Amended in Assembly April 7, 2016

California Legislature—2015–16 Regular Session

Assembly Concurrent ResolutionNo. 146


Introduced by Assembly Member Weber

(Principal coauthors: Senators Anderson, Block, and Hueso)

begin insert

(Coauthors: Assembly Members Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Lopez, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk, Williams, and Wood)

end insert

February 29, 2016


Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 146—Relative to commemorating the 85th anniversary of Roberto Alvarez v. Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

ACR 146, as amended, Weber. Civil rights: Roberto Alvarez v. Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District.

This measure would commemorate March 30, 2016, as the 85th anniversary of the historic ruling in the case of Roberto Alvarez v. Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, which invalidated that district’s attempt to restrict its pupils of Mexican heritage to an inferior, segregated educational experience.

Fiscal committee: no.

P2    1WHEREAS, The history of the struggle for school desegregation
2in the United States is not often associated with the Mexican
3community in southern California, and is usually thought to have
4begun with the landmark 1954 United States Supreme Court case
5of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) 347 U.S. 483;
6and

7WHEREAS, The earliest court cases concerning school
8desegregation actually occurred in the Southwest and California
9in the 1930s; and

10WHEREAS, In these early school desegregation cases, Mexican
11immigrants and their communities were the groups targeted for
12segregated treatment by school officials; and

13WHEREAS, A case of particular importance, which has begun
14to take a special place in the social history of civil rights, took
15place in San Diego County during the 1930s, in the then-rural
16community of Lemon Grove; and

17WHEREAS, This important case is Roberto Alvarez v. Board
18of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, which was the
19first successful case challenging school segregation in the United
20States; and

21WHEREAS, The Alvarez case is important because it was an
22historic first, and because it was an example of a community taking
23action and establishing the rights of their children to equal
24education, despite the local, regional, and national sentiment of
25that era that favored not just segregation, but the actual deportation
26from the United States of persons of Mexican heritage; and

27WHEREAS, In January 1931, the principal of the Lemon Grove
28Grammar School, acting under instructions from the school district
29trustees, stood in the schoolhouse door and refused to admit
30Mexican pupils, who had previously constituted almost half of the
31school’s student body; and many of the excluded children were
32American citizens by birth who came from families that had lived
33in Lemon Grove for many years; and

34WHEREAS, The school district trustees directed the Mexican
35pupils to attend school in a substandard, two-room building; and

36WHEREAS, The parents of the excluded pupils refused to accept
37this injustice, and organized themselves into the Comite de Vecinos
38de Lemon Grove (the Lemon Grove Neighbors Committee), sought
P3    1help from the local Mexican community at large, and eventually
2obtained the professional services of distinguished San Diego
3attorneys Fred C. Noon and A.C. Brinkely; and

4WHEREAS, A petition for a writ of mandate was filed in the
5San Diego County Superior Court challenging the actions of the
6Lemon Grove School District in segregating the Mexican pupils,
7and a young pupil named Roberto Alvarez was chosen as the lead
8plaintiff because he was an outstanding student with excellent
9proficiency in English; and

10WHEREAS, The actions of the Lemon Grove School District,
11and the policy of segregating Mexican and Mexican American
12pupils, had significant support in San Diego County as well as
13other parts of the state; and in January 1931, a bill was introduced
14in the State Assembly by a member from Santa Barbara County
15that would have legalized the segregation of Mexican and Mexican
16American pupils in California schools; and

17WHEREAS, Ultimately, however, the Honorable Claude
18Chambers’, Judge of the San Diego County Superior Court, issued
19a ruling granting the writ of mandate sought by the parents of the
20excluded pupils; and

21WHEREAS, Judge Chambers’ order, issued on March 30, 1931,
22deemed the separation of the children to be an illegal segregation
23that had no basis in California law, and he ordered the school
24district to immediately reinstate the pupils who had been excluded;
25and

26WHEREAS, The Lemon Grove School District did not appeal
27Judge Chambers’ order, and it duly readmitted the excluded pupils;
28now, therefore be it

29Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate
30thereof concurring,
That the Legislature of the State of California
31recognizes and commemorates March 30, 2016, as the 85th
32anniversary of the historic ruling in the case of Roberto Alvarez
33v. Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, which
34invalidated that district’s attempt to restrict its pupils of Mexican
35heritage to an inferior, segregated educational experience; and be
36it further

37Resolved, That schools and community organizations throughout
38the state are encouraged to acknowledge this historic anniversary
39with appropriate activities; and be it further

P4    1Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies
2of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.


CORRECTIONS:

Heading--Lines 2 and 13.




O

Corrected 4-11-16—See last page.     98