User:Derek.hx08/Tape v. Hurley: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Derek.hx08 (talk | contribs)
121 edits
No edit summary
Derek.hx08 (talk | contribs)
121 edits
No edit summary
Line 42: Line 42:
===== Chinese School =====
===== Chinese School =====
Targeted by the restrictive education law, Chinese immigrants found [[Independent school|private schools]] to educate their children. Some Chinese immigrants started Chinese Language School which enabled immigrants taught Chinese to next generation. Other children of immigrants were educated in religious school and, as a result, were christianized.<ref>{{Citation|last=Rincón|first=Alejandra|title=Immigrants’ Efforts to Access Public Schools and Higher Education in the United States|date=2020|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-74078-2_93-1|work=Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education|pages=1–28|editor-last=Papa|editor-first=Rosemary|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-74078-2_93-1|isbn=978-3-319-74078-2|access-date=2021-11-01}}</ref> Many parents wrote a letter to education board, expressing the need to establish a Chinese School for all Chinese immigrants in San Fransisco. The opening of the new [[Oriental Public School|Chinese school]] was not until September 1859, as the education board of San Fransisco blamed for lack of funding. <ref name=":0">Kuo, Joyce. “Excluded, Segregated and Forgotten: A Historical View of the Discrimination of Chinese Americans in Public Schools.” ''Asian American Law Journal'' 5 (1998): 181</ref>The Chinese school operates as a day school for only nine months due to the low attendance rate<ref name=":1">Hendrick, Irving G. “Public Policy Toward the Education of Non-white Minority Group Children in California, 1849-1970” National Institution of Education Project No.NE-G-00-3-0082, March 1975.</ref>. One reason for the low attendance rate is the Chinese's lost control over the school administration.<ref name=":0" /> Superintendent James Denman blamed the Chinese for the school's failure, expressing that Chinese immigrants had no interest in learning American ways, and it is not the school system's fault <ref name=":1" />. Though Chinese school stopped its [[day school]] operation in June 1860, it continued as a night school for another eight months before closing. Later, the school was reopened and renamed Chinese Primary School in 1885, the Oriental School in 1906, and continuously operated as Gordon J. Lau School <ref>{{Cite web|title=School History {{!}} SFUSD|url=https://www.sfusd.edu/school/gordon-j-lau-elementary-school/about-us/school-history|access-date=2021-11-01|website=www.sfusd.edu}}</ref>.
Targeted by the restrictive education law, Chinese immigrants found [[Independent school|private schools]] to educate their children. Some Chinese immigrants started Chinese Language School which enabled immigrants taught Chinese to next generation. Other children of immigrants were educated in religious school and, as a result, were christianized.<ref>{{Citation|last=Rincón|first=Alejandra|title=Immigrants’ Efforts to Access Public Schools and Higher Education in the United States|date=2020|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-74078-2_93-1|work=Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education|pages=1–28|editor-last=Papa|editor-first=Rosemary|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-74078-2_93-1|isbn=978-3-319-74078-2|access-date=2021-11-01}}</ref> Many parents wrote a letter to education board, expressing the need to establish a Chinese School for all Chinese immigrants in San Fransisco. The opening of the new [[Oriental Public School|Chinese school]] was not until September 1859, as the education board of San Fransisco blamed for lack of funding. <ref name=":0">Kuo, Joyce. “Excluded, Segregated and Forgotten: A Historical View of the Discrimination of Chinese Americans in Public Schools.” ''Asian American Law Journal'' 5 (1998): 181</ref>The Chinese school operates as a day school for only nine months due to the low attendance rate<ref name=":1">Hendrick, Irving G. “Public Policy Toward the Education of Non-white Minority Group Children in California, 1849-1970” National Institution of Education Project No.NE-G-00-3-0082, March 1975.</ref>. One reason for the low attendance rate is the Chinese's lost control over the school administration.<ref name=":0" /> Superintendent James Denman blamed the Chinese for the school's failure, expressing that Chinese immigrants had no interest in learning American ways, and it is not the school system's fault <ref name=":1" />. Though Chinese school stopped its [[day school]] operation in June 1860, it continued as a night school for another eight months before closing. Later, the school was reopened and renamed Chinese Primary School in 1885, the Oriental School in 1906, and continuously operated as Gordon J. Lau School <ref>{{Cite web|title=School History {{!}} SFUSD|url=https://www.sfusd.edu/school/gordon-j-lau-elementary-school/about-us/school-history|access-date=2021-11-01|website=www.sfusd.edu}}</ref>.
===== Tapes Family =====
Mamie Tape was a [[Chinese American]] born in [[San Francisco]]. Her parents, Joseph C.Tape (趙洽) (1852–1935), and [[Mary Tape|Mary McGladery Tape]] (1857–1934), were both immigrants from [[China]] arriving in California in 1864 and 1868, respectively. <ref name=":3" />Joseph Tape was born in [[Guangdong]] province in China and arrived in the United States at the age of twelve. Mary Tape was an orphan who grew up in [[Shanghai]] and moved to California at eleven. Mary Tape lived in the Ladies' Protection and Relief Society in her early life, where she learned English and American culture.<ref>{{Cite web|title=BAHA :: The Tape Family of Russell Street|url=http://berkeleyheritage.com/essays/tape_family.html|access-date=2021-11-01|website=berkeleyheritage.com}}</ref>Joseph and Mary Tape met at Mary's home Ladies' Protection and Relief Society and married in 1875. They had four children Mamie, Frank, Emily, Gertrude.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=admin|date=2015-04-07|title=“We Have Always Lived as Americans”|url=https://chineseamerican.nyhistory.org/we-have-always-lived-as-americans/|access-date=2021-11-01|website=Chinese American: Exclusion/Inclusion|language=en-US}}</ref> Joseph Tape was a businessman and an interpreter for the Chinese consulate, while Mary Tape was an amateur photographer and artist. They lived as a prosperous middle-class family and settled in the [[Cow Hollow, San Francisco|Cow Hollow]] neighborhood of San Francisco, a predominantly white community.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kieun|date=2020-06-01|title=Mamie Tape and an untold story of a fight for desegregation in America|url=https://www.talesofawesomeness.com/mamie-tape-and-an-untold-story-of-a-fight-for-desegregation-in-america/|access-date=2021-11-01|website=Tales of Awesomeness|language=en-US}}</ref>

