31:
334:
366:, concurred with this decision as he stated that affirmative remedial efforts, suggested by the OCR, were constitutional and appropriate in this case as long as the efforts were "reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation." In his concurrence joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun also suggested that "numbers are at the heart of this case" and that if the case only involved a few students, rather than nearly 2,000, the decision would not be the same.
380:
additional
English instruction mandatory, which effectively extended the Lau ruling to all public schools. The Office for Civil Rights then developed a remedial guideline in 1975, otherwise known as the Lau Remedies, that specified methods and approaches for school districts to follow in order to provide a meaningful education to students with limited English proficiency. This led to the development of bilingual programs and additional English instruction in most public schools.
342:
was required to provide equal opportunities and access to all students. The Court claimed that even though the school districts provided equal treatment for all students, it still imposed disparate impact on the non-English speaking students since they were not able to understand the class material as effectively as other students and therefore were deprived of having "meaningful" education. The Court also referenced the guideline established by
325:
Court of
Appeals claimed that since the school district provided the same treatment for all students, even though some students were disadvantaged due to their limited fluency in English, the school district was not required to make up for the different starting points of students. The students appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court.
396:
275 (2001), the Court claimed that private plaintiffs did not have the right of action to sue against disparate impact violation under Title VI and they must provide proof of intentional discrimination. It implied that students can no longer sue schools for policies that cause disparate impact, which
341:
The
Supreme Court issued its decision on January 21, 1974, with the Court unanimously ruling in favor of Lau. Instead of examining the equal protection clause from the 14th Amendment, the Court relied on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since the school system received federal funding, it
350:
in 1970, which stated that language could be used as a proxy of discrimination on national origin and that "the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students." The case was remanded to the
District Court "for the
324:
affirmed the decision. The
District Court argued that since a uniform policy was used for all students in SFUSD and that the district didn't intentionally discriminate against students with limited English proficiency, equal protection was provided and the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated. The
374:
Lau remains an important decision in bilingual education history. In this case, the
Supreme Court found a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on the discriminatory effect of the school policy, regardless of the intent of the officials. It prohibited the "sink or swim" policy and set a
292:
was passed by
Congress in 1968 to address the needs of Limited English Speaking Abilities students, its application was limited. School participation in those programs was also voluntary, and, by 1972, "only 100,391 students nationally, out of approximately 5,000,000 in need were enrolled in a
379:
in
Congress, which specifically prohibited discrimination against faculty and students in public schools and required the school districts to take "appropriate action" to overcome the barriers to equal participation of all students. It increased funding to the Bilingual Education Act and made
285:(SFUSD). Only about 1000 of those students were provided supplemental English instruction. Of the other 1800-plus Chinese students who were not fluent in English, many were placed in special education classes while some were forced to be in the same grade for years.
305:, the president of the SFUSD at the time, and other officials in the school district. The students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak English, and they argued they were entitled to special help under the
300:
Edward H. Steinman, a public-interest lawyer, reached out to the parents of Kinney Kinmon Lau and other
Chinese students with limited English proficiency. He encouraged them to challenge the school district, and they filed a class action suit against
110:
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 violates § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of
317:
337:
Justice Harry Blackmun, who concurred with the decision and stated that the number of students affected in this case was substantial enough to deem affirmative remedies necessary.
814:
306:
454:
406:
390:
347:
72:
321:
702:"Reducing Discrimination Affecting Persons with Limited English Proficiency: Federal Civil Rights Guidelines under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act"
539:
608:
376:
809:
804:
375:
precedent of finding disparate impact in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The decision was subsequently followed by the passing of
259:
229:
246:
case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with
779:
688:
Task Force Findings Specifying Remedies Available for Eliminating past Educational Practices Ruled Unlawful under LAU v. NICHOLS
282:
570:
504:
Petrzela, Natalia M (2010). "Before the Federal Bilingual Education Act: Legislation and Lived Experience in California".
789:
243:
35:
784:
477:
Punches, Michael W. (January 1, 1985). "The Shaping of a Social Policy: The Bilingual Education Act, 1968-1984".
