# Petition — Congress of Hispanic Educators v. No. 1 (Nos. 75-702, 75-701) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1314%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1975 ## Text p —- en oe - F = ED In the Supreme Court of the NOV is 1975 United States | OctToser TERM 1975 No. 5-702 Coneoress oF Hispanic Epucators, et al., Petitioners, vs. Scnoo. District No. 1, Denver, CoLorapo, et al., Respondents. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of the Congress of Hispanic Educators, et al. Vita S. MarTINEZ SanForp Jay Rosen JOAQUIN AVILA Mary R. Menpoza Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 145 Ninth Street San Francisco, California 94103 R. Pete Reyes Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 209 Sixteenth Street Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Paut Baca 1123 Delaware Street Denver, Colorado 80204 Attorneys for Petitioners Congress of Hispanic Educators, et al. aon" - Pe. a ve y v 7 wand oo S =v ae 7 i a - - bc ae 7 ae “or ; oer Ae. TF fl ie i a cao Tyre ey scat a ies tne? oo a ory am ae a ' LS ie , eb tees Chane a et oe beet = ie Thies ee ee cies ee al ‘i re ¥. 2 bee can oo = 7 aed yun) tat Po > aes rs 7 a as : - 2 a eee ee a a aE) a DT oo = if - 7 & 4 - a 7 aes oe Pod ~ : a 7 és = _ os =5) = — 5 oD re - = 7 . as = 5 = 7 ‘ oe 7* @ .. ¢ oC. - ee ee ee : | _ # ey ie hae a noe = are : V 4 her ; - 0 _ i ova - : 7 = rs 7 da) ee tet a - 4 | nts ‘ ° 2 Pa : -.! — = > i - ee ee einai > SS ie ae nL =} ; = ; ans - = wa, ; . : ; a airtiag Ay. ae , om ai - - - aa a ay we me i at yy 4 1 th _ ial Ss, ify p = - s - a the trial court to determine if, pre- sumab ly in the light of HEW standards, the “defendants are engaging in dis- criminatory practices in the [bilin- gual-bicultural] program as it currently exists." 516 F.2d at 415. 22/ This Court should grant the writ of certiorari in the instant case to further clarify the deference courts are to accord to HEW guidelines when courts desegregate public school systems which include substantial language and national origin minority group students. 22. Dr. Cardenas was called as an expert witness in the Uvalde, Texas case, both in the HEW proceedings and in the court proceedings. (See Tr. 1024.) 92 IV. THIS CASE RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF WHETHER THE DE - FENDANTS' SYSTEMATIC FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHICANO PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS DENIED THEM EQUAL EDU- CATIONAL OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN, BUT OUGHT TO BE, RESOLVED BY THIS COURT. At least, when a state, like Colo- rado (See, e.g., CRS 123-21-3, quoted in 380 F. Supp. at 696 n. 3, Appendix at p. 205a n. 3) makes it the central mis- sion of its public schools to insure that all students achieve a master of English, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, school authorities have the affirmative duty to rectify any English language deficiency "[w]here inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national ori- gin-minority group children from effec- tive participation in the educational program offered by a school district." 35 Fed. Reg. 11595 (1970). See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools, 499 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1974). As this Court has recognized: Under these state-imposed standards there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facili- ties, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effec- tively foreclosed from any mean- ingful education. 414 U.S. at 566. Further, HEW's latest regulations implementing Title VI, in this context, clearly impose obliga- tions to treat affirmatively English language disabilities, even when the national origin-minority group children involved are able to speak and under- Stand the English language, although not as well as their Anglo school mates. (Appendix at pp. 319a-23a.) In 1962 an official Denver Special Study Committee on Equality of Education Opportunity found there was inequality in the educational opportunity offered 94 to racial minorities in the Denver schools. 303 F. Supp. at 283. Although the School Board then adopted various policy resolutions designed to implement changes recommended by the Special Study Committee, the resolutions were ultimate- ly rescinded. See 303 F. Supp. at 284, 285. Thereafter, no substantial affir- mative action was taken by the defendants to alleviate the problems of national origin minorities in the Denver area. 303 F. Supp. at 284-286. On the basis of these actions and the rest of the record in this ease. =’ but without spe- cifically holding that the school board had violated Title VI, the trial court twice found all the elements of a Title VI violation, and concluded that the minority students were unlawfully denied the opportunity to participate equally with Anglo students in the Denver school system's educational programs. As the District Court found: "The educational 23. The evidence bearing upon these issues is summarized in the Statement of the Case, supra, at pp.13-17, 20, 25-42. 95 opportunity in the minority schools has been proven in our present trial as well as in previous trials to be infe- rior to that in the majority schools." 