Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost.nifl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA22874; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:44:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:44:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <Pine.A41.3.96a.971119213808.47316C-100000@dante08.u.washington.edu> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Carl Grove <cdgrove@u.washington.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:1518] Re: The Unz Initiative (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO Content-Length: 1764 Lines: 34 I thought the following message would be interesting to those thinking about the Unz initiative. It comes from Tom Ricento, associate professor in the Division of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Subject: Re: The Unz initiative Carl, I don't know about the legal implications if the Unz initiative passes. But I can tell you there is a home page on the web under <smartnation.org> which has in addition to a copy of the initiative other material, including the transcript of a debate between David Ramirez and Unz. I'm sure various advocacy groups in California have looked at the possibilities of going to court if the Unz initative is approved. Maybe Jim Crawford of Terry Wiley have more information on that point. My own sense is that Lau could be invoked, but the sticking point may be that discriminatory intent, not just discriminatory outcome, must be shown in order to justify reversal. I base this on the fact that the Supreme Court in the Bakke case interpreted Title VI to be coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause; in the Washington v. Davis (1976) case, the Supreme Court also found that discriminatory intent had to be proved, and not simply a disparate impact. So, while Lau, along with the Castenada decision, have been relied on in enforcing federal policy in bilingual education, a court could cite the Bakkee and Davis, and some other cases, in deciding any suit brought to overturn Unz. Anyway, that's my take based on research I have done which, by the way, will appear in the forthcoming book (with contributions by Terry Wiley and Jim Crawford, by the way) published by Benjamins called Language Legislation and Linguistic Human Rights, edited by Douglas Kibbee. Best, Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:42 EDT