In yet another blatant example of legal services activism, CRLA sued the county in state court claiming that the decision violates federal laws and the right of Spanish-speaking students to an equal education. CRLA asserts it is representing the interest of Hispanic parents. However, CRLA is really representing itself and a few political activists. A recent Los Angeles Times poll found that 83 percent of Latino parents in Orange County favor English language instruction as soon as their children begin school. Only 17 percent prefer native-language instruction.
In fact, Latino parents are so strongly opposed to bilingual education that 70 immigrant families in Los Angeles boycotted the public schools last year because school officials refused to put their children in English-only classes. Officials eventually relented (The New York Times, August 15, 1997).
CRLA lawyers are ignoring this evidence. Instead, they have chosen to use LSC money to advocate policies that thwart the educational aspirations of the struggling immigrants they claim to represent.
CRLA is simply doing the bidding of liberal activists determined to save bilingual education at all costs. CRLA is well aware of the consequences if Orange County succeeds in adopting its English-only program. The county is the fourth California school district and the largest to get rid of bilingual education. CRLA lawyer Cynthia Rice said that, “If a district as large as Orange County can get away with this, other districts will soon follow suit” (Los Angeles Times, July 29, 1997). CRLA Executive Director Jose Padilla says, “We fear the domino effect.”
Thanks to CRLA’s reckless activism, that is turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. On August 5, Orange School Trustees voted to place a non-binding referendum on the county’s ballot this November to gauge public support for their decision. Trustees said they didn’t want to “politicize” the issue but felt they needed a ballot measure after CRLA accused them of ignoring public opinion (Los Angeles Times, August 6, 1997).
More significantly, a major campaign has been launched to place a statewide initiative on the ballot to require English instruction in all California schools. The prospects that voters will approve the “English for the Children” initiative in June, 1998 are considered very good. As for CRLA’s lawsuit, one community service worker said, “The lawsuit seems silly in light of the initiative . . .They can argue in court, but bilingual education is on its way out. The people want it gone” (The Washington Times, August 11, 1997).
The CRLA suit provides another example of the failure of reforms to
de-politicize federal legal services. Just like Texas Rural Legal
Aid which sued the right of military personnel to vote by absentee ballot
and the numerous other grantees who are thwarting drug-related evictions
from public housing, CRLA refuses to abandon its historic dedication to
political activism. How much more evidence is needed to get rid of LSC?