Toll free:

Call us:

First time customer?

Order papers with 15% discount

contact usORDER now

Buy custom Monteiro V The Tempe Union High School District essay

Monteiro V The Tempe Union High School District is a case in which Monteiro made a complaint that the reading which included two literary works - the novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain, and the short story “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner should be removed from the school curriculum. The reason to this complains is due to discrimination on color students. Their colleagues have continually assaulted some of the students. In this case, Monteiro made a complaint on the decision of the lower courts. The judges at lower courts dismissed the impact of the literary readings of the students. This did not satisfy Monteiro, who went ahead and appealed to the court of appeal, but her complain did not change the outcome. This essay analyses the impact made by the ruling made by Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the case of MONTEIRO v THE TEMPE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, to all the stakeholders in the learning institution; the essay also shows how the case affects the Caucasian students and finally, the essay highlights the influences of discriminatory literary on student’s performance.

The judge’s ruling on the issue of the read books was not comprehensive, in spite of that, there were other discriminatory writings and calligraphy that the school could have stopped using on some students in order to decrease on racial discrimination. Consequently, this threatened the environment for colored students hindering their academic performance.

The court, however, upheld the earlier decision that the lower court had made. They said that it could put the school between choosing on those students who feel discriminated and the other part of the students who would want to read the books. Students who would want to read the books could take the school to court because the school violated the educational rights provided for them in the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI, which alter racially hostile environment in school.

The ruling made hence considered the rights of all the students, particularly the Caucasian students who showed a lot of interest in the readings. The court was neutral, considerate and ended up not making any judgment that would either favor the colored students or leave the others unsatisfied with its decision.

The charges put across argued that the content in the book did not necessarily mean that reading the book guaranteed discrimination. This is debatable because there is no way one can read on any work that refers to them negatively and feel good. If a person reads a negative content , bad emotions are evoked. If the readings are not compulsory, then a person has a choice of not reading it. However, what happens on a situation where reading a book is compulsory in order to pass exams and subsequently succeed in life? This issue has elicited many issues concerning the categories of reading materials for students.

The learning environment needs to be conducive for all students in a school. However, discrimination hampers the social cohesion in an institution where some students fell threatened or sidelined. Since, African-American students’ learning environment was made difficult, the ruling made by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, on the negative environment, should be welcomed. The ruling gave the affected students a chance to have a better learning environment. In his ruling, Judge Stephen reversed the lower court’s decision. It also discredited the courts for failing to address the sore unlawful act within the learning institution. Every child, irrespective of race or social background deserves a favorable environment because it is every citizen’s right. The fact that school district did not address the hostile racial environment, opened a social gap, which needed attention.

As the books were to be read, the school should ensure the respect of the students rights, as provided for in Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which paved way for a temporary and permanent injunction. The school knew about the prevalence of the deteriorating learning environment, but made no effort to change the situation.

The ruling ensured that the school board pays the damages as stated; "has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to eliminate a racially hostile environment. It also brought about fairness and good treatment among color students, reduced the usage of assaulting language and improved study environment.

The ruling that was upheld and the one that was ruled in favor of the discriminated students, ensured that all students registered in the school attain the required level of education has it is their right to be educated in an environment that is conducive to all of them.

This case brought attention to all the other learning institutions that had been practicing discrimination. It stated that there should be no any form of discrimination in the learning environment as this negatively influences the ability of other students to succeed academically. The case further puts into perspective the content of the literary materials in academic institutions. There are materials that corrupt the minds of the youthful students who cannot make coherently inclusive decisions. Such materials should be prohibited because the essence of every learning institution is to instill good social relations and foster creative ideas. Therefore, not everything that we read is meant to be consumed and perceived to change what we believe in, or used as a tool to make others students suffer because of their racial affiliation.

Login Live chat Calculate