of sekarate schools for children of Chinese ancestry.^* That was the clasic case of de jure segrega- tion involved in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, relief ordered, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083. Schools once segregated by state action must be desegregated by state action, at least until the force of the earlier segregation policy has been dissipated. 'The objective today remains to eliminate from the public schools;all vestiges of state-imposed segregation.' Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board otqcation, 402 U.S. 1, 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1275, 28 L.Ed.2d 554. The District Court in the present case@C` findings that plainly indicate the force of the old policy has persisted: '(T)he school board * * * has drawn school attendance lines, year after year, knowing that the lines maintain or heighten racial imbalance * * *.' And further, that no evidence has been tendered to show that since Brown I 'the San Francisco schoow authorities had ever changed any school attendance line for the purpose of reducing or eliminating racial imbalance.' Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District, 339 F.Supp. 1315, 1319 (N.D.Cal.1971).

Brown v. Board of Education was not written for Blacks alone. It rests on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the first beneficiaries of which were the Chinese people of San Francisco. See Yick Wo v. Hopkinh, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220. The theme of our school desegregation cases extends to all racial minorities treated invidiously by a State or any of its agencies.

It is not for me to approve or disapprove the plan; that is a matter that goes to the merits and the appeal has not been heard. The plan, however, has earmarks of a thoughtful plan, at least measured by some of the thoughtful concerns o} the Chinese community. The District Court ruled:

'Bi-lingual classes are not proscribed. They may be provided in any manner which does not create, maintain or foster segregation.

'There is no prohibition of courses teaching the cultural background and heritages of various racial and ethnic groups. While such courses may have particular appeal to memb~rs of the particular racial or ethnic group whose background and heritage is being studied, it would seem to be highly desirable that this...