The ADA--A Phenomenal Victory for Civil Rights (Closing Remarks)

(Excerpt) The topic of civil rights is a topic that I have thought about for a long time and written about and feel very committed to, and I thank the editors of the St. John\u27s Journal of Legal Commentary for inviting me to give the closing remarks. I am heartened by the commitment of our students at St. John\u27s University School of Law in recognizing the importance of the rights of the disabled and civil rights in general. First, I would like to place my summation in the context of civil rights, which is what I know most about. Some of our speakers today have taken us back historically; Judge Re to Roman law, another speaker to Ancient Greece, and yet another to the Thirteenth Century. What I am going to do is move us closer in time to 1954 and the Supreme Court\u27s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now you might ask, What does Brown have to do with employment rights of the disabled? Wasn\u27t it a case about race and education? Technically, yes but philosophically and politically it was not. In fact, Brown\u27s central statement was about the right to be free from state action implying inferiority. In other words, for the Court in Brown, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees each of us the right to equal dignity and respect at the hands of government. Now, despite all of the debate about judicial activism and judicial restraint, we know that courts actually frame their decisions within the cultural paradigms of the accepted social values of the day. In that sense, Brown can be viewed as reflecting what were the emerging understandings, sensibilities, and perspectives captured in the timeframe of 1954

Multilingualism and Multiculturalism: Transatlantic Discourses on Language, Identity, and Immigrant Schooling

An essay is presented on multiculturalism and the rights of linguistic minority children in education. The impact of communication on the ethnic identity, social cohesion and nation\u27s interest and the need of balance while defining policies by the federal government of the U.S. is discussed. The transatlantic discourse in multilingualism and its impact on the immigrants is also discussed

The Common School Before and After Brown: Democracy, Equality, and the Productivity Agenda

(Excerpt) In recent years, economic forces of global magnitude have placed the substance and value of education in the national spotlight. With jobs for college graduates in short supply, political pundits and news commentators have placed different estimates on the worth of a college degree and the continued utility of the liberal arts. Economists tie specific educational factors to future income. A high school diploma, we are told, can translate into an additional $300,000 in lifetime salary. A highly effective kindergarten teacher likewise carries a value-added benefit of$320,000, the additional income that a classroom of today’s students may earn over the course of their collective careers. This frenzy over outcomes has heightened public fears and influenced attitudes and behavior. Educated parents rush to enroll their preschoolers in Chinese immersion programs to enhance future career options. As the documentary film Waiting for “Superman” dramatically portrays, poor and working class parents agonize over lotteries that may or may not offer their children admission to academically challenging charter schools, run by private organizations with public funds. Current federal and state policy initiatives, along with local practices, both mirror and energize this bottom-line mentality. States feverishly compete for federal funds that used to be allocated according to student need, buying into a strict regime of testing, standards, and accountability as they “race to the top.” The federal Secretary of Education assures us that “[i]nvesting in this new kind of education will sustain the country’s economy” and will even prevent a recurrence of the present economic crisis. Local school officials use all of the tools in their power to raise standardized test scores, the talisman of academic success. Parents worry that their children will be left behind. Teachers worry that their jobs are on the line. To be sure, no one would deny the connection between education and economic success or the value of quality schooling. The fact that education is critical to the individual and to the nation is irrefutable. Holding schools accountable for student learning is unquestionable. Yet, listening to the constant drumbeat of quantitative outcomes and productivity, one senses that schooling has taken a definitive turn from the distant and not-so-distant past. Lost in this narrative is a concern for developing responsible citizens (the goal of early school reformers) and for providing equal opportunities based on individual student differences (the goal of modern-day civil rights activists)

The Unstoppable Spread of English in the Global University

As English has spread across higher education worldwide, it has generated ongoing debate and a wealth of scholarship raising academic and national concerns, but with little, if any, pause or retreat on policies and practices. This article examines that puzzling disconnect within the broader framework of the rise of English as the dominant lingua franca, its historical grounding, its social and economic implications, and its diverse course within Europe and postcolonial countries

Rights and Wrongs in the Debate Over Single-Sex Schooling

(Excerpt) In September 2011 an article entitled The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling appeared in the journal Science. Unlike articles typically published in peer-reviewed journals, the primary intent in this case was not to inform the scholarly community but rather to accomplish larger political and legal ends. Co-authored by eight prominent psychologists and neuroscientists, it immediately made the front pages of national newspapers and soon took the international media by storm. From the United Kingdom to Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa, it gave rise to a global debate about the pros and cons of single-sex schooling. As directly intended, the article has since given “scientific” legitimacy to a broad-scale attack spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), with ongoing support from an organization formed by the article’s authors to promote coeducation. The “immediate” targets of that attack are certain coeducational public schools that now offer separate classes for girls and boys in core subjects. The ACLU maintains that these programs are following practices grounded in disputed theories claiming hard-wired differences between the sexes. The “ultimate” targets are the very concept of single-sex schooling and the federal regulatory amendments that have permitted the approach to gain hold. In a series of court challenges and cease-and-desist letters sent to school districts, the ACLU has charged not only that specific policies and classroom practices violate Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also that the revised Title IX regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 2006 are themselves unsound as a matter of law and policy. Most significantly, those revised regulations expressly afford school districts flexibility in creating separate classes in coed schools. Tangled up in the ACLU’s claims and the consequent litigation are two landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court: Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision striking down racially segregated public schools, and United States v. Virginia, the 1996 ruling declaring unconstitutional the exclusion of women from the state-supported Virginia Military Institute. The arguments advanced in the Science article and ACLU documents and press releases are now shaping the debate on single-sex schooling across the globe, with serious implications for education policy, especially in the United States. This Article uses the ACLU challenges, together with the Science article, as a framework for examining the forces and motives that initially inspired and continue to derail the current revival of single-sex programs; the rights and wrongs that animate the ongoing controversy; and the measures needed to set the discussion on a track that is ideologically neutral, legally and empirically sound, and globally relevant. In the process, it analyzes a sample of studies commonly invoked by opponents, as well as other findings refuting those arguments, and weighs the cultural, political, and economic factors that may affect outcomes among different student populations, both in the United States and abroad. Overall, it presents a nuanced argument that denounces hard-wired biological justifications for separating students by sex while offering social rationales and research evidence supporting the benefits that some students gain from evenhandedly designed programs that comply with the law. In the end, it offers a transnational perspective that underscores the many complexities underlying claims about the “end of men” and the “rise of women.

Legal Dimensions of Educational Vouchers

(Excerpt) This panel brings together four experts in the field of law and education, each presenting interesting and individual views on the legal and policy dimensions of the educational voucher question. All of them have thoughtfully written on this topic while some have played a role in key litigation and legislative efforts. Their insights shed light on the contentious questions underlying what has become one of the most heated debates in education today

Legal Dimensions of Educational Vouchers

(Excerpt) This panel brings together four experts in the field of law and education, each presenting interesting and individual views on the legal and policy dimensions of the educational voucher question. All of them have thoughtfully written on this topic while some have played a role in key litigation and legislative efforts. Their insights shed light on the contentious questions underlying what has become one of the most heated debates in education today

Concluding Remarks

(Excerpt) The topic of our afternoon panel, Achieving Diversity in the Classroom, grows out of the Supreme Court\u27s most recent landmark decisions on affirmative action. In Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, a severely divided Court affirmed the narrow use of race in university admissions. The Court, however, made clear that institutions could not base their decisions solely on race but must seriously consider all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment