United States v. State of Texas

342 F. Supp. 24, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10516
District Court, E.D. Texas·Decided December 6, 1971·No. Civ. A. 5281·Published·Cited by 27 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING THE SAN FELIPE DEL RIO CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

JUSTICE, District Judge.

The final order in this case with respect to the creation and desegregation of the San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District and its operation as a unitary system which would afford all its students, whether Anglo or Mexican-American, equal educational"" opportunities as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was entered on August 13, 1971. That order and the Court’s previous decree in this matter dated August 13, 1971, was premised upon the Court’s firm conviction that the record demonstrates, first, that Mexican-American students m tne state of Texas are a cognizable ethnic group and, hence, may avail themselves of the protections afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment and under Title VI

(See Conclusions of Law #5 and 6 en- ----- - —- — tered August 24, 1971) and, second, that the Mexican-American students in the Del Rio area have been subjected, over the years, to unequal treatment with respect to the educational opportunities afforded them and are, thus, part of a so-called de jure dual school system based upon separation of students of different ethnic origins. Moreover,, the Court believes that this segregated arrange *25 ment, if not directly created by the State and its agencies, has been condoned and, in the 1970-71 school year, was financially supported by the State to a level well over 90% of the operating expenditures of each of the two school districts joined by the August 13 order. In other words, had it not been for the substantial contributions of the" State under the terms of the Texas Minimum Foundation Program and under various additional arrangements, neither the former San Felipe nor the former Del Rio school district could have continued in operation. Hence, since the State and its agencies knew, or should have known of the segregated educational system being operated, largely at state expense, in the Del Rio area, and in light of this Court’s previous findings ofTáct and conclusions of Taw concerning the State of Texas and the Texas Education Agency in this case (See Findings and Conclusions dated November 21, 1970), this Court believes that the segregated system described above existed as the result of state action.

The Court believes that the order of August 13 relating to consolidation and desegregation of the students and faculty of the two former districts in the Del Rio area is clear on its face and, therefore, finds it unnecessary to comment further upon it, save to say that it is consistent with the earlier orders of the Court in this case dated November 24, 1970, 321 F.Supp. 1043, April 19, 1971, and April 20, 1971, as modified July 13¿ 1971, and so approved bv the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 447 F.2d I4LIn light of the relative novelty of the issue in current case law, however, the Court considers it advisable to clarify its position regarding the status of Mexican-American students within the State of Texas as developed from existing case law and from the record in this matter.

The Court found that “Mexican-Americans constitute an identifiable minority group in the State of Texas,” and that “Mexican-Americans are subject to protection under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to racial and ethnic discrimination in public schools.” As stated in a scholarly -note by Gerald M. Birnberg in the University of Texas Law Review, 49 Texas L.Rev. 337, 338 (1971), “The conclusion that ethnic isolation of Mexican-Americans in the public schools is unlawful should not be surprising, since that principle has long been established in- Texas law.” Independent School District v. Salvatierra, 33 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.Civ.App.1930), appeal dismissed, w. o. j., and cert. denied, 284 U.S. 580, 52 S.Ct. 28, 76 L.Ed. 503 (1931); Delgado v. Bastrop Independent School District, Civ. No. 388 (W.D.Tex. June 15, 1948); Hernandez v. Driscoll Consolidated Independent School District, 2 Race Rel.L.Rev. 329 (S.D.Tex. January 11, 1957). (See also, Instructions of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, (1948) sent to school districts by the State Education Agency to inform them that segregation of Mexican-American students constituted a violation of Article VII, Section 7, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann. St.) 1 This same principle has also been upheld by other federal courts. Perez v. Sonora Independent School District, C.A. 6-224 (N.D.Tex.1969); Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 324 F.Supp. 599 (S.D.Tex.1970), on appeal, C.A. (5th Cir. 1971). Judge Seals stated in Cisneros:

. [I]t is clear to this court that these people for whom we have used the word Mexican-Americans to describe their class, group, or segment of our population, are an identifiable ethnic-minority in the United States, and especially so in the Southwest [and] in Texas. . [f. n. s. omitted] This is not surprising; we can notice and identify their physical characteristics, their language, their predominant religion, their dis *26 tinct culture, and, of course, their Spanish surnames. And if there were any doubt in this court’s mind, this court could take notice, which it does, of the congressional enactments, governmental studies and commissions on this problem. [At pages 607, 608]

Judge Seals also noted in the Cisneros opinion that the identity of Mexican-Americans or Americans with Spanish surnames as a cognizable group is further acknowledged in the official United States Census for 1960 and 1970. (Cisneros, fn. 31 at page 607).

This Court joins Judge Seals and the other courts cited above in the position that, based on case law to date and on the official state and federal documents available and already noted and on the record in the matter at bar, Mexican-Americans or Spanish-surnamed Americans are a separate and distinct national origin group under the terms of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court was particularly impressed by the testimony of Dr. Jose Cardenas, who presented a lengthy commentary on the problems commonly faced by Mexican-American students. This testimony demonstrated that Mexican-American students exhibit numerous characteristics which have a causal connection with their general inability to benefit from an educational program designed primarily to meet the needs of so-called Anglo-Americans. These characteristics include “cultural incompatibilities” and English language deficiencies — two traits which immediately and effectively identify those students sharing them as members of a definite group whose performance norm habitually will fall below that of Anglo-American students who do not exhibit these traits. It would appear, therefore, from Dr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. State of Texas, 342 F. Supp. 24, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10516 (E.D. Tex. 1971).

342 F. Supp. 24 (United States v. State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago
588 F. Supp. 132 (N.D. Illinois, 1984)
Terrazas v. Clements
581 F. Supp. 1329 (N.D. Texas, 1984)
Alvarez v. City of Philadelphia
98 F.R.D. 286 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1983)
Ulloa v. City of Philadelphia
95 F.R.D. 109 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)
United States v. State of Tex.
498 F. Supp. 1356 (E.D. Texas, 1980)
United States v. Texas
498 F. Supp. 1356 (E.D. Texas, 1980)
Morgan v. Kerrigan
401 F. Supp. 216 (D. Massachusetts, 1975)
Morales v. Turman
383 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Texas, 1974)