An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, (1885) was a landmark court case in the California Supreme Court in which the Court found the exclusion of a Chinese American student from public school based on her ancestry unlawful. The case effectively ruled that minority children were entitled to attend public school in California. After the Court's decision, San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, Andrew J. Moulder, urged the California state assembly to pass new state legislation which enabled the establishment of segregated schools under the separate but equal doctrine, like the contemporaneous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The establishment of the new school marked the continued segregation in the education system in California.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, (1885) was a landmark court case in the California Supreme Court in which the Court found the exclusion of a Chinese American student from public school based on her ancestry unlawful. The case effectively ruled that minority children were entitled to attend public school in California. After the Court's decision, San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, Andrew J. Moulder, urged the California state assembly to pass new state legislation which enabled the establishment of segregated schools under the separate but equal doctrine, like the contemporaneous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The establishment of the new school marked the continued segregation in the education system in California. Tape v. Hurley case was brought by the Tape family, who are Chinese immigrants with an American-born child, in the wake of increasing anti-Chinese sentiments in California after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Joseph Tape and Mary Tape were informed that their daughter, Mamie Tape, was denied admission to Spring Valley School due to her ancestry. In 1885, Joseph Tape filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter in local Court to force the San Francisco Board of Education to allow his daughter to attend the public school near home. Tape v. Hurley is widely regarded as the starting point when Asian Americans began challenging school segregation and educational inequality. The result of the case gave greater legal foundations for eliminating segregation in the school system later on. Still, it was not until the mid-twenty century when minorities in California won the victory on the path of fighting for school desegregation. (en)
  • 泰普诉赫尔利案(66 Cal. 473 (1885))是加利福尼亚最高法院的里程碑式的案件。在该案中,法院裁定,基于华裔美国学生的血统而将他们排除在公立学校之外的做法是非法的。在学校董事会败诉后,旧金山学校主管安德鲁·J·莫尔德(Andrew J. Moulder)的敦促通过了州级法案,建立了一所隔离但平等的种族隔离学校,与同时期的普莱西诉弗格森案(1896年)产生的结果类似。 (zh)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 722120 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 35283 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1123460019 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:align
  • right (en)
dbp:caption
  • Joseph, Emily, Mamie, Frank, and Mary Tape (en)
dbp:citations
  • 66 (xsd:integer)
dbp:concurring
  • Morrison, Thornton, Myrick, McKee, McKinstry, Ross (en)
dbp:court
dbp:dateDecided
  • March 1885 (en)
dbp:decisionBy
  • Sharpstein (en)
dbp:fullName
  • Mamie Tape, an Infant, by her Guardian ad Litem, Joseph Tape v. Jennie M.A. Hurley, et al (en)
dbp:italicTitle
  • yes (en)
dbp:judges
dbp:name
  • Tape v. Hurley (en)
dbp:source
  • -- An Act supplementary to and amendatory of the Act of April sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, entitled an Act to provide for the maintenance and supervision of Common Schools (en)
dbp:text
  • Section 68. Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians, shall not be admitted into the Public Schools; provided, that upon the application of the parents or Guardians of ten or more such colored children, made in writing to the Trustees of any district, said Trustees shall establish a separate School for the education of Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians, and use the Public School funds for the support of the same; and, provided, further, that the Trustees of any School District may establish a separate School, or provide for the education of any less number of Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians, and use the Public School funds for the support of the same, whenever in their judgment it may be necessary for said Public Schools. (en)
dbp:width
  • 25 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdfs:comment
  • 泰普诉赫尔利案(66 Cal. 473 (1885))是加利福尼亚最高法院的里程碑式的案件。在该案中,法院裁定,基于华裔美国学生的血统而将他们排除在公立学校之外的做法是非法的。在学校董事会败诉后,旧金山学校主管安德鲁·J·莫尔德(Andrew J. Moulder)的敦促通过了州级法案,建立了一所隔离但平等的种族隔离学校,与同时期的普莱西诉弗格森案(1896年)产生的结果类似。 (zh)
  • Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, (1885) was a landmark court case in the California Supreme Court in which the Court found the exclusion of a Chinese American student from public school based on her ancestry unlawful. The case effectively ruled that minority children were entitled to attend public school in California. After the Court's decision, San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, Andrew J. Moulder, urged the California state assembly to pass new state legislation which enabled the establishment of segregated schools under the separate but equal doctrine, like the contemporaneous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The establishment of the new school marked the continued segregation in the education system in California. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Tape v. Hurley (en)
  • 泰普诉赫尔利案 (zh)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:knownFor of
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License