== Incident ==
== Incident ==
In 1880, the California state legislature passed the Political Code, which prevented school districts from refusing admission of non-white students. Despite the existence of the state law, many Chinese children were denied entry to public school since the prejudices against Chinese immigrants are still held by many instructors like Superintendent James Denman<ref name=":1" />. In 1884, Mamie, then eight years old <ref>{{Cite web|last=Pruitt|first=Sarah|title=The 8-Year-Old Chinese American Girl Who Helped Desegregate Schools—in 1885|url=https://www.history.com/news/chinese-american-segregation-san-francisco-mamie-tape-case|access-date=2021-11-01|website=HISTORY|language=en}}</ref>, was denied admission to the all-white Spring Valley School because of her [[Han Chinese|Chinese]] ancestry. Joseph Tape immediately contacted the Chinese consulate for help. Joseph Tape and Mary Tape then sued San Fransisco City and County Board of Education for refusing their American-born children to enter the public school.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Jewell|first=Joseph O.|date=2014|title=Other(ing) People's Children: Social Mothering, Schooling, and Race in Late Nineteenth Century New Orleans and San Francisco|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43496989|journal=Race, Gender & Class|volume=21|issue=3/4|pages=138–155|issn=1082-8354}}</ref> The defendant in the lawsuit was school principal Miss Jennie M.A. Hurley, who was supported by the [[San Francisco Board of Education]], arguing that Miss Hurley fulfilled her duties as principal of school<ref name=":2" />. The Education Board further stated that school principal had the rights to prevent Chinese and Mongolian children from entering the class.<ref name=":2" />
In 1880, the California state legislature passed the Political Code, which prevented school districts from refusing admission of non-white students. Despite the existence of the state law, many Chinese children were denied entry to public school since the prejudices against Chinese immigrants are still held by many instructors like Superintendent James Denman<ref name=":1" />. In 1884, Mamie, then eight years old <ref>{{Cite web|last=Pruitt|first=Sarah|title=The 8-Year-Old Chinese American Girl Who Helped Desegregate Schools—in 1885|url=https://www.history.com/news/chinese-american-segregation-san-francisco-mamie-tape-case|access-date=2021-11-01|website=HISTORY|language=en}}</ref>, was denied admission to the all-white Spring Valley School because of her [[Han Chinese|Chinese]] ancestry. Joseph Tape immediately contacted the Chinese consulate for help. Joseph Tape and Mary Tape then sued San Fransisco City and County Board of Education for refusing their American-born children to enter the public school.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Jewell|first=Joseph O.|date=2014|title=Other(ing) People's Children: Social Mothering, Schooling, and Race in Late Nineteenth Century New Orleans and San Francisco|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43496989|journal=Race, Gender & Class|volume=21|issue=3/4|pages=138–155|issn=1082-8354}}</ref> The defendant in the lawsuit was school principal Miss Jennie M.A. Hurley, who was supported by the [[San Francisco Board of Education]], arguing that Miss Hurley fulfilled her duties as principal of school<ref name=":2" />. The Education Board further stated that school principal had the rights to prevent Chinese and Mongolian children from entering the class.<ref name=":2" />

