Source: http://www.asianamericanlegal.com/historical-cases/tape-v-hurley/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:08:18+00:00

Document:
Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, 6 P. 12 (1885) — California Supreme Court finds that San Francisco’s public school system must admit a girl of Chinese descent.
SHARPSTEIN, J.—The main question in this case is whether a child “between six and twenty-one years of age, of Chinese parentage, but who was born and has always lived in the city and county of San Francisco,” is entitled to admission in the public school of the district in which she resides.
As amended, the clause is broad enough to include all children who are not precluded from entering a public school by some provision of law; and we are not aware of any law which forbids the entrance of children of any race or nationality. The legislature not only declares who shall be admitted, but also who may be excluded, and it does not authorize the exclusion of any one on the ground upon which alone the exclusion of the respondent here is sought to be justified. The vicious, the filthy, and those having contagious or infectious diseases, may be excluded, without regard to their race, color or nationality.
This law must be construed as any other would be construed. “Where a law is plain and unambiguous, whether it be expressed in general or limited terms, the legislature should be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and consequently, no room is left for construction.” (Fisher v. Blight, 2 Cranch, 358, 399.) “When the law is clear and explicit, and its provisions are susceptible of but one interpretation, its consequences, if evil, can only be avoided by a change of the law itself, to be effected by legislative and not judicial action.” (Bosley v.Mattingly, 14 B. Mon. 73.) This rule is never controverted or doubted, although perhaps sometimes lost sight of. In this case, if effect be given to the intention of the legislature, as indicated by the clear and unambiguous language used by them, respondent here has the same right to enter a public school that any other child has. It is not alleged that she is vicious, or filthy, or that she has a contagious or infectious disease. As the legislature has not denied to the children of any race or nationality the right to enter our public schools, the question whether it might have done so does not arise in this case.
We think the superintendent of schools was improperly joined as a defendant in this action, and that the court properly dismissed the action as to the board of education. In Wardv. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, the action was against the teacher alone. That it was properly brought, seems to have been conceded.
The board of education has power “to make, establish, and enforce all necessary and proper rules and regulations not contrary to law,” and none other. (Stats. 1871-2, p. 846.) Teachers cannot justify a violation of law, on the ground that a resolution of the board of education required them to do so.
The judgment must be modified, so as to make the writ run against the defendant Hurley alone.
In other respects it is affirmed.
. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . .
Asian Americans have played a leading role in the long battle for equality in education. In Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, 6 P. 12 (1885), the court ordered San Francisco public schools to admit Chinese American children. In response, California established separate “Chinese” schools, which persisted until well into the twentiets century.
In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the Supreme Court created the “separate-but-equal” doctrine in a case where a black passenger was barred from using a “white” railway car. In Wong Him v. Callahan, 119 F. 381 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1902), this doctrine was applied to schools, when a district court found that Chinese American children in San Francisco were barred from “white” schools because the “Chinese” school in Chinatown was “separate but equal.” In Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), a case involving a Chinese American girl in Mississippi, the Supreme Court affirmed that the separate-but-equal doctrine applied to schools. This pernicious doctrine of segregation endured until 1954, when it was finally struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, etc.
Your tax-deductible donation will aid in the fight for equal rights.
Asian American Legal Foundation, 11 Malta Drive, San Francisco, CA 94131, Tel: (626) 255-5861. Copyright © 2019 Asian American Legal Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.