281:
At that time, 2,856 Chinese and Hispanic students, who were not fluent in English, were integrated back into the
247:
799:
794:
774:
665:
658:"Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Equal Educational Opportunities and School Busing"
383:
However, there have been challenges to the Lau decision in recent decades. In the Supreme Court case
276:
310:
251:
547:
416:
343:
289:
759:
422:
274:
In 1971, the San Francisco school system desegregated based on the result of Supreme Court case
142:
616:
458:
393:
385:
64:
8:
411:
254:. The court held that since non-English speakers were denied a meaningful education, the
170:
734:
721:
701:
590:
521:
486:
461:
134:
739:
525:
178:
158:
729:
713:
582:
513:
359:
263:
255:
126:
638:
Moran, Rachel F. (2005). "Undone by Law: The Uncertain Legacy of Lau v. Nichols".
67:
517:
717:
363:
355:
166:
146:
768:
333:
743:
571:"Equal Protection for Non-English-Speaking School Children: Lau v. Nichols"
302:
657:
154:
725:
490:
594:
313:
because of equal protection and the ban on educational discrimination.
262:
and the case was remanded to the District Court "for the fashioning of
83:
100:
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
294:
79:
586:
30:
397:
significantly weakened the foundation of the Lau decision.
569:
Sugarman, Stephen D.; Widess, Ellen G. (January 1, 1974).
686:
United States. Health, Education and Welfare Department.
195:
Douglas, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist
318:
District Court for the Northern District of California
815:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
407:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 414
540:"Languages, Law, and San Francisco - Education Week"
766:
609:"DHEW Memo Regarding Language Minority Children"
328:
348:the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
568:
377:Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974
733:
699:
503:
332:
260:Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
230:Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
476:
767:
322:Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
637:
283:San Francisco Unified School District
258:caused by the school policy violated
18:1974 United States Supreme Court case
472:
470:
446:
444:
442:
440:
438:
700:Rosenbaum, Sara (January 1, 2004).
351:fashioning of appropriate relief".
203:Stewart, joined by Burger, Blackmun
13:
615:. October 15, 2015. Archived from
546:. January 25, 1984. Archived from
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
826:
810:United States Supreme Court cases
753:
467:
435:
805:United States education case law
29:
693:
780:1974 in United States case law
680:
650:
631:
601:
562:
532:
497:
54:Lau, et al. v. Nichols, et al.
1:
429:
329:Decision of the Supreme Court
269:
242:, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a
640:Berkeley la Raza Law Journal
518:10.1080/0161956X.2010.518021
506:Peabody Journal of Education
7:
400:
344:the Office for Civil Rights
248:limited English proficiency
244:United States Supreme Court
10:
831:
790:Education in San Francisco
718:10.1177/003335490411900115
690:. N.p.: n.p., 1975. Print.
358:, joined by Chief Justice
320:denied the relief and the
219:Blackmun, joined by Burger
760:Full text of the decision
369:
228:
223:
215:
207:
199:
191:
186:
120:
115:
109:
104:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
785:Chinese-American history
311:Civil Rights Act of 1964
252:Civil Rights Act of 1964
45:Decided January 21, 1974
43:Argued December 10, 1973
662:www.presidency.ucsb.edu
417:Bilingual Education Act
290:Bilingual Education Act
338:
143:William J. Brennan Jr.
706:Public Health Reports
575:California Law Review
386:Alexander v. Sandoval
336:
619:on November 30, 2022
423:Castañeda v. Pickard
307:Fourteenth Amendment
412:Bilingual education
171:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
479:Journal of Thought
339:
297:-funded program."
