Education

  • August 29, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Arit John reports for The Wire that six plaintiffs are suing the police forces in Ferguson and St. Louis County for civil rights abuses.

    In The New York Times, Julia Preston writes on a new immigration policy that permits asylum to foreign women who are victims of severe domestic violence.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center reports on its efforts to stop the jailing of those unable to pay probation fees in Alabama.

    Conor Friedersdorf writes in The Atlantic on police harassment in light of a controversial video showing a man arrested while picking up his kids from school.

    In Politico, Maggie Severns explains how a ruling in Los Angeles on Thursday sets up a battle over teacher protections. 

  • August 13, 2014
    Video Interview

    by Caroline Cox

    This year marked the 50th anniversaries of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Freedom Summer, but these victories have not erased many persistent racial inequalities in the United States. In a discussion about race, education, and the legacy of Brown v. Board decision at the 2014 ACS National Convention, Tomiko Brown-Nagin, the Daniel P.S. Paul Professor of Constitutional Law and Professor of History at Harvard University, explained how the world has changed in the years after these civil rights landmarks.

    While Brown-Nagin argued that the United States has managed to achieve the promise of Brown in many respects, these successes are qualified. The decision slowly eliminated de jure segregation, but de facto segregation continues and even thrives in the post-Brown world. Brown-Nagin explained that public support is “shifting away from support for an affirmative movement of students across neighborhood lines, away from even having students of different races in the same school building.”

    The majority of people, according to Brown-Nagin, agree with the principle of racial equality. But this belief does not in and of itself mean that inequality no longer exists. This is not the inequality seen during the Warren Court, but rather are the result of “social conditions related to race” that are largely ignored because “people don’t understand them as related to racial animus.”

    The way to bring the ethos of Brown into a new era, Brown-Nagin argued, requires the formation of new coalitions and policies that can address inequality but are not necessarily race-conscious. Race does matter, but in a time when Parents Involved has made addressing racial inequality in schools more difficult, Brown-Nagin made clear that the real solution is “to be creative and innovative in the policies that we choose.”

    ACSblog hosted a symposium on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Freedom Summer, and a collection of blog posts on the legacy of Brown v. Board. Watch the brief interview with Tomiko Brown-Nagin below or here

  • June 17, 2014

    Although law and ideology are the main factors that impact a judge’s ruling, Adam Liptak reports on a new influencing interest: having a daughter. Writing for The New York Times, Liptak discusses why personal experience is informing the law.
     
    The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Elmbrook School District v. Doe, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that it is unconstitutional to hold a graduation ceremony in a church. At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Leslie C. Griffin examines Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent.
     
    Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on “straw purchases,” the purchase of a gun by one person for another. Nina Totenberg at NPR explains what the victory means for gun control advocates.
     
    A growing number of today’s inmates are women. Oliver Roeder at the Brennan Center for Justice reports on this growing phenomenon.
     
    The Associated Press notes that Texas has the highest number of judicial vacancies in the country. 
  • June 16, 2014
    Writing for Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost argues why Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu’s decision on the unconstitutionality of the California tenure system for teachers was a “drive-by assault on teachers unions” while Slate’s Jordan Weissmann comments on the false statistic cited in Judge Treu’s opinion that between 1 and 3 percent of California’s teachers are “grossly ineffective.”
     
     
    At The Huffington PostGeoffrey R. Stone, former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter as well as Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapter shares some facts about the most religious states in America.
     
    At The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro examines Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion in Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio
  • June 13, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law

    Reading the opinion of Judge Treu in Vergara v. California, one gets the sense that the state did not fight very hard to defend its teacher tenure protections from constitutional challenge. From the judge’s recitation of the evidence, it appears that the state “defendant” conceded or provided evidence that there were thousands of grossly ineffective teachers in the California system, that school administrators didn’t bother to try to fire them because they thought it was too hard, that poor teachers adversely affect students’ education and that poor teachers are disproportionately found in schools with large populations of minority and low income students.  

    Based on this evidence, much of it generously submitted by the state defendant, Judge Treu found that the laws that provide teachers with tenure, due process prior to termination and seniority protection from layoff deprive minority and low income students of their fundamental interest in an education of equal quality. Further, and not surprisingly given the recitation of the evidence, the judge found that the defendants did not show a compelling interest to meet the high burden required by the application of strict scrutiny to these laws.

    The California statutes at issue included the following: 1) the statute that provides for teacher tenure after a two year probationary period; 2) the statutes that provide due process for tenured teachers that school districts intend to terminate; and 3) the statute that provides for layoffs on the basis of seniority, with limited exceptions. The judge held that each of these statutes denied students a quality education by allowing poor teachers to remain in the classroom. While the opinion mentions that two unions representing teachers were permitted to intervene, there is little mention of any evidence supportive of the statutes at issue, which might have provided the justification required to establish their constitutionality.