151:
relations between communities of color and white communities must be established to integrate
Mexican Americans into all schools. Many of the school district's leaders were against busing white children to school with children of color. The concept of the neighborhood school, which the Concerned Neighbors group enforced, was highly imposed by those against integration of schools as it ensured that students would only be able to attend schools which they lived by (White, 2017). In 1988, "74.8% of students within CCISD were minority, and 25.2% were Anglo,". The local
138:
American students are an identifiable, ethnic minority class sufficient to bring them within the protection of Brown v. Board of
Education". The next day, June 4, 1970, Judge Seals stated that the school district was ordered to implement a new desegregation plan which would be put into effect for the 1971-1972 school years.
137:
did not apply to
Mexican Americans because they were not being segregated. HĂ©ctor P. GarcĂa testified that Mexican Americans have historically been discriminated against in society and school, especially in the Corpus Christi area. June 3, 1970, marked the day that Judge Seals declared that "Mexican
92:
The court hearings began in May 1970. Cisneros testified that
Mexican Americans are an identifiable minority that suffered discrimination and segregation and deserve the same protection as African Americans under the rights of the Brown v. Board of Education case. Corpus Christi Independent School
155:
newspaper released an article which stated that, "schools are in danger of becoming segregated again as a result of rising
Hispanic isolation... and outmoded integration plans,". After the Cisneros v. CCISD case was settled, the school district was officially declared as being "no longer divided
62:
school. The school they were attending was a formerly all-black school and had neglected the sanitary care provided to wealthier schools. For two years, Cisneros attempted to persuade the school board to take action to fix the deprived schools across Corpus
Christi but was unsuccessful. This led
150:
ruling, there was unevenness in the majority-to-minority students in the district. There were also still issues with resolving the segregation in the neighborhood. In the 1970s, despite the court ruling, CCISD did not immediately change its actions to benefit
Mexican American students. Better
97:
segregation, separation of race enforced by the law, and intentionally maintained a "dual school system," where lower class students were treated differently than higher class students. CCISD's actions in question included "drawing school boundaries, locating schools, assigning teachers, and
390:
71:
Union provided legal aid and assistance to the twenty-three families who were the plaintiffs. Through an investigation of school lines and the separating of students from different social classes, it was revealed that CCISD violated the
54:
forbade discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and national origin. Though these laws were established, discriminatory practices were still occurring in the school system and the Corpus
Christi Independent School District.
25:
73:
385:
395:
28:
which determined that
Mexican Americans were an "identifiable ethnic-minority group," and were subject to discriminatory educational practices. The case involved the
178:
Donato, Rubén; Hanson, Jarrod (June 2012). "Legally White, Socially 'Mexican': The
Politics of De Jure and De Facto School Segregation in the American Southwest".
29:
400:
380:
344:
58:
In 1966, the children of Jose Cisneros complained to their father about the run-down nature and poor sanitary conditions of their
68:
98:
controlling transfer systems in ways that ensured that Mexican Americans attended segregated schools,". The ruling of
84:
and filed a lawsuit against CCISD for their acts of segregation and discrimination against Mexican American students.
46:
410:
106:
due to the segregation and discrimination that the school district was acting against Mexican American students.
362:
77:
51:
405:
64:
315:
283:
255:
59:
41:
32:
of Texas, accused of segregating and performing discriminatory acts towards Mexican American students.
353:
279:: Mexican Americans, African Americans, and the Failed Promise of the Desegregation of Schools
216:
187:
191:
252:'Cisneros v. CCISD' The desegregation of the Corpus Christi Independent School District
374:
110:
274:
129:
If CCISD is a dual system, how can a unitary system be established and maintained?".
50:, stated that any segregation in the public school system was unconstitutional. The
152:
81:
312:: A History of Racism, Segregation, and Continued Inequality for Minority Students
319:
287:
259:
217:"Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD · South Texas Stories · Bell Library Exhibits"
126:
If CCISD is a dual system, is the segregation de jure or de facto on a basis?
113:, stated that he was investigating five issues as determined by the case:
120:
If Brown applies to Mexican Americans, does it apply in the instant case?
94:
391:
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas cases
117:
Does Brown versus the Board of Education apply to Mexican Americans?
21:
Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District (CCISD)
80:. In 1968, Cisneros and other concerned parents hired lawyer
277:
Jose Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District
16:
Court case about discrimination against Mexican Americans
63:
Cisneros to seek aid from the Civil Rights Commissioner
340:, 330 F. Supp. 1377 (S.D. Tex. 1971) is available from:
338:
Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District
123:
Is CCISD a dual (segregated) or unitary school system?
173:
171:
169:
109:
The seated judge for the case, District Court Judge
156:unconstitutionally along racial lines" in 1992
8:
386:United States school desegregation case law
396:Corpus Christi Independent School District
67:. The local Corpus Christi chapter of the
30:Corpus Christi Independent School District
40:In 1954, a related case that dealt with
165:
133:In the court case, CCISD argued that
24:was a 1970 federal court case in the
7:
301:
299:
297:
245:
243:
241:
239:
237:
211:
209:
207:
205:
203:
201:
192:10.17763/haer.82.2.a562315u72355106
14:
69:United Steel Workers of America
401:1970 in United States case law
1:
250:Trevino, John Albert (2010).
93:District was found guilty of
381:History of Mexican Americans
146:In the years following the
135:Brown v. Board of Education
100:Brown v. Board of Education
47:Brown v. Board of Education
427:
306:Jones, Jamie Lynn (2018).
273:White, Brittany R (2017).
180:Harvard Educational Review
26:Southern District of Texas
52:Civil Rights Act of 1964
60:Corpus Christi, Texas
44:in a school setting,
42:racial discrimination
308:Fifty Years after
411:1970 in education
310:Cisneros v. CCISD
148:Cisneros v. CCISD
104:Cisneros v. CCISD
418:
367:
361:
358:
352:
349:
343:
324:
323:
303:
292:
291:
270:
264:
263:
247:
232:
231:
229:
227:
213:
196:
195:
175:
78:Civil Rights Act
65:HĂ©ctor P. GarcĂa
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
417:
416:
415:
371:
370:
365:
359:
356:
350:
347:
341:
333:
328:
327:
305:
304:
295:
272:
271:
267:
249:
248:
235:
225:
223:
215:
214:
199:
177:
176:
167:
162:
144:
90:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
424:
422:
414:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
373:
372:
369:
368:
354:Google Scholar
332:
331:External links
329:
326:
325:
293:
265:
233:
221:www.tamucc.edu
197:
186:(2): 202–225.
164:
163:
161:
158:
143:
140:
131:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
89:
86:
74:14th Amendment
37:
34:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
423:
412:
409:
407:
406:1970 in Texas
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
378:
376:
364:
355:
346:
345:CourtListener
339:
335:
334:
330:
321:
317:
313:
309:
302:
300:
298:
294:
289:
285:
281:
280:
276:
269:
266:
261:
257:
253:
246:
244:
242:
240:
238:
234:
222:
218:
212:
210:
208:
206:
204:
202:
198:
193:
189:
185:
181:
174:
172:
170:
166:
159:
157:
154:
149:
141:
139:
136:
128:
125:
122:
119:
116:
115:
114:
112:
111:Woodrow Seals
107:
105:
101:
96:
87:
85:
83:
82:James De Anda
79:
75:
70:
66:
61:
56:
53:
49:
48:
43:
35:
33:
31:
27:
23:
22:
337:
311:
307:
278:
275:
268:
251:
224:. Retrieved
220:
183:
179:
153:Caller Times
147:
145:
134:
132:
108:
103:
99:
91:
57:
45:
39:
20:
19:
18:
102:applied to
375:Categories
320:2171754947
314:(Thesis).
288:1910128743
282:(Thesis).
254:(Thesis).
160:References
88:Court case
36:Background
260:759504515
336:Text of
316:ProQuest
284:ProQuest
256:ProQuest
76:and the
142:Outcome
95:de jure
366:
363:Justia
360:
357:
351:
348:
342:
318:
286:
258:
226:May 6,
228:2023
188:doi
377::
296:^
236:^
219:.
200:^
184:82
182:.
168:^
322:.
290:.
262:.
230:.
194:.
190::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.