The Starting Point: America's Preoccupation with Race - A Social Construct
1790-2010: A History of Racial Categories on US Census
What is race?
Throughout US history, race has been used to determine who is considered "human", one's rights and privileges, and ultimately, who has or can access political, social, economic, educational, and other resources.
But ...
Where did it come from?
What is race?
Why is race a social construct?
What is ethnicity?
What is the difference between race and ethnicity?
What has the concept of race become such a powerful tool?
READ THIS ARTICLE: https://www.livescience.com/difference-between-race-ethnicity.html
But ...
Where did it come from?
What is race?
Why is race a social construct?
What is ethnicity?
What is the difference between race and ethnicity?
What has the concept of race become such a powerful tool?
READ THIS ARTICLE: https://www.livescience.com/difference-between-race-ethnicity.html
How is race determined in the United States?
As shown in the timeline below, counting people by race was included in the U.S. Census since 1790.
But, how was one's race determined?
Prior to 1960, census takers determined someone's race during the census interview. An example of directions to 1930 census takers is found in the image below the timeline.
From 1960 onward, individuals were allowed to self-identity.
Throughout U.S. history, categories for race changed.
CLICK multiple decades below to see racial classifications of that era.
But, how was one's race determined?
Prior to 1960, census takers determined someone's race during the census interview. An example of directions to 1930 census takers is found in the image below the timeline.
From 1960 onward, individuals were allowed to self-identity.
Throughout U.S. history, categories for race changed.
CLICK multiple decades below to see racial classifications of that era.
Timeline SOURCE: Pew Charitable Trust
1848 - Territory of New Mexico REQUIRES education programs in English and Spanish
While New Mexico did not officially become a state until 1912, it became part of the United States when the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was ratified in 1848. Two years later, it became a territory.
From the beginning, however, New Mexico lawmakers the lawmakers passed a law requiring Spanish-English bilingual programs in the public schools.
This legislation responded to the needs of children from both language groups.
From the beginning, however, New Mexico lawmakers the lawmakers passed a law requiring Spanish-English bilingual programs in the public schools.
This legislation responded to the needs of children from both language groups.
1850 – Roberts v. City of Boston:
MA Supreme Court declares separate but equal schools in Boston were OK
1839 Boston newspaper image.
|
Sarah Roberts was a five-year old African American girl living in the City of Boston. Her father, Benjamin F. Roberts, tried to enroll her in an all-white school that was closer than the school that she was attending. When her father attempted to enroll her into the all-white school she was denied on the basis of race.
The father took the case to court. As the lower courts ruled against Roberts, he finally took the case to the MA Supreme Court. This was the first time that a court system had seen the idea of separate but equal in a public school. The MA Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Boston and said that Boston COULD maintain separate schools for African-Americans. This is the earliest known case to establish a precedent of separate but equal. SOURCE: |
1855 - Massachusetts passes first law prohibiting school segregation
In response to the Supreme Court decision in September 1855, stated that segregation of African-Americans was acceptable, the MA Legislature created new legislation that PROHIBITED separate schools. Simply put, the law stated segregated schools could NOT be maintained at taxpayer expense by the city of Boston.
The passing of this law effectively overturned the Roberts v. Boston decision permitted separate schools.
This decision marked the first significant victory in what would be a 99 year struggle to end de jure segregation culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. That struggle, however was in the future.
On the night of December 17, 1855, Boston’s activists celebrated their victory at a dinner in honor of William C. Nell, the leader in the school desegregation campaign. At the end of the dinner Nell made remarks.
(SOURCE: https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1855-william-c-nell-triumph-equal-school-rights-boston/)
The passing of this law effectively overturned the Roberts v. Boston decision permitted separate schools.
This decision marked the first significant victory in what would be a 99 year struggle to end de jure segregation culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. That struggle, however was in the future.
On the night of December 17, 1855, Boston’s activists celebrated their victory at a dinner in honor of William C. Nell, the leader in the school desegregation campaign. At the end of the dinner Nell made remarks.
(SOURCE: https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1855-william-c-nell-triumph-equal-school-rights-boston/)
1853 - First school for Chinese children founded by Presbyterians in San Francisco
1858 - San Franciso Evening Bulletin: "keep schools free from the intrusion of inferior races"
1859 - Parents petition to SF Board of Education to open a primary school for Chinese children
1860 - CA Legislature: "...Negroes, Mongolians and Indians shall not be allowed into public schools"
READ THIS ARTICLE:
How early San Franciso kept Chinese children out of the public schools
San Francisco opened a public school for Chinese children in 1857, but changed it to an evening school two years later, and then closed it entirely.
In spite of continuous efforts from the 1850's onward, the Chinese community did not get regularized PUBLIC EDUCATION until the successful legal case: TAPE vs. HURLEY (1885), presented later in this timeline.
SOURCE: https://www.pbs.org/ancestorsintheamericas/time_15.html
How early San Franciso kept Chinese children out of the public schools
San Francisco opened a public school for Chinese children in 1857, but changed it to an evening school two years later, and then closed it entirely.
In spite of continuous efforts from the 1850's onward, the Chinese community did not get regularized PUBLIC EDUCATION until the successful legal case: TAPE vs. HURLEY (1885), presented later in this timeline.
SOURCE: https://www.pbs.org/ancestorsintheamericas/time_15.html
1865 - Voting Rights Act
1866 (June 13) - 14th Amendment Passed
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is passed.
This Amendment is often cited when a plaintiff believes educational (and other) rights are being infringed upon.
The parts of the Act pertinent in education are cited below.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
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.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
See the full amendment here: https://www.thoughtco.com/us-constitution-14th-amendment-text-105405
This Amendment is often cited when a plaintiff believes educational (and other) rights are being infringed upon.
The parts of the Act pertinent in education are cited below.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
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.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
See the full amendment here: https://www.thoughtco.com/us-constitution-14th-amendment-text-105405
1885 - Tape v Hurley
Stop the video below to read the article which appears regarding the 100th anniversary of the Tape Decision.
|
In 1884 Joseph and Mary Tape attempted to enroll their daughter Mamie at Spring Valley School in San Francisco.
The Principal, Jennie Hurley, stated school policy did not require her to admit Chinese children. The Tapes took the case to court. The California State Supreme Court, March 3, 1885, ruled the state law required “all children” to be admitted (with some clearly defined exceptions) and the ruling was for the Tapes. To allow for segregation of Chinese children, the state legislature passed a new law that permitted CA schools to have separate facilities for “Mongolians.” Other Asian parents continued the fight for integrated schools until their eventual victory in 1947. |
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
March 1885 Tape v. Hurley66 Cal. 473 (1885) MAMIE TAPE, an Infant, by her Guardian ad Litem, JOSEPH TAPE, Respondent, v. JENNIE M. A. HURLEY et al., Appellants |
Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, 6 P. 12 (1885)
California Supreme Court finds that San Francisco’s public school system must admit a girl of Chinese descent. SHARPSTEIN, J.—The main question in this case is whether a child “between six and twenty-one years of age, of Chinese parentage, but who was born and has always lived in the city and county of San Francisco,” is entitled to admission in the public school of the district in which she resides. The language of the [California School] code is as follows: “Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be open for the admission of all children between six and twenty-one years of age residing in the district; and the board of trustees, or city board of education, have power to admit adults and children not residing in the district, whenever good reasons exist therefor. Trustees shall have the power to exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases.” (Political Code, § 1667.) That is the latest legislative expression on the subject, and was passed as late as 1880. Prior to that time the first clause of the section read, “Every school, unless otherwise provided by special statute, must be open for the admission of all white children between five and twenty–one years of age, residing in the district.” As amended, the clause is broad enough to include all children who are not precluded from entering a public school by some provision of law; and we are not aware of any law which forbids the entrance of children of any race or nationality. The legislature not only declares who shall be admitted, but also who may be excluded, and it does not authorize the exclusion of any one on the ground upon which alone the exclusion of the respondent here is sought to be justified. The vicious, the filthy, and those having contagious or infectious diseases, may be excluded, without regard to their race, color or nationality. This law must be construed as any other would be construed. “Where a law is plain and unambiguous, whether it be expressed in general or limited terms, the legislature should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and consequently, no room is left for construction.” (Fisher v. Blight, 2 Cranch, 358, 399.) “When the law is clear and explicit, and its provisions are susceptible of but one interpretation, its consequences, if evil, can only be avoided by a change of the law itself, to be effected by legislative and not judicial action.” (Bosley v.Mattingly, 14 B. Mon. 73.) This rule is never controverted or doubted, although perhaps sometimes lost sight of. In this case, if effect be given to the intention of the legislature, as indicated by the clear and unambiguous language used by them, respondent here has the same right to enter a public school that any other child has. It is not alleged that she is vicious, or filthy, or that she has a contagious or infectious disease. As the legislature has not denied to the children of any race or nationality the right to enter our public schools, the question whether it might have done so does not arise in this case. We think the superintendent of schools was improperly joined as a defendant in this action, and that the court properly dismissed the action as to the board of education. In Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, the action was against the teacher alone. That it was properly brought, seems to have been conceded. The board of education has power “to make, establish, and enforce all necessary and proper rules and regulations not contrary to law,” and none other. (Stats. 1871-2, p. 846.) Teachers cannot justify a violation of law, on the ground that a resolution of the board of education required them to do so. The judgment must be modified, so as to make the writ run against the defendant Hurley alone. In other respects it is affirmed. THORNTON, J., MYRICK, J., McKEE, J., McKINSTRY, J., ROSS, J., and MORRISON, C. J., concurred |
1896 - Plessy v Ferguson:
Supreme Court rules 'separate but equal' is acceptable in Louisiana
|
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality[2] – a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal".[3][4] The decision legitimized the many state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction Era (1865–1877).
