Garrett Coleman ‘25
Staff Editor
This past Friday, February 17, the Virginia Law Review hosted an online symposium, titled 50 Years After San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez: New and Old Fights for Equity in Public Schools. The event centered around the landmark Supreme Court case, which held that there was “no fundamental right to education” within the Constitution. But, where the federal government retreated, advocates at the state level were prepared to bear the burden of fighting for universal quality education. This approach was exemplified by Professor Al Kauffman of St. Mary’s University School of Law, who was the symposium’s keynote speaker. His work as lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby “reversed Rodriguez in Texas.”
To kick off the event, the audience heard from Angela Ciolfi, ’03, Executive Director of the Legal Aid Justice Center. As an education rights lawyer, she had seen firsthand “how the lack of a fundamental right to education played out on an individual and systemic level.” And, as a Powell Fellow, she had much to say about the Justice who cast the deciding vote in Rodriguez. While Justice Powell was a man who worked to build bridges between an old southern aristocratic class and some segments of the civil rights movement, he came from an undeniably privileged background. That background then informed his understanding of the education system and arguably made for a blind spot that came to the forefront in his majority opinion.
Professor Kauffman began his address with a criticism of Rodriguez and the Powell majority opinion. Many of his problems stemmed from the tale of two fact patterns that the majority cherry-picked from. He explained how the majority used examples from California, Connecticut, and New Jersey—states that had a completely different educational landscape compared to Texas. In cities like Newark, it was possible for high-income school districts to have plenty of low-income students. Such a dynamic was not possible in Texas, for several reasons. The first was an “old style racism” against Mexican-Americans, who lived in the poorest districts. As a native of Galveston, Texas, Kauffman has a good deal of personal experience to lean on. Having graduated from high school in the 1960s, he had only ever attended segregated schools. The next reason was that many Texas school districts were much smaller, with homogenous communities. This allowed for a severe gap in funding not seen in the other states used by the majority. Ultimately, Kauffman explained, the defense convinced Justice Powell that the federal courts would take over local school districts, thus jeopardizing the “local autonomy” that features so frequently in his majority opinion. And Justice Powell was also concerned with a slippery slope that led to equalizing funding among universities—a conclusion that Kauffman also came to and advocates for.
Professor Kauffman then went on to praise the dissent of Justice Marshall, who he said was not afraid to “talk[] about the politics” of this decision. Justice Marshall saw the Court’s holding “as unjustifiable acquiescence in a system which deprives children . . . of the chance to reach their full potential.”[1] Both Kauffman and Ciolfi intimated that it was the difference in background among these two men that either obscured or made apparent the ramifications of Rodriguez.
In the part of his address most suited to aspiring litigators, Professor Kauffman explained how he turned his understanding of and frustrations with Rodriguez into impactful advocacy. Better yet, he did so in the state from which Rodriguez came. In Edgewood, Kauffman scrutinized the theory of “local power” through the lens of two school districts in the same county. One was Alamo Heights, a “tax haven district” which spent more money on students. The other was Edgewood, a district with a much higher tax rate but much less money to spend. And by higher, he meant a tax rate that was fifty times higher than in Alamo Heights. Kauffman asked: Who really has local power? This style of advocacy necessarily embraced the political effects that the Powell majority steered clear of. Proper investment in students mattered to educational outcomes. Poor investment, dilapidated schools, and the resulting undereducated population perpetuated the cycle of poverty. And it is impossible to ignore the historical discrimination against Mexican-Americans in this context. Kauffman was able to convince the Texas Supreme Court that these funding disparities did matter and that the state’s constitution mandated a remedy. Because of his work in Edgewood, the Texas Supreme Court held that Article VII, Section I of the Texas Constitution did impose on the legislature “an affirmative duty to establish and provide for the public free schools.”[2]
The keynote address was followed by a conversation with Professor Kimberly J. Robinson, as well as several panels on state responses, school choice litigation, and federalism in the realm of education. Virginia Law Review’s outgoing Online Development Editor, Sydney Stanley ’23, was responsible for securing Professor Kauffman as the fantastic keynote speaker.
---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu