Lau v. Nichols Questions-Answers

These are 4 questions that we have been asked to answer in regards to the case of Lau v. Nichols (1974). 

Please note that some of the statements made in response to these questions are simply the interpretations and views of the authors, unless otherwise cited as a source.

1. What is the law (Define it/state the law or case decision)?

Specifically the laws being violated are the 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The laws essentially ban discrimination based on national origin, color or race in an activity or program that is receiving any type of federal assistance.  (Lau v. Nichols)

The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment in section one states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (www.ed.gov)  The non English speaking Chinese students protesting were unprotected by this amendment, as they were citizens of the United States and yet were being deprived of the freedom of a comprehensive education by the San Francisco school system.

The description of the case Lau Vs. Nichols is best reiterated by a quote within the document itself, “Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination” made by Senator Humphrey in 1964.

2. What is the historical treatment of those who are now being protected by the law or court decision?

The protesting students (and all the students they represented) in the Lau vs. Nichols case of 1974, were treated unjustly, discriminated against, and virtually ignored by the school system. Because of their non English background, these 2,865 students of Chinese ancestry were not proficient in the English language. And as history unfortunately demonstrates, the politics of our nation have favored Anglo Americans, viewing them as the elite race while often ignoring, discriminating, and treating unjustly all others, especially those unable to speak English. Of those 2,865 Chinese speaking students only 1,000 were given supplemental courses in the English language while about 1,800 did not receive Chinese instruction or courses in how to speak English. The Lau vs. Nichols case was at first denied by the District court claiming there was no violation of the 14^th amendment or of law 601 of the Civil Rights Act. This decision was later reversed in favor of the protesting students by the Supreme Court. The opinion of the Supreme Court is described as follows;

“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 the law 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to reverse the Court of Appeals.” (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html)

      The Supreme Court was eventually able to defy both history and the original ruling of the district court by ruling in favor of the Chinese students, recognizing the importance of the provision and reestablishment of an equal and comprehensible public education to non English speaking students.

      The history of the treatment of the Chinese in this country is just another case of use and abuse. When the California gold rush of 1849 brought the need for cheap laborers, the Chinese arrived in great numbers and willingly provided many of the jobs needed to support the growing population in California. For instance, the railroad system was also being installed to unite this country and most of the labor was provided by the Chinese, but as the railroads were becoming finished, so was the need for the cheap labor provided by the Chinese. By the early 1880’s through the 1940’s a new law, the Chinese Exclusion Act, was enacted and enforced to prevent anymore Chinese from entering into our country. They were no longer needed, and thus, they were no longer wanted.

3. What is the story of the law or case? Tell who was wronged or whose rights were violated, or who needed protection and why?  What happened to cause people to take action?

This case was in regards to the San Francisco school system having 2,856 students who did not speak English, 1,800 of them were not offered supplemental courses.  San Francisco’s school system also failed to provide the Chinese students with other adequate instructional procedures.  It is important to note when analyzing this case that in footnotes provided in the documents of the U.S. Supreme Court the number of students, along with the number of those who were receiving additional help, differed and makes observers of the case wonder just what the reality was. However, the case was heard and though California state law had dismissed the case due to technicalities in the system, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for new and more appropriate action. 

The argument that was made was that this was a violation or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  San Francisco’s schools were receiving federal funding to operate but they were not complying with the rights of the Chinese when they, in effect, ignored their rights to an equal education. (Lau v. Nichols) The people were forced to take action against San Francisco’s school system because of the school systems refusal to rectify the situation and comply with the laws previously discussed.  The original ruling of the district court, at first denied relief of the issues (lack of proper education) and was affirmed in their ruling by the Court of Appeals. They claimed that there had been no lawful violation and reasoned that, "Every 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…" (www.ed.gov) This was later overruled by the Supreme Court who noted that the Education code of California states that “English shall be the basic language of instruction in all schools.” (www.ed.gov) This section also authorizes bilingual instruction. The fact that these Chinese students were not offered supplemental courses instructed in English or by bilingual teachers was a direct violation of the California Education Code.  (www.ed.gov)

4. What is the result/impact on students, teachers, and schooling? What are the implications for educators and classroom practice?

The Supreme Court effectively reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.  San Francisco’s school system had to provide equal education to all students.  In this case equal education meant that it was and is the obligation of school systems to provide minorities, that are deficient in English, with classes to give them the opportunity to fix these deficiencies.  This resulted in the school systems having to add courses and teachers to provide instruction. (Lau v. Nichols)