The year was 1974. Two decades after Brown v. Board of Education, Lau v. Nichols sought to expand the idea of discrimination within the U.S. public school systems. Intrinsically linked to the issue of race, language became the new mode of exclusion. Similar to imposed institutionalized barriers that placed those not of the dominant race at an academic and social disadvantage, language was and still is used as a means to subjugate those who deviate from the norm—standard American English. Regardless of whether language, race, gender, class, religion, or culture are employed separately or in conjunction with one another to perpetuate social hierarchies, U.S. history shows that specific social groups have continuously faced great opposition in their pursuit of the American dream. In obtaining the American dream, a quality and competitive education is often deemed the most appropriate route to ensure success. Without a sound educational foundation, some argue, securing political, economic, and social mobility is problematic. Such is the case in Lau v. Nichols.

During the early 1970s, on behalf of 1,800 Chinese-speaking students, Kinney Kinmon Lau and 12 Chinese American students filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District. Their suit was founded on their denial of not just a quality education, but a basic education. Students were not provided any educational opportunities; taught in a foreign language (English), they were unable to comprehend classroom instruction, leaving them intellectually stunted and placing them at an academic disadvantage. Regardless of students’ native language, the San Francisco school system used English-only instruction to teach all students. This blatant disregard of diversity among students as it relates to learning shows that the U.S. education system tailored its curricula and teaching methods to meet the needs of one particular group: White middle-class students (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Instead of taking into consideration how language barriers may obstruct learning, the linguistic diversity of a significant group of students was neglected.

In seeking to rectify a covertly prejudiced education system and to promote inclusion for all students, the plaintiffs of Lau v. Nichols attempted to use both the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to develop their grievance (Moran, 2005). Though the Fourteenth Amendment seemed to provide a legislative foundation, a violation under this legislation was not recognized. Instead, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was later accepted by the Supreme Court, served as the real catalyst for change. The Supreme Court ultimately sanctioned the Lau v. Nichols use of Title VI, but initially, using Title VI to highlight language discrimination in schools proved to be challenging.

Within the Title VI decree, language is not explicitly stated, so a reinterpretation of Title VI was needed to solidify the suit. Leading with novel interpretations of equal protection and Title VI, the Chinese students faced great resistance. Their claim of linguistic discrimination through their denial of a meaningful education was overruled by the trial judge, the court of appeals, the district court, and finally the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Moran, 2005). These governmental institutions believed the school system acted accordingly, providing the same, equal education to all students. Although such actions sounded equitable in theory, providing a one-size-fits-all education ensures that one individual student if not a significant student population will suffer academically. A uniform education is only beneficial if all students in a school possess one identical identity, sharing the same social upbringing (i.e., linguistic and cultural background and socioeconomic status).

Regardless of the Chinese students’ apparent academic need, the court systems simply did not believe that it was the school’s responsibility to rectify differences among students. The fact that students came to school with differing cultural capitals (Bartee & Brown, 2007), placing some students at an advantage while others were disadvantaged, was an issue with too great a scope, an issue that was supposedly beyond the jurisdiction of school systems. It was not until the case was brought to the Supreme Court that the Lau plaintiffs gained support. On January 21, 1974, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, validating the Chinese students’ claim in accordance with Title VI (Hornberger, 2006). This landmark victory substantiated a language policy that specifically sought to ensure the educational prosperity of non-English-speaking students.

Lau, though a significant benchmark, became more of a symbol for educational reform rather than a political mandate. Upon its passing, no specific guidelines were outlined to ensure the school system’s compliance (Gandara, Moran, & Garcia, 2004; Hornberger, 2006; Moran 2005). Instead, acting on good faith, the Supreme Court believed that the school district would implement language accommodations for its diverse student body. Plainly put, after years of judicial discourse that ended with the Supreme Court’s assertion that local school districts and states were obligated to provide appropriate services to non-English-speaking students, there was still no measureable means of determining compliance.

Recently, as the U.S. education system complied with No Child Left Behind mandates concerning limited-English-proficient (LEP) students, Lau has come full circle, serving as a reminder of the problems that emerge with an English-only approach. Lau teaches that student growth as it relates to language acquisition should always drive the direction of the education system, but language development can only be achieved with time and by using first language acquisition to build on second language acquisition. LEP students need the inclusion of their own language along with additional time to master difficult concepts. Although more time equates to more money, money should not be the deciding factor on whether students receive a quality education. A quality education is the right of all Americans. Without being properly educated, how is one to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Implications

Since the joining of language rights and education, significant strides have been made in providing non-English-speaking with students a quality education. Bilingual education programs and sheltered instruction, among others, have been developed and implemented in urban classrooms to meet the needs of linguistically diverse students, but urban education is far from fulfilling the dream laid out by Lau v. Nichols. Education is said to be the great equalizer. Regardless of one’s socioeconomic status, a quality education can provide opportunity for advancement, but how can one advance with a language barrier as a grave hindrance?

The U.S. education system is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just of native-born students. Rather than expecting immigrant students to assimilate, the education system must meet non-English-speaking students midway, valuing their culture and language while expanding their knowledge of the English language. If this action is not taken, one must ask himself or herself: Without an adequate education, what remaining options are left for non-English-speaking students. Residing on U.S. soil, unable to become a productive citizen and obtain economic stability due to the lack of a basic education, leaves one with few options. Furthermore, depriving a quality education to children, those who yield the least amount of power within society, will inevitably produce strife in urban education and society. Proponents of English-only instruction give numerous reasons why English should be the only language spoken within school walls. Their reasons, developed through a Eurocentric lens, fail to acknowledge the diverse melting pot known as the United States. Non-English-speaking students are in U.S. schools, and in order to ensure the future prosperity of the United States, these schools must be instrumental in developing a well-educated populace. Lau v. Nichols sought to ameliorate the plight of non-English-speaking students. Unfortunately, the goal of Lau has not yet been fully realized.

References

Bartee, R. D., & Brown, C. M., II. (2007). School matters: Why African American students need multiple forms of capital. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Gandara, P., Moran, R., & Garcia, E. (2004). Legacy of "Brown": "Lau" and language policy in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 28, 27–46.

Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Nichols to NCLB: Local and global perspectives on US language education policy. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and globalization (pp. 223–237). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moran, R. F. (2005). Undone by law: The uncertain legacy of Lau v. Nichols. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 16(1), 1–10.

Abiola A. Farinde is currently a PhD student and a graduate research assistant at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research interests are in the schooling experiences of African American female students across the diaspora, teacher preparation, and gender and feminist issues.