Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974

The Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 (EEOA), like its close relative the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has its roots in the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. For matters of language, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is the most pertinent aspect of that law. It provides that “no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Lau v. Nichols (1974), the Court held that Chinese students who were limited in their English proficiency had been denied their rights under Title VI by a refusal to provide them with special programming. Essentially, the Court stated that “there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curriculum,” because students who do not understand English are “effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.”

The findings in Lau were based on the Civil Rights Act, but Congress quickly codified Lau in new legislation called the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974. The relevant section, 1703(f), provides as follows:

Ironically, many in the civil rights community opposed this legislation because it was part of an effort to stop the use of busing to achieve desegregated schools. The EEOA's companion piece of legislation was titled the “Student Transportation Moratorium Act” and was intended by President Nixon to stop school busing and preserve “neighborhood” schools.

Perhaps the most important feature of the EEOA is that it allows for private right of action, the right by an individual to bring suit against a government entity. The act clearly states that “an individual denied an equal educational opportunity … may institute a federal court action.” The ability to file a private right of action has become critical following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, in 2001, requiring private litigants to establish intentional discrimination while proceeding under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1974. The attorney general of the United States is also empowered to file suits under the EEOA, a power rarely used. Most of the work of ensuring an equal educational opportunity has been generated by parents and advocacy organizations.

Neither Title VI, the Lau decision itself, nor the EEOA defines the meaning of “appropriate action to eliminate language barriers.” Several court cases took up this task. In the late 1970s, African American students in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who spoke a vernacular of English referred to as “Black English” or “Ebonics,” attempted to use the EEOA to improve their instruction in Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children v. Ann Arbor School District Board in 1978. The students succeeded in convincing the federal judge that they suffered from a “language barrier” “that impede[d] equal participation by its students in its instructional programs” (20 U.S.C. Section 1703 (f)). This case was not appealed to an appellate court and, as a consequence, has not become a precedent followed by other courts.

...