Westside Community Schools Case Study

The school district was still not happy with the decision so they appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, a free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is planned to meet the unique needs of the child that has a disability, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child "to benefit" from the instruction. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley (458 U. S. 176). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm Free Appropriate Public Education does not require the

Texas is an immense state itself, with problems left and right and not a solution to many of them. The city of Brownsville is often forgotten and not given much attention when it comes to economic issues regarding the education level. Education in Brownsville might not be superior to other schools in the North because they an advantageous education system considering their rich economy. The BISD (Brownsville Independent School District) school organization is often criticized on the criteria of the low economic status the people of Brownsville obtain.

Because there are two cases involved, there are two different legal questions that we must answer. First, we were to answer whether The Asian Society’s and its members Equal Protection rights were abridged upon by them being denied the benefits of the other minorities that attend West Central Dixie State University. Secondly, we were to answer the question brought to the court by The Sons of the Confederacy: Is the policy of positive segregation implemented by the university unconstitutional based on the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause. We agree with the lower Court’s ruling in the case of The Asian Society that the policy itself it not unconstitutional, but that it does violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the compelling interest of the university is not narrowly-tailored enough. It should include all minorities not just some for the policy of positive segregation to fulfill its purpose of multiculturalism and diversity.

On June 27, 1978, the Supreme Court was divided between two different viewpoints. Four justices only focused on the “Statutory issue of Title VI and found for Bakke authorizing his admission to the school, because the quota in the university’s admission program had obviously excluded Bakke because of his race” (McBride). They recognized that the University was at fault and Bakke should be admitted. The other four justices centralized on the constitutional issues, the violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and justified that the admission process of the university wasn’t intended

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

Douglas and the other five of them supported Engel and the parents because they agreed that the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause were being violated; even if students were excused from performing the prayer. Most of the court also believed that“not every religion recognizes a God, so some are necessarily excluded even with this wording” (Skelton 1). In a national survey by the Nation’s School journal, it was found that “...50 percent of school administrators returning the questionnaire wanted the Engel decision reversed ; 48 percent of them supported it” (Dierenfield

The reasoning behind that decision was that the provision allowing students to absent themselves from that activity did not make that law constitutional. The purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with religion (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). Justice Douglas concurred with what the court had found. He took a broader view of the Establishment Clause, arguing that any type of public promotion of religion, including giving financial aid to religious schools, violates the establishment clause (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). I would agree with this decision in some ways, but there are some that I do not agree with.

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court decided that the amendment of Michigan’s Constitution which banned affirmative action at public institutions was constitutional. Prior to the enactment of this law, Michigan residents had voted in favor of the proposed amendment that prohibited consideration of race or sex in admissions to Michigan’s public universities. In turn, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, sued state officials-- arguing that this amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

That’s exactly what the Little Rock Nine would’ve have to do if President Dwight Eisenhower wasn’t thinking. Plessy v. Ferguson which did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But this equality was an impossibility in many ways, as most African-American were denied the same resources as their white counterparts to create good schools. After the Brown v. Board of education ruling, President Dwight Eisenhower tried to get governor Fabus to voluntarily allow desegregation in Arkansas schools. In result the NAACP failed for a lawsuit asking the Federal Court to prevent Fabus from interfering with desegregation.

“In the case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admission is

Board of Education case began when there was segregation in schools. A girl named Linda Brown and her sister had to cross a dangerous railroad switch yard to get to their all black school. There was a school closer to their home, but it was for then white folk only. The Brown family believed that it violated the 14 amendment. A federal district court said that segregation in public education was harmful to black children.

Decades ago, children of various races could not go to school together in many locations of the United States. School districts could segregate students, legally, into different schools according to the color of their skin. The law said these separate schools had to be equal. Many schools for children that possessed color were of lesser quality than the schools for white students. To have separate schools for the black and white children became a basic rule in southern society.

SUMMARY In this landmark case Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the University of California, Davis Medical School, sued claiming his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standing rule at the time was that race may be a factor in determining admission to educational institutions; however it cannot be the sole determining factor. FACTS OF THE CASE The University of California, Davis Medical School had been reserving 16 spots in each class out of 100 for disadvantaged minorities.

This shows that after this case study, it was established that US Citizens have the right to a K-12 education, one that is equally funded so that all students are learning on a level playing field. For this case study, the Texas Supreme Court established the right for students to receive a public school education Texas citizens have the responsibility to take action against an issue they find unconstitutional, either by voting or joining an interest group.

On June 25, 1962, a Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was decided. The lawsuit was brought to the United States Supreme Court by parents (of students who attended schools in the Herricks School District) who complained that a nondenominational prayer instituted by the New York Board of Regents in their district was unconstitutional. The parents argued that the prayer, although optional, violated their First Amendment Rights. When the 6-1 (two justices did not vote) decision was made, it was ruled that voluntary prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. One concurring opinion was given, and the single judge that did not vote the same as the rest provided