Ho by Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist.
Decision Date | 04 June 1998 |
Docket Number | Nos. 97-15926,97-70378,s. 97-15926 |
Citation | 147 F.3d 854 |
Parties | 127 Ed. Law Rep. 614, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4277, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6066 Brian HO, by his parent and next friend, Carl HO; Patrick Wong, by his parent and next friend, Charlene Wong; Hilary Chen, by her parent and next friend, Jane Chen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; San Francisco Board of Education; Waldemar Rojas, Superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District; Board of Education of the State of California; California Department of Education; William D. Dawson; San Francisco National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Defendants-Appellees. Brian HO, by his parent and next friend, Carl HO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, San Francisco Unified School District, Real Party In Interest. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Daniel C. Girard, Girard & Greene, San Francisco, California, for appellants.
Aubrey V. McCutcheon, Jr., Ypsilanti, Michigan, for appellee San Francisco Unified School District.
John C. Yoo, Berkeley, California, for appellee Board of Education of the State of California.
Joseph Remcho, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, San Francisco, California, for appellee Superintendent of the Board of Education.
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson, San Francisco, California, for appellee San Francisco Chapter of the NAACP.
Appeals from the United States District Court For the Northern District of California; William H. Orrick, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-02418-WHO.
Before: NOONAN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and WALLACH, * Judge.
By their parents and next friends, Brian Ho, aged 5, Patrick Wong, aged 14, and Hilary Chen, aged 8 (collectively Ho), brought this action in 1994 against the San Francisco Unified School District (the School District) and the other local and state defendants. The suit sought declaratory relief and an injunction forbidding the defendants from operating the public schools of San Francisco under a system of racial classification and quotas. Ho alleged that the defendants were violating the Fourteenth Amendment by adhering to paragraph 13 of a consent decree of fifty-five paragraphs approved by the district court in May 1983.
Paragraph 13, as modified by the court, reads in relevant part as follows:
(emphasis in original).
The defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel: all the issues, they maintained, had been decided in 1983. Observing that the suit relied on events that had occurred after 1983, the district court denied this motion.
On January 19, 1995, the court added as a defendant the San Francisco National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (SFNAACP), which had brought the suit that had led to the consent decree.
On March 8, 1996 the court certified the plaintiffs as representatives of a class consisting of "all children of Chinese descent of school age who are current residents of San Francisco and who are eligible to attend the public schools of the San Francisco Unified School District."
The case proceeded by answers to interrogatories and affidavits. Waldemar Rojas, general superintendent of the School District, filed an affidavit in which he swore as follows:
Superintendent Rojas went on to declare: (emphasis in original).
Superintendent Rojas's declaration then continued for a dozen pages principally devoted to the on-going program for the "reconstitution" of schools, that is, "a comprehensive ecological re-creation of a school community which places the students and parents of every race and ethnicity as institutional stakeholders of an educational facility and the reculturing of the institution through a new hiring process of all adult employees, including the custodians, teachers, paraprofessionals, offices aides, and the principal." (R. Doc. 102 at p 14).
Margaret G. Wells, Program Director at the Educational Placement Center of the School District, also provided a declaration under oath. She declared:
The Pre-Registration/Optional Enrollment Request information sheet provided to parents by the School District was attached to the Wells affidavit. The information sheet explains that Pre-Registration and Optional Enrollment Request forms must be submitted for all children who are new to the School District and for all children wishing to transfer out of their assigned school. The information sheet contains a section bearing the heading "RACIAL/ETHNIC DESIGNATION" followed by this statement: Another section is entitled "FALSIFICATION OF INFORMATION." It provides: "Under both federal and state law, any falsification of information provided to the District will constitute perjury, and will result in possible further legal action and cancellation of any transaction that involved the enrollment of a child."
The information sheet also reveals that even where attendance is not limited by a racial cap mandated by the consent decree, "Hispanic" and "African American" students are given priority over other, similarly situated, students in granting optional enrollment requests. The record indicates that the School District processes thousands of Pre-Registration and Optional Enrollment requests annually.
The accompanying form, Pre-Registration and Optional Enrollment Request, contains a section entitled "Racial/Ethnic Identification: CHECK ONLY ONE." The thirteen boxes of which only one may be checked are as follows:
A third affidavit furnished by the defendants came from Steve Phillips, president of the School District's Board of Education. Phillips stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holloway v. City of Va. Beach
...U.S. 20, 26, 124 S.Ct. 376, 157 L.Ed.2d 333 (2003) (stating that the last antecedent rule is "quite sensible as a matter of grammar").18 See Ho by Ho v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. , 147 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 1998) ("... race has historically been used as way of oppressing, persecuting, o......
-
Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
...may not go in seeking to dismantle a dual school system." (citing Swann 402 U.S. at 28, 91 S.Ct. at 1282)); Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 147 F.3d 854, 865 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that race-conscious provisions in a desegregation decree had to be narrowly tailored); see also Hay......
-
Johnson v. Board of Regents of University System
...of treating that person as an individual[,] since `race identifies groups.'" Doc. # 151 at 12 (citing Ho v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 147 F.3d 854, 864 (9th Cir.1998)) (brackets added and omitted). But, as Justice Powell reiterated in Bakke, Fourteenth Amendment rights are personal ......
-
Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. 1
...v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943))) (emphasis in original); see also Ho v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 147 F.3d 854, 865 (9th Cir.1998) ("It is as a person that each of us has these rights that are so majestically secured."). Therefore, "any person, of wha......
-
Race, culture, and adoption: lessons from Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield.
...U.S. 604 (1987). (133) Id. at 606. (134) Id. at 610-11. (135) Id. at 611-12. (136) Id. at 610. (137) Ho by Ho v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 147 F.3d 854, 863 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting William W. Howells, The Meaning of Race, in THE BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL MEANING OF RACE 16 (Richard H. Osborne e......