Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether gross disparities in arts curricular offerings between districts within a state offend the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. The design required a review of literature and the identification and analysis of relevant federal and state case law. Legal reasoning was the philosophical method. Such deduction required the development of a central thesis and a series of supporting syllogisms. The central thesis to emerge was that such disparate provision of arts education does not constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but may constitute a violation of the equal protection clauses and public education provisions of state constitutions in the United States.
Six syllogisms developed this thesis or addressed related research questions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