Revision as of 03:12, 25 November 2021

Article Draft

Lead Section

Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, (1885) was a landmark court case in the California Supreme Court in which the Court found the exclusion of a Chinese American student from public school based on her ancestry unlawful. The case effectively ruled that minority children were entitled to attend public school in California. After the Supreme Court’s decision, San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, Andrew J. Moulder, urged the California state assembly to pass new state legislation which enabled the establishment of segregated schools under the separate but equal doctrine, like the contemporaneous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The establishment of the new school marked the continued segregation in the education system in California.

Tape v. Hurley case was brought by the Tape family, who are Chinese immigrants with an American-born child, in the wake of increasing anti-Chinese sentiments in California after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Joseph Tape and Mary Tape were informed that their daughter, Mamie Tape, was denied admission to Spring Valley School due to her ancestry. In 1885, Joseph Tape filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter in local Court to force the education board of San Francisco to allow his daughter to attend the public school near their home.

Tape v. Hurley is widely regarded as the starting point when Asian Americans began challenging school segregation and educational inequality. The result of the case gave greater legal foundations for eliminating segregation in the school system later on. Still, it was not until the mid-twenty century when minorities in California won the final victory on the path of fighting for school desegregation.

Background

Discrimination Against Chinese Immigrants

Chinese immigration started from the California Gold Rush in the 1840s when many Chinese immigrants hailed from South China to California to try their luck.[1]  Most Chinese immigrants were young males with poor financial backgrounds working on mining and railroad constructions. Chinese immigrants were seen as a threat to the white-dominated labor market due to their strong motivations to work. Protest, violence, and harassment toward Chinese immigrants intensified in 1850, and Chinese workers were subsequently excluded from white-dominated unions.[2] The conflicts between Chinese and white were at their peak in the 1870s, when Chinese workers were seen as the primary reasons behind massive layoffs and poor economic conditions in California. Hundreds of Anti-Chinese riots and protests outbreak in the 1870s, and such hatred sentiments lead to legal discrimination against Chinese immigrants extending throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century. Despite anti-Chinese feelings in the United States, the population of Chinese immigrants grew steadily from 1850 to 1880. Until 1880, there were about 105,000 Chinese immigrants in America.[3]

Supreme Court Justice's opinion on Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

"It must be apparent to every one, that it would be better for both races to live apart—and that their only intercourse should be that of foreign commerce. The manners, habits, mode of living, and everything connected with the Chinese prevent the possibility of their ever assimilating with our people. They are a different race, and, even if they could assimilate, assimilation would not be desirable. If they are permitted to come here, there will be at all times conflicts arising out of the antagonism of the races which would only tend to disturb public order and mar the progress of the country. It would be better, therefore, before any larger number should come, that the immigration be stopped."

Stephen Johnson Field

Starting from 1870, state and local law placed a myriad of social and economic restrictions on Chinese immigrants. The Page Act of 1875 was the first restrictive federal immigration law that effectively prohibited Chinese women from entering the United States. In May 1882, the United States Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning all immigration from China and barring all Chinese immigrants from naturalization. In 1891, California explicitly enacted the state law: "The coming of Chinese person into the States, whether subjects of the Chinese Empire or otherwise, is prohibited."[4] During the progressive era, the politicians of both Democratic and Republican parties supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.[5]In 1943, Congress repealed the exclusion laws and permitted 105 Chinese to enter each year. It was not until 1965 when all restrictions of entry were lifted.[6]

Education Legislation

The legislation in the State of California had tremendous changes in the education policies toward minority students from 1850 to 1880. The earliest law establishing public education ("Common Schools") in California was passed in 1851 and divided state funding "by the whole number of children in the State, between the ages of five and eighteen years" without specifying race (Article II, §1).[7] It was repealed and replaced by act of 1852 which also lacked racial restrictions.[8]

Act of 1863 Section 68

Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians, shall not be admitted into the Public Schools; provided, that upon the application of the parents or Guardians of ten or more such colored children, made in writing to the Trustees of any district, said Trustees shall establish a separate School for the education of Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians, and use the Public School funds for the support of the same; and, provided, further, that the Trustees of any School District may establish a separate School, or provide for the education of any less number of Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians, and use the Public School funds for the support of the same, whenever in their judgment it may be necessary for said Public Schools.

-- An Act supplementary to and amendatory of the Act of April sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, entitled an Act to provide for the maintenance and supervision of Common Schools (March 22, 1864)

Growing anti-Chinese sentiments accelerates the changes of racial restrictions in law. The superseding Act of 1855 established Common Schools counted only "the number of white children in each county between the ages of four and eighteen years" (§3, 12, 18) and allowed the establishment of a school upon "the petition of fifty heads of white families" (§22).[9] In 1860, California amended the Act of 1855 to bar "Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians" from public schools, and granted the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, then Andrew J. Moulder, the authority to withhold state funds from districts violating the amended code. The legislation allowed the establishment of segregated schools (§8).[10] The establishment of segregated schools was reiterated in the 1863 law (§68), when the term "Common Schools" was replaced by "Public Schools"[11]

In 1866, the law was rewritten specifically to restrict enrollment in public schools to "all white children, between five and twenty-one years of age" (§53), and required that "children of African or Mongolian descent, and Indian children not living under the care of white persons" be educated in segregated schools (§57), with an exception made for the enrollment of "half-breed Indian children, and Indian children who live in white families or under guardianship of white persons" into public schools upon a majority vote of the local school board (§56). As a last resort, the education of "children, other than white children" was permitted in public schools "provided that a majority of the parents of the children attending such school make no objection, in writing" if there was no other means of educating them (§58). The law now required separate but equal schools (§59).[12] When the law was rewritten in 1870, the restriction of students to white children was retained (§53), and segregated schools were only provided for "children of African descent, and Indian children" (§56), dropping the requirement to educate Chinese children entirely. The potential exceptions for the enrollment of Indian children living with white families or with the written consent of a majority of other parents also disappeared. The separate but equal clause survived (§57).[13]

In 1880, the Political Code was modified to lift the restriction of enrollment to white students (§1662) and the sections requiring separate but equal (§1671) segregated schools (§1669) were repealed.[14]

Chinese School

Targeted by the restrictive education law, Chinese immigrants found private schools to educate their children. Some Chinese immigrants started Chinese Language School which enabled immigrants taught Chinese to next generation. Other children of immigrants were educated in religious school and, as a result, were christianized.[15] Many parents wrote a letter to education board, expressing the need to establish a Chinese School for all Chinese immigrants in San Fransisco. The opening of the new Chinese school was not until September 1859, as the education board of San Fransisco blamed for lack of funding. [16]The Chinese school operates as a day school for only nine months due to the low attendance rate[17]. One reason for the low attendance rate is the Chinese's lost control over the school administration.[16] Superintendent James Denman blamed the Chinese for the school's failure, expressing that Chinese immigrants had no interest in learning American ways, and it is not the school system's fault [17]. Though Chinese school stopped its day school operation in June 1860, it continued as a night school for another eight months before closing. Later, the school was reopened and renamed Chinese Primary School in 1885, the Oriental School in 1906, and continuously operated as Gordon J. Lau School [18].

Incident

In 1880, the California state legislature passed the Political Code, which prevented school districts from refusing admission of non-white students. Despite the existence of the state law, many Chinese children were denied entry to public school since the prejudices against Chinese immigrants are still held by many instructors like Superintendent James Denman[17]. In 1884, Mamie, then eight years old [19], was denied admission to the all-white Spring Valley School because of her Chinese ancestry. Joseph Tape immediately contacted the Chinese consulate for help. Joseph Tape and Mary Tape then sued San Fransisco City and County Board of Education for refusing their American-born children to enter the public school.[20] The defendant in the lawsuit was school principal Miss Jennie M.A. Hurley, who was supported by the San Francisco Board of Education, arguing that Miss Hurley fulfilled her duties as principal of school[20]. The Education Board further stated that school principal had the rights to prevent Chinese and Mongolian children from entering the class.[20]

As a result, Joseph Tape and China consulate wrote a letter to the superintendent Andrew Moulder, highlighting that it is their duty to request the admit of Mamie Tap and all other Chinese students who were born in the United States into public school[16]. Joseph pointed out that the the school board's decision was a violation of the California Political Code in 1880, which stated:

Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be open for the admission of all children between six and twenty-one years of age residing in the district; and the board of trustees, or city board of education, have power to admit adults and children not residing in the district, whenever good reasons exist therefor. Trustees shall have the power to exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases.[21]

Superintendent Andrew Moulder refuted the request from Joseph Tape and further gained support from State superintendent William Welcher. In response, Joseph Tape sued the Education Board of San Fransisco. Tape's attorney, W.F. Gibson, argued on the court that Tapes family was not typical Chinese family who did not want to assimilate in to American society; instead, Tapes family was a common American family who were westernized in terms of customs, beliefs, and language[16]. On January 9, 1885, the Superior Court Justice McGuire ruled in favor of the Tapes, citing the clause of the fourteenth amendment:

To deny a child, born of Chinese parents in this State, entrance to the public schools would be a violation of the law of the State and the Constitution of the United States.[22]

San Francisco School District appealed the lower court's decision to the California Supreme Court, where the justice John R. Sharpstein sustained the verdict of the lower court.[23]


...

In response to the ruling, Mary Tape sent an incensed letter to the San Francisco school board expressing her outrage:

May you Mr. Moulder, never be persecuted like the way you have persecuted little Mamie Tape. is it a disgrace to be Born a Chinese? Didn't God make us all!!! What right! Have you to bar my children out of the school because she is a chinese Descend. Mamie Tape will never attend any of the Chinese schools of your making! Never!!! I will let the world see sir What justice there is When it is govern by the Race prejudice men!!![24]

Aftermath

...

