Erasing Race, Dismissing Class: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

Camille Walsh
{"title":"Erasing Race, Dismissing Class: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez","authors":"Camille Walsh","doi":"10.15779/Z388Q15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the culmination of strategic tendencies to combine demands for recognition of class-based and race-based discrimination in the early 1970s. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez was a pivotal case during this period. The Rodriguez claimants were low-income children and families of color whose school district was dramatically unequal in every respect when compared to the local, wealthy, white school district at issue in the case. The Court treated, however, the claims of race and class discrimination that the claimants put forward as entirely independent, and ignored the plaintiffs race claim in order to focus on class alone, which the Court dismissed as a category not entitled to constitutional protection. This article argues that the outcome in Rodriguez was directly tied to legal frameworks that negated the possibility of protecting more than one constitutional category at the same time. The Court's decision provided an economic privacy and local fiscal control rationale that solidified the separation of race and class as categories of constitutional analysis, to the detriment of future claims at the intersection of race and class remedies for segregated and unequal schools.","PeriodicalId":408518,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z388Q15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This article examines the culmination of strategic tendencies to combine demands for recognition of class-based and race-based discrimination in the early 1970s. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez was a pivotal case during this period. The Rodriguez claimants were low-income children and families of color whose school district was dramatically unequal in every respect when compared to the local, wealthy, white school district at issue in the case. The Court treated, however, the claims of race and class discrimination that the claimants put forward as entirely independent, and ignored the plaintiffs race claim in order to focus on class alone, which the Court dismissed as a category not entitled to constitutional protection. This article argues that the outcome in Rodriguez was directly tied to legal frameworks that negated the possibility of protecting more than one constitutional category at the same time. The Court's decision provided an economic privacy and local fiscal control rationale that solidified the separation of race and class as categories of constitutional analysis, to the detriment of future claims at the intersection of race and class remedies for segregated and unequal schools.
消除种族,解散阶级:圣安东尼奥独立学区诉罗德里格斯案
本文考察了在20世纪70年代早期,将要求承认基于阶级和基于种族的歧视结合起来的战略倾向的高潮。圣安东尼奥独立学区诉罗德里格斯案是这一时期的一个关键案例。罗德里格斯的原告是低收入家庭的孩子和有色人种家庭,他们的学区在各个方面都与本案中涉及的当地富裕的白人学区严重不平等。然而,法院将原告提出的种族和阶级歧视主张视为完全独立的主张,而忽略原告的种族主张,只关注阶级,法院将其视为不受宪法保护的类别而予以驳回。本文认为,罗德里格斯案的结果与法律框架直接相关,该框架否定了同时保护多个宪法类别的可能性。最高法院的裁决提供了一个经济隐私和地方财政控制的理由,巩固了种族和阶级的分离作为宪法分析的范畴,损害了未来在种族和阶级交叉的情况下对种族隔离和不平等学校的补救要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信