Advocates for language minority students depict the movement for language minority students’ rights as an outgrowth of the civil rights movement, which focused initially on securing rights for racial minorities. This article examines whether the same conceptions of equality and legal remedies apply for both groups. Building on Berlin’s notions of negative and positive liberty, I identify two conceptions of equality evoked in key legal cases regarding racial and linguistic minorities: negative equality, which consists of removing morally untenable discriminatory practices to ensure equality via similar treatment, and positive equality, which consists of ensuring equality by customizing treatment depending on a group’s particular needs. While these two conceptions of equality may appear at odds, I propose that the least restrictive environment standard, emanating from disability law, can serve to reconcile the two, holding that negative equality is paramount but positive equality may sometimes be necessary in time-bound, limited contexts.
Alexander v. Sandoval (99-1908) 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
2.
ARC Associates. (1994). Revisiting the Lau decision: 20 years after. Oakland, CA: Author.
3.
BerlinI. (1958). Two concepts of liberty, an inaugural lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4.
BerlinI. (1988). Pursuit of the fair ideal. In HardyH.HausheerR. (Eds.), The proper study of mankind: An anthology of essays (pp. 1–16). London: Pimlico.
5.
BiegelS. (2005). Reports of the Consent Decree monitoring team for the years 1997-2005: Final supplemental report.
6.
BrighouseH.SwiftA. (2009). Educational equality versus educational adequacy: A critique of Anderson and Satz. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 26(2), 117–128.
7.
BrilliantM. (2002). Color lines: Civil rights struggles on America’s “racial frontier,” 1945–1975. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
8.
BrilliantM. (2010). The color of America has changed: How racial diversity shaped civil rights reform in California, 1941-1978. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
10.
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
CheckJ. W. (2002). Politics, language, and culture. Westport, CT: Praeger.
13.
Chinese for Affirmative Action. (2007). Lau plaintiffs request the Federal Court to maintain reporting requirements and provide greater oversight of school district’s English learner programs. Retrieved from http://www.caasf.org/PDFs/Lau_Response_01_30_07.pdf
14.
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
DaviesG. (2002). The great society after Johnson: The case of bilingual education. The Journal of American History, 88(4), 1405–1429.
17.
DouvanisG.HulseyD. (2002). The least restrictive environment mandate: How has it been defined. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469442). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED469442.pdf
18.
Flores v. Arizona, 172 F.Supp.2d 1225 (D. Ariz., 2000).
19.
Flores v. Arizona, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Ariz., 2005).
20.
Flores v. Arizona, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Ariz., 2007).
21.
Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir, 2008).
22.
Flores v. Arizona, No. 92-CV-596-TUC-RCC, Plaint. Resp. (D. Ariz., Sept.7, 2010).
23.
Flores v. Arizona, No. 92-CV-596-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz., March29, 2013).
24.
FrankenbergE.LeeC.OrfieldG. (2003). A multiracial society with segregated schools: Are we losing the dream?Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project.
25.
FreemanR. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
26.
GándaraP.GeneseeF. (1999). Bilingual education programs: A cross-national perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 665–685.
27.
GándaraP.MoranR.GarciaE. (2004). Chapter 2: Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 28(1), 27–46.
28.
GiffordB.ValdésG. (2006). The linguistic isolation of Hispanic students in California public schools: The challenge of reintegration. Yearbook for the National Society of the Study of Education, 105(2), 125–154.
29.
Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954).
30.
HopkinsM.Martinez-WenzlM.AldanaU.GándaraP. (in press). Cultivating capital: Latino newcomer young men in a U.S. urban high school. Anthropology and Education Quarterly.
31.
Horne v. Flores, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (2009).
32.
HoweK. R. (1993). Equality of educational opportunity and the criterion of equal educational worth. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 11, 329–337.
33.
HoweK. R. (in press). Adequacy versus equality. Philosophy of Education 2013. Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
34.
Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District, 339 F. Supp. 1315, 1319 (1971).
35.
Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973).
36.
KirpD. (1976). Race, politics, and the courts: School desegregation in San Francisco. Harvard Educational Review, 46(4), 572–611.
37.
Lau v. Nichols, 483 F.2d 791 (9th Cir., 1973).
38.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
39.
Lopez v. Seccombe, 71 F. Supp. 769 (1944).
40.
LumP. A. (1978). The creation and demise of San Francisco Chinatown freedom schools: One response to desegregation. Amerasia, 5(1), 64.
41.
Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County, 64 F. Supp. 544 (1946).
42.
MoranR. F. (2005). Undone by law: The uncertain legacy of Lau v. Nichols. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 16(1), 1–10.
43.
Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High School, 618 F.3d 789 (8th Cir., 2010).
PalmerD. K. (2008). Building and destroying students’ “academic identities”: The power of discourse in a two-way immersion classroom. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 21(6), 647–667.
48.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 128 S. Ct. 2738 (2007).
49.
Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981).
ScottM. C. (2008). Resegregation, language, and educational opportunity: The influx of Latino students into North Carolina public schools. Harvard Latino Law Review, 11, 123–156.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010–028). Washington, DC: Author.
62.
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
63.
WilliamsB. (2005). The idea of equality. In HawthornG. (Ed.), In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument (pp. 97–114). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
