I am very comfortable with language that would say that a court order, Federal court order would take precedence over State and local law with respect to bilingual education or State local policy. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support an amendment that appears to be intended to create an escape hatch, an 'out clause' for local school districts in California that do not want to comply with a voter-approved ballot initiative that passed by a margin of 61 to 39 percent.
Frank Riggs: “I am very comfortable with language that would say that a court order, Federal court order would take precedence over…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a proposed amendment on bilingual education and local compliance with a ballot initiative.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
Now that we have struck that note of bipartisan cooperation and agreement, I just want to interject for the Record, and here I think is the clear, and I believe collegial difference between the Democratic Members of the House of…
I believe affirmative action is outdated. Affirmative action, contrary to what several speakers have suggested, is no longer a black and white issue, certainly not in California, the largest, most diverse State in our Union. Because the…
Now, what did the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decide in the Hopwood case? Hopwood v. The University of Texas, I quote: ``The 5th circuit ruled that diversity does not justify preferential admissions based on race.''
So the amendment in its current form is intended to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to prevent the City and County of San Francisco government... from being able to use Federal taxpayer funding... to require that private…