380 F. Suop. 673, 682 (1974). Compare the language employed by this Court in finding the Title VI violation in Lau v. Nichols, supra, 414 U.S. at 566, 568. Evidently, not even the Colorado legislature belfeves that existing pro- grams are satisfactory to provide equal educational opportunities for language and national origin-minority students. During the pendency of the appeal in the instant case, the Colorado legislature enacted the comprehensive 1975 "Bilingual and Bicultural Education Act" to provide for the sort of education which would assure to these children an equal edu- cational opportunity. Appendix at pp. 362a - 4lha. Thus, under the state-imposed standards for education within Colorado, 96 and this Court's decision in Lau, there was an ample basis in the record of the instant case for finding a violation of Title VI. Furthermore, in view of the new Colorado "Bilingual and Bicultural Education Act" and the new comprehensive HEW guidelines implementing Title VI in the instant kind of a case (Appendix at pp. 330a-6la), the District Court's decree does not overstep the scope of a proper remedy. There is also a sufficient basis on the record for the District Court's findings that the defendants’ failure to provide programs designed to afford the minority group children in Denver an equal educational opportunity constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, somewhat independent of the proven de jure segregation. See, e.g., 313 F. Supp. 61, 73 (1970), issue reserved, 413 U.S. 189, 214 (1974). Since this Court did not consider the relationship between Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment in Lau, the 97 Court should now clarify the relation- ship, particularly in light of this Court's decision in Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966). In that case, the Court stated, "We emphasize that Con- gress' power under §5 [of the Fourteenth Amendment] is limited to adopting meas- ures to enforce the guarantees of the Amendment; §5 grants Congress no power to restrict, abrogate or dilute these guarantees." 384 U.S. at 651 n. 10. It is clear under this rationale that while Congress may expand constitutional guarantees under the Fourteenth Amend- ment, it may not contract them. It fol- lows that in adopting Title VI, and in authorizing HEW to promulgate guidelines to effectuate it, Congress was properly ex- pressly onthe constitutional guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. This being the case, HEW guidelines should be con- sidered the minimum constitutional stan- dards to be applied in Fourteenth Amend- ment cases, and particularly in the instant case. 98 Further, in recently enacting the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 514, 20 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq. (Supp.) (See Appendix, at pp. 284a-9la), Congress specifically expressed its pol- icy to further enforce Fourteenth Amend- ment equal protection guarantees. The Act in part states, § 1702(a). The Congress finds that (1) the maintenance of dual school systems in which stu- dents are assigned to schools solely on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin denies to those students the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. § 1703. No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his race, color, sex, or national origin by . (f) the failure of an educa- tional agency to take appro- priate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in instructional programs. 99 Given this Court's holding in Katzenbach v. Morgan and the clear con- gressional intent to enforce constitu- tional guarantees through enactment of Title VI and the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, the Court of Appeals' decision raises serious cons- titutional questions. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Denver school system must provide educa- tional programs responsive to the needs not only of Anglos or blacks but also of Chicano children. Identical treat- ment of patently different groups may well not produce the "equality" mandated by our Constitution. See, e.g., Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1969). In Lau, supra, 414 U.S. at 568, this Court recognized that providing equal programs and facilities does not provide equality “where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national Origin-minority group children from ef- fective participation in the educational program. The Court should now 100 consider whether the instant case may well present a situation in which equal treatment of two different constitution- ally identifiable minority groups may deprive one group of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Pre- viously, this Court has rejected the argument that provision of similar curricula and facilities was sufficient to satisfy the Equal Protection Clause, since the Court did not consider these the sole measures of equal educational opportunity. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents 339 U.S. 637 (1950). Certainly, the District Court's decision is in keeping with the policy established by this Court. The District Court based its decision on substantial evidence of the racial and national- origin composition of the student popu- lation of Denver, and various ethnic factors in the areas such as curriculun, instruction and guidance, administration and organization, md school-community relations. The District Court also 101 repeatedly found that the administration was aware of these conditions, but that they failed to take steps to rectify them. E.g., 303 F. Supp. 279, 284 (1969); 303 F. Supp. 289, 295 (1969); 313 F. Supp. 61, 65 (1970). On the Record of this case the Court should consider the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI issues presented, and the Court should consider the interrelationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the writ of certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, VILMA S. MARTINEZ SANFORD JAY ROSEN JOAQUIN AVILA MARY R. MENDOZA Mexican American Legal Defense and Educa- tional Fund 145 Ninth Street San Francisco, Calif. 94103 102 R. PETE REYES Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 209 Sixteenth Street Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 PAUL BACA 1123 Delaware Street Denver, Colorado 80204 Attorneys for Petitioners Congress of Hispanic Educators, et al. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1314%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.