Critical Race Praxis: Race Theory and Political Lawyering Practice in Post-Civil Rights America

Item

Title

Critical Race Praxis: Race Theory and Political Lawyering Practice in Post-Civil Rights America

Abstract/Description

At the end of the twentieth century, the legal status of Chinese Americans in San Francisco's public schools turns on a requested judicial finding that a desegregation order originally designed to dismantle a system subordinating nonwhites now invidiously discriminates against Chinese Americans. Brian Ho, Patrick Wong, and Hilary Chen, plaintiffs in Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, represent "all [16,000] children of Chinese descent" eligible to attend San Francisco's public schools. Their high-profile suit, filed by small-firm attorneys, challenges the validity of a 1983 judicial consent decree desegregating San Francisco's schools. Approved in response to an NAACP class action charging educational discrimination by whites, the consent decree mandates racial and ethnic diversity in student bodies and sets for each "magnet" school a forty-percent cap for students from any racial or ethnic group. Early on, Chinese Americans benefited from the decree's diversity mandate, substantially increasing their enrollments.

Author/creator

Yamamoto, Eric K.

Date

1997

In publication

Michigan Law Review

Volume

95

Issue

4

Pages

821-900

Resource type

en Research/Scholarly Media

Background/context type

en Conceptual

IRE Approach/Concept

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Praxis

Peer reviewed

en Yes

URL

Publisher Webpage

Open Access PDF (via Publisher Webpage)

Publication Description (via ScholarSpace)

Open Access PDF (via ScholarSpace)

Citation

Yamamoto, E. (1997). Critical Race Praxis: Race Theory and Political Lawyering Practice in Post-Civil Rights America. Michigan Law Review, 95(4), 821–900.

Cited in

Critical Race Praxis as School Formation: Promise, Challenges, and Contradictions

Item sets

Open Access Resource (IRE)

Critical IRE

• Email