See Also

Reference

  1. ^ Lee, Erika (2001). "Chinese San Francisco, China in America". Reviews in American History. 29 (3): 417–423. doi:10.1353/rah.2001.0048. ISSN 1080-6628.
  2. ^ Fong, Eric W.; Markham, William T. (2002-06). "Anti-Chinese Politics in California in the 1870s: An Intercounty Analysis". Sociological Perspectives. 45 (2): 183–210. doi:10.1525/sop.2002.45.2.183. ISSN 0731-1214. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Cheng, June. "SCSU Research Guides: Chinese-Americans 1785-: Demographics". libguides.southernct.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-01.
  4. ^ "Anti-Chinese Laws". libraryweb.uchastings.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-01.
  5. ^ Price, Polly J. (2018-03). "A "Chinese Wall" at the Nation's Borders: Justice Stephen Field and The Chinese Exclusion Case". Journal of Supreme Court History. 43 (1): 7–26. doi:10.1111/jsch.12167. ISSN 1059-4329. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Milestones: 1866–1898 - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
  7. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act concerning Common Schools and Public Instruction". Second Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 126 p. 491
  8. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act to establish a System of Common Schools". Third Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 53 p. 117.
  9. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act to establish, support, and regulate Common Schools, and to repeal former Acts concerning the same". Sixth Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 185 p. 229. Direct URL
  10. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act amendatory of, and supplementary to, "An Act to establish, support, and Regulate, Common Schools, and to Repeal former Acts concerning the same," approved May third, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five". Eleventh Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 329 p. 325. Direct URL
  11. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act to provide for the Maintenance and Supervision of Common Schools". Fourteenth Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 159 p. 194. Direct URL
  12. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act to provide for a system of Common Schools". Sixteenth Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 342 p. 383. Direct URL
  13. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act to amend an Act to provide for a system of Common Schools". Eighteenth Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 556 p. 824. Direct URL
  14. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act to amend Sections 1517, 1521, 1532, 1543, 1545, 1546, 1548, 1550, 1551, 1564, 1577, 1593, 1597, 1598, 1600, 1611, 1616, 1617, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1624, 1662, 1663, 1665, 1666, 1696, 1701, 1712, 1715, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1774, 1775, 1787, 1788, 1790, 1791, 1817, 1818, 1830, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1861, 1869, 1871, 1874, and to repeal Sections 1551b, 1652, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1777, 1792, 1838, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852, and 1872 of the Political Code, and to add five new sections thereto, to be known as Sections 1565, 1583, 1703, 1704, and 1879, relating to public schools". Twenty-third Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 44 p. 28. Direct URL
  15. ^ Rincón, Alejandra (2020), Papa, Rosemary (ed.), "Immigrants' Efforts to Access Public Schools and Higher Education in the United States", Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–28, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74078-2_93-1, ISBN 978-3-319-74078-2, retrieved 2021-11-01
  16. ^ a b c d Kuo, Joyce. “Excluded, Segregated and Forgotten: A Historical View of the Discrimination of Chinese Americans in Public Schools.” Asian American Law Journal 5 (1998): 181
  17. ^ a b c Hendrick, Irving G. “Public Policy Toward the Education of Non-white Minority Group Children in California, 1849-1970” National Institution of Education Project No.NE-G-00-3-0082, March 1975.
  18. ^ "School History | SFUSD". www.sfusd.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-01.
  19. ^ Pruitt, Sarah. "The 8-Year-Old Chinese American Girl Who Helped Desegregate Schools—in 1885". HISTORY. Retrieved 2021-11-01.
  20. ^ a b c Jewell, Joseph O. (2014). "Other(ing) People's Children: Social Mothering, Schooling, and Race in Late Nineteenth Century New Orleans and San Francisco". Race, Gender & Class. 21 (3/4): 138–155. ISSN 1082-8354.
  21. ^ California State Assembly. "An Act to amend Sections 1517, 1521, 1532, 1543, 1545, 1546, 1548, 1550, 1551, 1564, 1577, 1593, 1597, 1598, 1600, 1611, 1616, 1617, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1624, 1662, 1663, 1665, 1666, 1696, 1701, 1712, 1715, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1774, 1775, 1787, 1788, 1790, 1791, 1817, 1818, 1830, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1861, 1869, 1871, 1874, and to repeal Sections 1551b, 1652, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1777, 1792, 1838, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852, and 1872 of the Political Code, and to add five new sections thereto, to be known as Sections 1565, 1583, 1703, 1704, and 1879, relating to public schools". Twenty-third Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 44 p. 28. Direct URL
  22. ^ admin (2015-04-07). ""We Have Always Lived as Americans"". Chinese American: Exclusion/Inclusion. Retrieved 2021-11-01.
  23. ^ Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal 473 (Supreme Court of California 1885).
  24. ^ Chang, Iris (2004) [2003]. The Chinese in America : a narrative history. New York: Penguin. ISBN 9780142004173. OCLC 55136302.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Derek.hx08/Tape_v._Hurley&oldid=1057045377"