The decision involved a case that originated in 1892 when Homer Plessy, an "octoroon" (person of seven-eighths white and one-eighth black ancestry) resident of New Orleans, deliberately violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" train car accommodations for white and non-white passengers. Upon being charged, Plessy's lawyers defended him by arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost at trial, and his conviction was affirmed on his appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Plessy then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case. In May 1896, the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 decision against Plessy ruling that the Louisiana law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating that although the Fourteenth Amendment established the legal equality of white and black Americans, it did not and could not require the elimination of all social or other "distinctions based upon color". The Court rejected Plessy's lawyers' arguments that the Louisiana law inherently implied that black people were inferior, and gave great deference to American state legislatures' inherent power to make laws regulating health, safety, and morals—the "police power"—and to determine the reasonableness of the laws they passed. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter from the Court's decision, writing that the U.S. Constitution "is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens", and so the law's distinguishing of passengers' races should have been found unconstitutional. Plessy is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.[5] Despite its infamy, the decision itself has never been explicitly overruled.[6] However, a series of subsequent decisions beginning with the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education—which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine is unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities—have severely weakened Plessy to the point that it is considered to have been de facto overruled.[7] SOURCE: https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson |
1923 - Meyer v State of Nebraska:
Prohibiting instruction in other languages violates the 14th Amendment
FACTS OF THE CASE
Nebraska passed a law prohibiting teaching grade school children any language other than English.
Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this law.
QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT
Did the Nebraska statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
COURT'S DECISION
The Court declared the Nebraska law unconstitutional, reasoning it violated the liberty protected by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Liberty, the Court explained, means more than freedom from bodily restraint. It also includes the right of a teacher to teach German to a student, and the right of parents to control the upbringing of their child as they see fit.
While the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging the growth of a population that can engage in discussions of civic matters, the means it chose to pursue this objective was excessive.
SOURCE: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/262us390
Nebraska passed a law prohibiting teaching grade school children any language other than English.
Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this law.
QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT
Did the Nebraska statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
COURT'S DECISION
The Court declared the Nebraska law unconstitutional, reasoning it violated the liberty protected by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Liberty, the Court explained, means more than freedom from bodily restraint. It also includes the right of a teacher to teach German to a student, and the right of parents to control the upbringing of their child as they see fit.
While the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging the growth of a population that can engage in discussions of civic matters, the means it chose to pursue this objective was excessive.
SOURCE: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/262us390
1924 - Racial Integrity Act:
Virginia General Assembly defines who is "white"
|
While common thought is that race is something that can be readily determined by looking at someone, this Act illustrates, in part, how race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT (i.e., something socially constructed).
In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Racial Integrity Act.[1] The act reinforced racial segregation by prohibiting interracial marriage and classifying as "white" a person "who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian."[2] The act, an outgrowth of eugenist and scientific racist propaganda, was pushed by Walter Plecker, a white supremacist and eugenist who held the post of registrar of Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics.[3] The Racial Integrity Act required that all birth certificates and marriage certificates in Virginia to include the person's race as either "white" or "colored." The Act classified all non-whites, including Native Americans, as "colored."[2] The act was part of a series of "racial integrity laws" enacted in Virginia to reinforce racial hierarchies and prohibit the mixing of races; other statutes included the Public Assemblages Act of 1926 (which required the racial segregation of all public meeting areas) and a 1930 act that defined any person with even a trace of African American ancestry as black (thus codifying the so-called "one-drop rule").[2] In 1967, this Act and the Virginia Sterilization Act were officially overturned by the United States Supreme Court in their ruling Loving v. Virginia. In 2001, the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution that condemned the Racial Integrity Act for its "use as a respectable, 'scientific' veneer to cover the activities of those who held blatantly racist views."[2] SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924 |
1924 - Native Americans Recognized as Citizens/Given Right to Vote, but not everywhere!
