The fight to go to S.F. public schools
As the San Francisco Unified School District struggles over the use of race in school assignments to achieve diversity, history reveals a time when Asian Americans were not welcomed in the citys schools.
In September 1884, Chinese immigrants Joseph and Mary Tape tried to enroll their U.S.-born daughter, Mamie, in Spring Valley School. Principal Jennie Hurley refused to admit Mamie, citing school board policy against the attendance of Chinese in the citys public schools.
Until 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, school districts could force students of one race to attend racially segregated schools, under the separate but equal doctrine. The problem for San Francisco school officials in 1884 was that a separate school for Chinese American students did not exist. So the Tape family sued the principal in Tape v. Hurley. School officials defended their position, arguing that since the California constitution declared Chinese to be dangerous to the well-being of the state, the city had no obligation to educate Chinese students.
The courts disagreed. The trial court ordered school officials to admit Mamie Tape. The California Supreme Court also supported the Tapes, citing the state law requiring all children to be admitted; only children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases could be excluded. So Mamie Tape had the same right to enter a public school that any other child had.
School officials did not give up. Since the separate but equal doctrine was not challenged by the California courts, school officials avoided Mamies admission to Spring Valley by establishing a site for a new Chinese school. Thus, Mamie Tape was never admitted to Spring Valley, and forced to attend the new separate school for Chinese.
As anti-Asian sentiments resurfaced again in the early 1900s, San Francisco school officials decided to exclude Japanese and Korean students from white schools as well. In 1906, the Anti-Japanese League convinced the school superintendent to move all Japanese and Korean students to the Chinese school. The Korean students obliged, but every Japanese family refused.
An incredible international incident followed. The Japanese Consul wrote a formal letter of protest, and political leaders in Washington got involved. At the time, Japan represented a military power, having defeated Russia in war in 1905. The school exclusion inspired strong anti-American sentiment in Japan, and the U.S. Ambassador in Tokyo feared a hostile reaction.
A meeting of Japanese families in San Francisco attracted 1,200 participants who voted to support a lawsuit Aoki v. Dean attacking segregation. President Theodore Roosevelt dispatched a cabinet member to San Francisco to encourage the school board to rescind its order. Roosevelt wanted to maintain good relations with Japan. He criticized San Franciscos policies in his state of the union address in 1906, and called for citizenship rights for Japanese immigrants. He issued a report, labeling Japanese students among the very best. Japanese officials were pleased, but San Francisco officials stood firm.
In the end, a political compromise was reached. Anti-Japanese sentiment remained strong in California, as calls for a Japanese exclusion law akin to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act were launched. However, because of Japans military might, Roosevelt felt that the U.S. could not act in a similar, unilateral manner. He convinced San Francisco to rescind its segregation order, if he could persuade Japan to severely limit the number of laborers to the U.S. In the end, he negotiated this Gentlemans Agreement with Japan, and in return, Japanese wives and children could join laborers already here, and their children could attend white schools. Steps toward diversifying San Francisco schools finally began.
Bill Ong Hing is a Professor of law and Asian American studies at U.C. Davis. |