Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributors Document On January 21, 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lau v. Nichols. Following is the opinion, as well as two separate concurring opinions. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court. No dissent was entered.
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributors Document On May 25, 1970, a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations conducted hearings on the budget request of the Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for the Spanish‐Speaking People. Martin G. Castillo, chairman of the Cabinet Committee, was questioned by Representative Daniel Flood of Pennsylvania. Following is the stenographic record of the exchange.
On November 23, 1970, California Education Code section 1009.5 took effect. Signed by the governor in September, the provision reads: “No governing board of a school district shall require any student or pupil to be transported for any purpose or for any reason without the written permission of the parent or guardian.” Originally, the Wakefield Bill provided that “no governing board of a school district shall bus any student for the purpose of integration without the written permission of the parent or guardian.” Reference to integration was dropped for fear of the unconstitutionality of officially discouraging integration. On January 26, 1971, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Section 1009.5 forbade a requirement that any specific mode of transportation be used by students; but it viewed the law as upholding the right of a school board to assign students to specific schools. Just how these students would travel to the assigned school was a matter for their parents to solve. The immediate issue in the case involved the right of the San Francisco School Board to effectuate a limited desegregation plan embracing the Park South complex of schools. Following are extracts from the decision; exact case citations have been omitted in most instances.
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributors DOCUMENTOn February 2, 1968, the Detroit school board and others filed suit against the state of Michigan alleging that the existing state aid formulas unconstitutionally discriminated against children attending school in Detroit. Following is the complete text of the official complaint.
(1967). NEGRO TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE. Equity & Excellence in Education: Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 35-37.
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributors DOCUMENT On June 1‐2, 1966, the White House Conference “To Fulfill These Rights” met in Washington, D.C. The Conference adopted two sets of recommendations —one, proposed by a 30‐man Council appointed by President Johnson; two, proposed by the participants themselves. All the Council recommendations were approved by the participants. These recommendations were transmitted officially to the President early in September, 1966. Following is a collation of all the recommendations on education that came from the 40 Council and participants.
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributors DocumentOn October 19, 1966, the New York City board of education released the following statement.
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributors DocumentOn March 3, 1966, Jerome Baiter, a leader of the Rochester Citizens Committee for School Integration, addressed the following letter to school board chairman Mrs. Frances Cooke.
The Second National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China held its third session in Peking between March 27 and April 16. Before this, a preparatory meeting was held on March 22.At the beginning, the session heard a report on the work of the Government made by Chou En-lai, Premier of the State Council.Premier Chou En-lai's report fell into two parts. The first dealt with the international situation and China's foreign policy, and the second part discussed the domestic situation and the tasks of the Chinese people.