On June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
Native Americans have long struggled to retain their culture. Until 1924, Native Americans were not citizens of the United States.
Many Native Americans had, and still have, separate nations within the U.S. on designated reservation land.
But on June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
Yet even after the Indian Citizenship Act, some Native Americans weren't allowed to vote because the right to vote was governed by state law.
Until 1957, some states barred Native Americans from voting.
SOURCE: http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/jb_jazz_citizens_1.html
Native Americans have long struggled to retain their culture. Until 1924, Native Americans were not citizens of the United States.
Many Native Americans had, and still have, separate nations within the U.S. on designated reservation land.
But on June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
Yet even after the Indian Citizenship Act, some Native Americans weren't allowed to vote because the right to vote was governed by state law.
Until 1957, some states barred Native Americans from voting.
SOURCE: http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/jb_jazz_citizens_1.html
1947 - Mendez v West Minster School District
"The Brown v Bd of Ed for Mexican students"
Mendez decision overturning segregation of Mexican students as published in LA Times article, Feb 16, 1947.
2007 postage stamp commemorating the Mendez decision.
|
1947 – Mendez v. Westminster School District
The Mendez decision is often cited as the "Brown v Board of Education" for Mexicans. Segregation was not simply the separation of people who are blacks and people who are white, but more the segregation of all minorities from people who are white. In the 1940’s certain California school districts forced students of Mexican descent to attend separate schools than white students. This was a violation of the Fourteenth amendment. The educational facilities that children of Mexican background were using were less than equal to the facilities that white students were benefiting from. In the court case Mendez v. Westminster School District, Mexican children were denied the opportunity to attend all-white schools and secluded to a separate school for students of Mexican ancestry. In 1947, the federal court reached the decision that “segregation of school children allegedly based on English language deficiencies but in fact determined by Mexican ancestry deprives them of ‘social equality’ and in contravention of the 14th Amendment, denies them equal protection of laws.” It was determined that this unfair treatment was unjust and unconstitutional. SEE: Segregation in Schools as a Violation of the XIVth Amendment (Mendez v. West Minister School District, S. D. Cal. 1946). Columbia Law Review. Vol. 47, No. 2: (March 1947) p. 326. ROURCE: ttps://desegregatenyschools.wordpress.com/background/ |
1954 - Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, KS:
Racial segregation in public schools violates the 14th Amendment
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision's 14 pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II (349 U.S. 294 (1955)) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed."
The case originated in 1951, when the public school district in Topeka, Kansas, refused to enroll the daughter of local black resident Oliver Brown at the school closest to their home, instead requiring her to ride a bus to a segregated black elementary school farther away. The Browns and twelve other local black families in similar situations then filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. federal court against the Topeka Board of Education, alleging that its segregation policy was unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas rendered a verdict against the Browns, relying on the precedent of the Supreme Court's 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court had ruled that racial segregation was not in itself a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause if the facilities in question were otherwise equal, a doctrine that had come to be known as "separate but equal." The Browns, then represented by NAACP chief counsel Thurgood Marshall, appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. The Court's decision in Brown partially overruled Plessy v. Ferguson by declaring that the "separate but equal" notion was unconstitutional for American public schools and educational facilities.[note 1] It paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[3] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[4] In the American South, especially the "Deep South," where racial segregation was deeply entrenched, the reaction to Brown among most white people was "noisy and stubborn."[5] Many Southern governmental and political leaders embraced a plan known as "Massive Resistance," created by Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd, in order to frustrate attempts to force them to de-segregate their school systems. Four years later, in the case of Cooper v. Aaron, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Brown, and explicitly stated that state officials and legislators had no power to nullify its ruling. SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education |
1964 - Civil Rights Act
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, ended segregation in PUBLIC places.
It also banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
It is considered one of the most significant legal achievements that came from the civil rights movement.
