After A Major Civil Rights Victory, La Raza Has Even More Reason To Celebrate During Hispanic Heritage Month
Congratulations to the lawyers behind this major win!
“Living in the big city / The American dream.” — Cypress Hill
Today is the official day to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. Be sure to check out Google’s beautiful tribute to Latino cultures in our country.
Last month, a Weil Gotshal & Manges team — partner Steven Reiss, former partner Jim Quinn, associates Luna Barrington and David Fitzmaurice, project manager Jorge Martorell, paralegal Sirak Biratu, and senior technician Steve Mangru — along with local counsel and co-counsel, secured a major pro bono win for Mexican-American students. After this historic civil rights victory, public school teachers in Arizona are now officially allowed to teach Mexican-American students about their heritage.
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to catch up with legendary litigator Jim Quinn to discuss this pro bono victory. Earlier this year, David Lat wrote a feature on Quinn’s move from Weil to one of the nation’s top litigation boutiques, Berg & Androphy. This case was obviously very important to Quinn, as he stayed on as co-chair, even after leaving Weil in January.
Quinn mentioned that he and his colleagues were quite pleased with the results. He was happy to see that Judge A. Wallace Tashima, a Ninth Circuit judge sitting by designation as a trial judge, wrote his 42-page opinion in a way that will make it very hard to challenge on appeal.
Quinn knew that they had quite the challenge and burden to overcome in proving that there was discriminatory intent and/or racial animus behind A.R.S. § 15-112, the Arizona law designed to eliminate Mexican-American Studies (MAS) courses in Tucson public schools. Needless to say, Quinn was very satisfied that they were able to meet this burden.
To understand last month’s ruling in Gonzalez vs. Douglas, one must understand the history and political landscape of the Tucson Unified School District (“TUSD”). It was already operating under a past consent decree from 1974, which required TUSD “to remedy existing effects of past discriminatory acts or policies.”
Sponsored
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
(To gain an even better perspective from a constitutional viewpoint, you should peruse Reiss’s and Quinn’s PowerPoint of their closing argument. This is a fantastic First and Fourteenth Amendment primer for our law school audience.)
In 1998, as part of its remedial process, TUSD launched a Mexican-American Studies (“MAS”) program to help students see “themselves or their family or their community” in their studies, and to close the historic gap in academic achievement between Mexican-American and white students in Tucson, as noted by Judge Tashima.
Although the MAS program increased test scores and graduation rates, by 2006, it was under attack by powerful figures in the local community. In 2007, Tom Horne, then Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, wrote an Open Letter to the Citizens of Tucson imploring them to eliminate ethnic studies.
When Horne failed to coax TUSD to shut down the MAS program, he began lobbying for statewide legislation to terminate it. By 2010, Horne drafted his third bill to shut down the MAS program. As Judge Tashima observed:
Horne asked Representative Steve Montenegro, ‘a Central American immigrant,’ to introduce H.B. 2281 because ‘the fact that he was a Hispanic was a plus in trying to get the bill passed.’ Representative Montenegro supported the bill because MAS classes teach that ‘the white man’s evil and this was our land and it’s time for us to take it back,’ and because ‘it’s wrong to be creating this kind of racial warfare.’
Then-Senator John Huppenthal became a proponent of the bill and was ‘very deeply involved in the effort to amend and pass it.’ Huppenthal objected to the MAS program because he believed that the program was ‘planting evil ideas in kids’ minds.’
Sponsored
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
In reviewing Judge Tashima’s opinion, I was shocked to read some of Huppenthal’s various comments:
“No Spanish radio stations, no Spanish billboards, no Spanish TV stations, no Spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English.”
“The rejection of American values and embracement of the values of Mexico in La Raza classrooms is the rejection of success and embracement of failure.”
“I don’t mind them selling Mexican food as long as the menus are mostly in English.”
“The Mexican-American Studies classes use the exact same technique that Hitler used in his rise to power. In Hitler’s case it was the Sudetenland. In the Mexican-American Studies case, it’s Aztlán.”
“MAS = KKK in a different color.”
While Horne’s lobbying was taking place, Huppenthal was running for Horne’s current post, Superintendent of Public Instruction. And Horne was running for the office of Arizona Attorney General. Both campaigned on a platform to “stop La Raza.”
On May 11, 2010, Horne’s bill was passed. It prohibited a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses that:
(1) “Promote the overthrow of the United States government,”
(2) “Promote resentment toward a race or class of people,”
(3) were “designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” or
(4) “Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”
And with Huppenthal’s amendments, the statute would go into effect January 1, 2011, the day after Horne left office. On his last weekday in office, Horne found that the MAS program was in violation of the statute. Three days later, Huppenthal offically succeeded Horne and was sworn in as Superintendent.
According to Horne’s and Huppenthal’s view of the statute, if the State Board of Education or the Superintendent determines that a school district is in violation of the statute, then the State Board or Superintendent may direct the Arizona Department of Education to withhold ten percent of the district’s funding.
Long story short: After an independent review of the MAS program found that the MAS program did not violate the law, Huppenthal and his team concluded that the MAS program did violate the law. Which brings us to Gonzalez v. Douglas.
The conclusion of this case was by no means assured. In fact, the district court originally granted summary judgment in favor of the State on the Fourteenth Amendment claim and certain First Amendment claims. It was only on remand from the Ninth Circuit that the plaintiffs were afforded a second chance to prove their rights were violated.
Today is the official day to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. It is a tribute to how far our society has come and a reminder of how much further we must go to address prejudice, discrimination, and injustice in our system.
Pro bono victories like this one continue to remind us just how important it is for attorneys to become involved in the community.
Weil Wins Civil Rights Victory for Mexican-American Students in Arizona [Weil, Gotshal & Manges]
Renwei Chung is the Diversity Columnist at Above the Law. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn.
