Another Segregation Fight: Delgado v. Bastrop (May 11, 2025)

by Scott Sosebee

The legacy of the segregation of public schools in Texas by race remains a legacy in which the state is not—or should not be—proud. Texas, like many other U.S. states, primarily in the South, ordered its educational institutions to serve as additional bricks of a giant wall protecting the long-held belief of white superiority. Separation of white and African American children into different educational facilities certainly served as the centerpiece of such a policy, but African American children were not the only ones isolated solely because of the chance of their birth. Children of Mexican descent also faced such discrimination, a practice that would not fully end until the 1960s. The first assault against such a practice in Texas began, like so many similar actions had to, with a legal case, Delgado v. Bastrop ISD decided in 1948.

Mirroring the practice of segregated “black schools,” public schools in Texas placed students of Mexican—or any Hispanic—descent on separate campuses. These facilities were quite often substandard, with minimal facilities, often outdated instructional materials, and little or no public transportation to transport students to campuses. Extracurricular activities were also limited. Such conditions and procedures were abominable, but even more detrimental to the students was the lack of opportunity. “Mexican schools,” as they were called, usually ended any instruction in the 6th grade, or if the students were in a larger city, the 8th grade. Students outside major urban areas were also, quite often, not allowed to attend high schools since only the largest cities maintained “Mexican high schools.” Furthermore, the curriculum at those Mexican schools was frequently limited to vocational training. Such traditions led to abhorrent educational attainment. The 1950 census data bears this out. Among people over the age of twenty-five with Spanish surnames, the median educational attainment was three and a half years, compared with a little over ten years among whites. Twenty-seven percent of all those with Spanish surnames received no education whatsoever.

The genesis of the Texas suit began in California. The Federal Ninth Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over that state, ruled in a case that “separation within one of the great races” was not permitted. The Court, in this case, used “great race” to mean Caucasian, thus children of Mexican descent—who are Caucasians—could not be segregated into separate schools. Upon reading the California decision, LULAC attorney Gustavo Garcia made an inquiry to the Texas attorney general’s office, which then agreed that Texas’ segregation of Mexican-American school children was probably not legal, unless “pedagogically justified only by a test applied to all students.” Bolstered by the attorney general’s opinion, LULAC, with Garcia as lead attorney, searched for appropriate cases to file suit.

Garcia settled on suing the Bastrop Independent School District. He did so on behalf of Minerva Delgado and twenty other Mexican American students and their parents (Delgado came first alphabetically, thus her name was applied to the suit). Bastrop sent children of Mexican descent to a separate elementary school, one that was woefully substandard and poorly staffed. Garcia’s filing accused Bastrop of segregating children of the “Caucasian race” with no specific state law requiring them to do so—there was a specific state law that required African Americans to be segregated—and further charged the district with denying such children equal facilities, services, and curricular instruction.

The case went to the United States District Court, Western District of Texas. Judge Ben Rice’s decision cited the California precedent, as well as the attorney general’s opinion, and he agreed with Garcia’s argument that the Bastrop ISD had illegally segregated Mexican American students on separate campuses. He thus ordered a cessation of such a practice in 1949. However, Judge Rice also understood what the reaction would be among Texas’ white majority, so he gave school districts an “out.” He ruled that districts could allow separate classes on the same campuses, in the first grade only, for language-deficient or non-English speaking students.

The Delgado decision was a start to undermining the segregation of Mexican American school children in Texas. However, the fight was not over; school districts—just as they would seven years later after the Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka decision against African American segregation—resisted compliance, which forced LULAC to file suits against any district that chose such defiance. LULAC fought against such opposition and finally prevailed in 1957 when victory in another legal challenge, Herminca Hernandez, et al. v. Driscoll Consolidated ISD, ended pedagogical segregation in the Texas public school system against those of Mexican descent.

There has been much speculation by scholars as to what Texas’ motivation was in essentially “capitulating” in the Delgado. After all, the state did not pursue an appeal after Rice’s decision, and the attorney general, Price Daniel, Sr., issued a legal opinion that was a fundamental component of Rice’s final judgement. Is it possible that Texas, in the 1940s, was abandoning its concept of White superiority and segregation? Hardly. Texas’ officials knew that the postwar years were going to bring challenges to the “southern consensus” on race, and they needed to be prepared to fight off such challenges, especially when it came to those pertaining to African Americans. Many scholars agree that Daniel’s and the state’s actions in Delgado were an attempt to perhaps gain allies in that fight among Mexican Americans, but more importantly, provide some additional armor in that coming fight. So, yes, there was progress with Delgado, but it was a first action in what would be a long fight.

The East Texas Historical Association provides this column as a public service. Scott Sosebee is a Professor of History at Stephen F. Austin State University and the Executive Director of the Association. He can be contacted at sosebeem@sfasu.edu or via www.easttexashistorical.org.