This Act was STRONGLY opposed by many southern legislators.
It also banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
It is considered one of the most significant legal achievements that came from the civil rights movement.
This Act was STRONGLY opposed by many southern legislators.
1965 Immigration Act
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 also known as the Hart–Celler Act, is a federal law passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
This Act abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.
Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.
In the first five years after the bill’s passage, immigration to the U.S. from Asian countries–especially those fleeing war-torn Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia)–would more than quadruple. (Under past immigration policies, Asian immigrants had been effectively barred from entry.) Other Cold War-era conflicts during the 1960s and 1970s saw millions of people fleeing poverty or the hardships of communist regimes in Cuba, Eastern Europe and elsewhere to seek their fortune on American shores. All told, in the three decades following passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, more than 18 million legal immigrants entered the United States, more than three times the number admitted over the preceding 30 years.
By the end of the 20th century, the policies put into effect by the Immigration Act of 1965 had greatly changed the face of the American population.
Whereas in the 1950s, more than half of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians, by the 1990s only 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were of Asian descent, while the percentages of Latino and African immigrants had also jumped significantly. Between 1965 and 2000, the highest number of immigrants (4.3 million) to the U.S. came from Mexico, in addition to some 1.4 million from the Philippines. Korea, the Dominican Republic, India, Cuba and Vietnam were also leading sources of immigrants, each sending between 700,000 and 800,000 over this period.
With some modifications, the policies put into place by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 are the same ones governing U.S. immigration in the early 21st century. Non-citizens currently enter the United States lawfully in one of two ways, either by receiving either temporary (non-immigrant) admission or permanent (immigrant) admission. A member of the latter category is classified as a lawful permanent resident, and receives a green card granting them eligibility to work in the United States and to eventually apply for citizenship.
SOURCE: https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/us-immigration-since-1965
This Act abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States.
Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.
In the first five years after the bill’s passage, immigration to the U.S. from Asian countries–especially those fleeing war-torn Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia)–would more than quadruple. (Under past immigration policies, Asian immigrants had been effectively barred from entry.) Other Cold War-era conflicts during the 1960s and 1970s saw millions of people fleeing poverty or the hardships of communist regimes in Cuba, Eastern Europe and elsewhere to seek their fortune on American shores. All told, in the three decades following passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, more than 18 million legal immigrants entered the United States, more than three times the number admitted over the preceding 30 years.
By the end of the 20th century, the policies put into effect by the Immigration Act of 1965 had greatly changed the face of the American population.
Whereas in the 1950s, more than half of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians, by the 1990s only 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were of Asian descent, while the percentages of Latino and African immigrants had also jumped significantly. Between 1965 and 2000, the highest number of immigrants (4.3 million) to the U.S. came from Mexico, in addition to some 1.4 million from the Philippines. Korea, the Dominican Republic, India, Cuba and Vietnam were also leading sources of immigrants, each sending between 700,000 and 800,000 over this period.
With some modifications, the policies put into place by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 are the same ones governing U.S. immigration in the early 21st century. Non-citizens currently enter the United States lawfully in one of two ways, either by receiving either temporary (non-immigrant) admission or permanent (immigrant) admission. A member of the latter category is classified as a lawful permanent resident, and receives a green card granting them eligibility to work in the United States and to eventually apply for citizenship.
SOURCE: https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/us-immigration-since-1965
1965 - Voting Rights Act
15th Amendment strengthened
|
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
It was signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. It was designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Act secured the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate elections such as: 1) nationwide protections for voting rights 2) prohibiting every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities 3) outlawing of literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities |
1968 (and reauthorized in 1974) - Bilingual Education Act:
Establishes requirements and funding for "bilingual" education
|
SEE A US DoE Summary of the Bilingual Education Act here
Title VII of that act, known as the Bilingual Education Act, established federal policy for bilingual education. It recognized “the special educational needs of the large numbers children of limited English-speaking ability in the United States”. The Act stipulated that the federal government would provide financial assistance for innovative bilingual programs. Funding would be provided for .... the development of such programs and for implementation, staffing and staff training, and long-term program maintenance. |
1974 - Lau v Nichols:
ELs cannot be left to "sink or swim" without language support
|
San Francisco School District enrolled students, provided teachers, books, and instruction in English. The District believed this created "equity".
