Lau v. Nichols 刘先生诉尼古拉斯案（虹豆晓坤）

刘晓坤

一、案情简介
   刘先生诉尼古拉斯案是关于民事权利的一个案件，华裔美国学生居住在加利福尼亚州的旧金山市，这些华裔对英语并不精通。华裔学生认为他们没有在学校接受到特殊的帮助，导致他们无法说英语，他们还强调他们有资格基于1964年美国民权法案提起诉讼，因为法案禁止因民族血统进行教育的歧视。美国联邦最高法院查明学校的确没有给中国学生足够的语言学方面的便利，从而剥夺了他们接受平等教育的权利，最高法院1974年判定学生胜诉，因此英语语言能力不够的学生享有了更加广泛的权利。最高法院认为这些学生应当在学校受到平等的待遇。此案件使得个人的语言与其民族血统（他/她来自的国家或他/她祖先所在的国家）紧密联系在了一起，这也得到了广泛的肯定。刘先生诉尼古拉斯案是以语言为基础的歧视，成为了民族血统歧视的代表案件。这个案件是第十四次修正案中重要的判决，也成为了其他许多案件的权威。
  Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a civil rights case that was brought by Chinese American students living in San Francisco, California who had limited English proficiency. The students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak English, which they argued they were entitled to under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of its ban on educational discrimination on the basis of national origin. Finding that the lack of linguistically appropriate accommodations (e.g. educational services in English) effectively denied the Chinese students equal educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974 ruled in favor of the students, thus expanding rights of students nationwide with limited English proficiency. The Supreme Court stated that these students should be treated with equality among the schools. Among other things, Lau reflects the now-widely accepted[citation needed] view that a person's language is so closely intertwined with their national origin (the country someone or their ancestors came from) that language-based discrimination is effectively a proxy for national origin discrimination.

Lau remains an important decision on the fourteenth amendment, and is frequently relied upon as authority in many cases (the San Francisco Unified School District remains covered by the consent decree that was ultimately entered into in the Lau case, and civil rights groups continue to monitor SFUSD's compliance with that decree).

[Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); Lau v. San Francisco Unified School District, U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C 70-627 CW.]

二、案情概览
1、1970年3月25日，中国城和北岸区街坊法务协助机构的Edward Steinman律师，代表近3000名说中文（汉语）的华裔学生向旧金山法庭提出诉讼，指控旧金山校区不提供双语教育是对华裔学生的歧视，但法官以“教育资源都公平分配给每名学生，不存在歧视”为由，判提控败诉
2、联邦上诉法庭也以类似的理由驳回上诉
3、最后，该诉讼上诉到联邦最高法院，1974年，该诉讼在最高法院法官无记名投票下获得胜诉，由此改变了美国公共教育机构只用英文教学的传统，开始向少数族裔学生提供双语教学和服务。
三、案情影响
    中国城分校校长谢明华表示市立大学中国城分校很多课程都使用双语教学。她称赞40年前提出这场官司诉讼之华裔的决心和勇气，正是因为他们的坚持，才有今天双语教育的结果。Richard A. Carranza认为，该官司胜诉有很大历史意义，美国公立学校开始提供双语教学，一些公共服务机构也开始提供双语服务。他指出，提供双语教学受益的不单是拉丁裔和华裔，美国各少数族裔学生都因为这个官司而受益。