264:appropriate relief
135:William O. Douglas
131:Associate Justices
78:94 S. Ct. 786; 39
800:Linguistic rights
795:Language case law
775:1974 in education
235:
234:
179:William Rehnquist
159:Thurgood Marshall
822:
748:
747:
737:
697:
691:
684:
678:
677:
675:
673:
664:. Archived from
654:
648:
647:
635:
629:
628:
626:
624:
605:
599:
598:
566:
560:
559:
557:
555:
536:
530:
529:
501:
495:
494:
474:
465:
448:
288:Even though the
256:disparate impact
127:Warren E. Burger
116:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
830:
829:
825:
824:
823:
821:
820:
819:
765:
764:
756:
751:
698:
694:
685:
681:
671:
669:
656:
655:
651:
636:
632:
622:
620:
607:
606:
602:
587:10.2307/3479823
567:
563:
553:
551:
550:on May 12, 2021
538:
537:
533:
502:
498:
475:
468:
449:
436:
432:
403:
372:
331:
303:Alan H. Nichols
272:
169:
157:
145:
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
828:
818:
817:
812:
807:
802:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
763:
762:
755:
754:External links
752:
750:
749:
692:
679:
668:on May 3, 2023
649:
630:
600:
581:(1): 157–182.
561:
544:Education Week
531:
496:
466:
451:Lau v. Nichols
433:
431:
428:
427:
426:
419:
414:
409:
402:
399:
371:
368:
356:Potter Stewart
330:
327:
277:Lee v. Johnson
271:
268:
239:Lau v. Nichols
233:
232:
226:
225:
221:
220:
217:
213:
212:
209:
205:
204:
201:
197:
196:
193:
189:
188:
184:
183:
182:
181:
167:Harry Blackmun
147:Potter Stewart
132:
129:
124:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
106:
102:
101:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
24:Lau v. Nichols
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
827:
816:
813:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
772:
770:
761:
758:
757:
745:
741:
736:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
696:
689:
683:
667:
663:
659:
653:
645:
641:
634:
618:
614:
610:
604:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
565:
549:
545:
541:
535:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
500:
492:
488:
484:
480:
473:
471:
463:
460:
456:
452:
447:
445:
443:
441:
439:
434:
425:
424:
420:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
405:
404:
398:
395:
392:
388:
387:
381:
378:
367:
365:
361:
357:
352:
349:
345:
335:
326:
323:
319:
314:
312:
308:
304:
298:
296:
291:
286:
284:
280:
278:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:violated the
249:
245:
241:
240:
231:
227:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:Case opinions
185:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:Chief Justice
122:
121:
119:
114:
108:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
712:(1): 93–96.
709:
705:
695:
687:
682:
672:November 17,
670:. Retrieved
666:the original
661:
652:
643:
639:
633:
623:November 17,
621:. Retrieved
617:the original
612:
603:
578:
574:
564:
552:. Retrieved
548:the original
543:
534:
509:
505:
499:
485:(4): 62–70.
482:
478:
464: (1974).
450:
421:
384:
382:
373:
362:and Justice
353:
340:
315:
299:
287:
275:
273:
238:
237:
236:
224:Laws applied
174:
162:
150:
138:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
613:www2.ed.gov
554:December 9,
216:Concurrence
208:Concurrence
200:Concurrence
155:Byron White
769:Categories
512:(4): 414.
430:References
270:Background
84:U.S. LEXIS
526:144940469
346:(OCR) of
295:Title VII
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
744:15147653
726:20056643
491:42589123
401:See also
364:Blackmun
354:Justice
309:and the
192:Majority
82:1; 1974
735:1502263
595:3479823
105:Holding
742:
732:
724:
593:
524:
489:
453:,
370:Legacy
360:Burger
177:
175:·
173:
165:
163:·
161:
153:
151:·
149:
141:
139:·
137:
722:JSTOR
591:JSTOR
522:S2CID
487:JSTOR
457:
211:White
111:1964.
97:Prior
740:PMID
674:2016
625:2016
556:2016
459:U.S.
394:U.S.
316:The
73:more
65:U.S.
63:414
730:PMC
714:doi
710:119
583:doi
514:doi
462:563
455:414
391:532
266:".
86:151
68:563
771::
738:.
728:.
720:.
708:.
704:.
660:.
644:16
642:.
611:.
589:.
579:62
577:.
573:.
542:.
520:.
510:85
508:.
483:20
481:.
469:^
437:^
389:,
746:.
716::
676:.
646:.
627:.
597:.
585::
558:.
528:.
516::
493:.
279:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.