Students were left to "sink or swim". The court found that 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. Simply put, it the students can't read or understand the instruction, they cannot learn. Thus, language becomes a barrier to education. |
1974 - Equal Educational Opportunity Act:
Race, color, sex, or national origin cannot be used to deny education
|
No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, by--
(a) the deliberate segregation by an educational agency of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among or within schools; (b) the failure of an educational agency which has formerly practiced such deliberate segregation to take affirmative steps, consistent with part 4 of this subchapter, to remove the vestiges of a dual school system; (c) the assignment by an educational agency of a student to a school, other than the one closest to his or her place of residence within the school district in which he or she resides, if the assignment results in a greater degree of segregation of students on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin among the schools of such agency than would result if such student were assigned to the school closest to his or her place of residence within the school district of such agency providing the appropriate grade level and type of education for such student; (d) discrimination by an educational agency on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the employment, employment conditions, or assignment to schools of its faculty or staff, except to fulfill the purposes of subsection (f) below; (e) the transfer by an educational agency, whether voluntary or otherwise, of a student from one school to another if the purpose and effect of such transfer is to increase segregation of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among the schools of such agency; or (f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs. |
1981 - Castañeda v Pickard:
The "three-prong test" to evaluate services for ELs
|
In this case, which was filed against the Raymondville, Texas Independent School District (RISD), Mexican-American children and their parents claimed that the district was discriminating against them, because of their ethnicity. They argued that classrooms were segregated using a grouping system based on racially and ethnically discriminatory criteria. School districts were required to establish bilingual education according to the Lau vs. Nichols ruling, yet, there was no way to evaluate the adequacy of the school’s approach. Consequently, sometimes it could result in inadequate separation.
This case was tried and on August 17, 1978 the judge ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the district had not violated any of the plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights. The ruling was appealed and in 1981, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In addition, the Castañeda vs. Pickard case established three criteria for a program that serves LEP students. These measures determine whether a school district is serving the LEP students and if the program addresses the needs of these students. The principles are as follows:
|
1982 - Plyler v Doe:
Denying undocumented children the right to attend public school constitutes discrimination
|
SUMMARY
This Supreme Court case ruled that public school districts cannot constitutionally refuse admission to unauthorized immigrant children because the harmful effects to the public outweighed the cost savings. DETAILS The 1965 Immigration Act imposed the first quantitative limits on immigration within the western hemisphere, which resulted in large increases in unauthorized immigration from the region, particularly from Mexico. Efforts to enforce these immigration restrictions have conflicted with the economic and social realities of sharing borders, including what social services and rights should be available to unauthorized immigrants became long-term residents, employees, business owners, and their families. Plyer v. Doe challenged efforts by one school district in Texas and Texas laws barring unauthorized immigrant children from attending public schools. This case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that public school districts cannot constitutionally refuse admission to unauthorized immigrant children because the harmful effects to the public outweighed the cost savings. DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT Plyler v. Doe (No. 80-1538) Argued: December 1, 1981 Decided: June 15, 1982 JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens … … education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests. In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause… “education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society.” … we think it clear that “[c]harging tuition to undocumented children constitutes a ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration,” …the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State… the record is clear that many of the undocumented children disabled by this classification will remain in this country indefinitely, and that some will become lawful residents or citizens of the United States… If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed. SOURCE: https://immigrationhistory.org/item/plyler-v-doe/ |
2015 - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) - reauthorization of ESSA Title I of 1968
ESSA added a number of components considered beneficial to English Language Learners, from a policy perspective.
As a result of the passage of ESSA, the following are NOW in effect for all public schools and districts in the United States.
1. Schools (more than Districts) are accountable for EL student achievement
2. English-language proficiency test scores must be included as a measure for accountability
3. Those learning English must be included as a sub-group for accountability (along with the traditional gender, socioeconomic, race/ethnicity, and SPED/Gen Ed.
4. Progress of ELs must be monitored (tracked) for 4 years after "exiting" an ESL/Bilingual Program.
As a result of the passage of ESSA, the following are NOW in effect for all public schools and districts in the United States.
1. Schools (more than Districts) are accountable for EL student achievement
2. English-language proficiency test scores must be included as a measure for accountability
3. Those learning English must be included as a sub-group for accountability (along with the traditional gender, socioeconomic, race/ethnicity, and SPED/Gen Ed.
4. Progress of ELs must be monitored (tracked) for 4 years after "exiting" an ESL/Bilingual Program.