Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary School District No.3 (1978)46
The suit decided in Guadalupe v. Tempe was originally filed before Lau came before the Supreme Court. The case was different from the others reviewed above in the nature and extent of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs, and it is important for the constitutional argument used by the Court of Appeals to make its finding.
The class action suit on behalf of all non-English speaking Mexican American and Yaqui Indian students attending Tempe (Arizona) Elementary School District No. 3 alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI, and the EEOA, and sought to compel the 12,280 student school district to provide them with bilingual-bicultural education. Although Mexican American and Yaqui Indian students made up about 18 percent of the district's elementary school enrollment, 92 percent of the students in the Guadalupe elementary school were Mexican American or Yaqui Indian. When a District Court rejected their suit against Tempe district, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which then reviewed the case.
The plaintiffs in Guadalupe did not "complain of the school district's efforts to cure existing language deficiencies of non-English speaking students."47 Rather, they claimed they had been denied:
. .instruction that "has as its goal having a child graduate at each grade level from kindergarten to fourth year in high school competent and functional in reading, writing, and comprehension both in the child's own language, Spanish, and the language of the majority culture, English." (And) in which "all courses of instruction, testing procedures, instructional materials [are] bilingual and bicultural." Finally, appellants contend that the school district failed to reflect in its program of instruction the particular history of the parents of each child attending the school.48
The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's summary judgement for the Tempe School District. Regarding the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Court wrote:
We hold that the appellees fulfilled their equal protection duty to children of Mexican American and Yaqui Indian origin when they adopted measures, to which the appellees do not object, to cure existing language deficiencies of non-English speaking students. There exists no constitutional duty imposed by the Equal Protection Clause to provide bilingual-bicultural education such as the appellants request...Nor, as far as this record reveals, does the (district) program fail "to provide each child with an opportunity to acquire the basic minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech and of full participation in the political process."49
The Courts discussed at some length the plaintiffs constitutional claim:
...fully aware of the serious nature of the appellants' contentions. Our analysis returns us to the foundations of organized society as manifested by the nation-state. We commence by recognizing that the existence of the nation-state rests ultimately on the consent of its people...
Linguistic and cultural diversity within the nation-state, whatever may be its advantages from time to time, can restrict the scope of the fundamental compact. Diversity limits unity...
Multiple linguistic and cultural centers impede both the egress of each center's own and the ingressof all others...(and) to reinforce affection toward insiders, hostility toward outsiders develops...
Whatever may be the consequences, good or bad, of many tongues and cultures coexisting within a single nation-state, whether the children of this Nation are taught in one tongue and about primarily one culture or in many tongues and about many cultures cannot be determined by reference to the Constitution. We hold, therefore, that the Constitution neither requires nor prohibits the bilingual and bicultural education sought by the appellants. Such matters are for the people to decide.50
The Court found that "the cases which have dealt with constitutional claims to bilingual and bicultural education are not inconsistent with our holding."
Similarly, the Appeals Court ruled against plaintiffs Title VI claim. It found that the district had provided:
...remedial instruction in English which appellants appear to admit complies with Lau's mandate makes available the meaningful education and the quality of educational opportunity that Section 601 requires. There is no suggestion that appellees' remedial program operates as an educational dead end or permanent track.51
Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs EEOA claim, holding that "appropriate action" need not include the "bilingual-bicultural" education that appellants seek."52
| << | Index | >> |