Mexican-American Desegregation Case Summary

• During the Catañeda vs. Pickard case a father claimed that his two children were not having their educational rights met at their school in the Raymondville Independent School District. The father, Mr. Catañeda, further stated that the Raymondville Independent School District was not providing a proper bilingual education program for his children.

It was because of the split from Mexico that Texas created the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, which included a clause in it that established a public school system, but it wasn’t successful in achieving that goal until 1954 when a bill was passed. This plan was to be

Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

One of these cases was Smith v. Allwright. The outcome of this case declared that Texas' exclusion of black voters from primary elections, known as the "White Primary", unconstitutional. By winning this case Marshall not only paved the way for the removal of black voting laws, but he also made it public that the Supreme Court was no longer going to ignore the constitutional rights of African Americans, that had been discounted by state legislatures since the Civil War. In yet another governmental policy altering case Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948 the Supreme Court agreed with Marshall that courts could not enforce "restrictive covenants," private agreements not to sell land to blacks. (3) This time Marshall directed a blow at the state level courts, forcing them to become aware of the nation's new found view of civil liberties. In Sweat v. Painter in 1950 and in Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma in 1948, Marshall won unanimous decisions declaring "separate but equal" facilities for black professionals as well as graduate students in state universities unconstitutional. (3) First the state

Now that we know a little bit more information about the trial, lets learn why all the Mexican American parents got together in order for their kids to get the same education as all the other Caucasian kids in the neighborhood. It all started in the late 1920s-1930s. As the Mexican and Mexican American population started to increase in California, more white Americans started getting scared; this led to segregation in schools. Not only were schools getting segregated but housing was also being segregated as well (Maria Blanco, The Lasting Impact of Mendez v. Westminster in the Struggle for Desegregation, pg.

It is a well-known-fact that according to the TSHA, Hernandez v Texas was the first and the only Mexican-American civil right case heard and decided by the United States’ during the post-World War II in 1950. Hernandez was originally from Mexico. His process was also a mean for Mexican-American to show the World how unfair the United States was when it came to civil rights.

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR HER MINOR CHILDREN, ET AL.

In 1849 the issue of segregation within schools was brought to the stand, and arguments about how it should not be legal. In the case, Roberts vs. the City of Boston, The argument was made that segregation in school was a direct violation of the 14th amendment in the constitution. The 14th amendment was said to protect the rights of citizens equally and segregation did not go along with the amendment. The opposing side said the commonly known quote “separate, but equal”, and claimed that segregation was not in opposition to the 14th amendment and was therefore not illegal.

The lawyer stated that children from Mexican ancestors were obligated to attend separate schools from the whites up to the first four grades. Mr. Garcia then claimed that there were two types of toilets; one that read “Hombres Aqui” and the other “Colored Men”. After establishing the actuality of a class, Mr. Garcia had to prove that they were being discriminated. He did so by stating from a previous case, that the Negroes were eligible to perform services as jurors, but they were not called for jury service over a substantial period-of-time. This is known as the “rule of exclusion”. Finally, the petitioner provided statistical information of the population from Jackson County. 14 percent of the population had family names of Latin Americans or Mexicans. Jackson County’s Tax Assessor testified that 6 to 7 percent of property owners on the tax rolls of Jackson County were people of Mexican heritage. There was evidence from the State of Texas that for about twenty-five years there was no record of any individual with a Latin American name that had performed services as petit jurors, jury commissioners, or grand

Westminster, Mexican-Americans were segregated on the subject of education because the districts separated them into different schools and made some parents question this reason. It wasn't until the Mendez family hired an attorney and took the districts, their superintendents, and their school boards to court that would help equal all Americans. These Mexican-American children weren't given the opportunity of attending the same schools as the Anglos because of the assumptions made of all children working in the fields, all children attending school late, and all of these children knowing no English. There was no distinction made between these children. The Mendez's family attorney proved that there is no law that specifically says that these districts can separate these children. He also accepted the argument of this action violating the fourteenth amendment. He also noted that each districts actions were, "... a clear purpose to arbitrarily discriminate the pupils of Mexican ancestry and to deny them the equal protection of the laws". Even though this case didn't change any laws outside of the state, it nevertheless ended segregation and would soon influence other civil rights cases across the

Mendez vs. Westminster. About 80 years ago, one of the first court-ordered desegregations in California. This case was not your normal black vs white segregation that you hear about all of the time. This court case was about white's vs Mexican Americans. This began in 1931 when a court ordered a school district to stop segregating whites and Mexicans. In 1946, during the Mendez case, the federal court reached the same result. Because this was the first federal court case to desegregate whites and Mexicans, it is an important case to look at. Gonzalo Mendez was only seven years old when he became a defendant in this case. When the Mendez family moved to California their aunt took the kids and their cousins to enroll in school. When they got

In the Spring of 1984, May 23rd, felling like San Antonio v. Rodriguez was an unacceptable decision, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a suit against William Kirby, the commissioner of education, in behalf of the Edgewood Independent School District. MALDEF’s main concern was the way Texas funds public school, they pointed out the fact that he poorest districts in the state, had $38,854 in property wealth per student, while the Alamo Heights ISD, which is in the same county, had $570,109 per student. (TSHA, 2017) Furthermore, property-poor districts had a higher set tax rate that would amount to an average 74.5 cents per $100 a valuation to generate $2,987 per pupil, while richer districts, with a tax rate of half

The article discusses urban renewal, housing discrimination and disparities in both education and employment within the district. The districts’ schools remained segregated which prompted national attention and ultimately was a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The writer sites the Bolling vs Sharpe case which concluded that due process and equal protection were relevant in the issue of school segregation in the District. The decision also documents segregation was a violation of due process. The battle of racial discrimination in the

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nowadays, Mexican’s education is a controversial topic when parents need to select the best school for their children. Exist two different types of education, public and private. In the first place, public schools in Mexico are free of