Rationing Opportunity: The War on Children and the Dismantling of Plyler v. Doe, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Rationing Opportunity: The War on Children and the Dismantling of Plyler v. Doe

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

April 6, 2026

Visit MALDEF.org that played a central role litigating Plyler v. Doe

As you can read for yourselves in this article published by thehill.com titled GOP calls to get undocumented children out of public schools grow authored by Lonas Cochran (2026), there are moments when the law does more than interpret policy—it draws a line around who counts. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in Plyler v. Doe, holding that undocumented children are entitled to a free public K–12 education under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That line is now under direct attack.

Recent reporting details a coordinated push—stretching from state legislatures to federal actors—to dismantle Plyler. Texas Congressman Chip Roy has called for overturning the decision, framing it as a “burden” on taxpayers. At the same time, Stephen Miller has reportedly encouraged Texas lawmakers to consider cutting funding for undocumented students. Tennessee is advancing legislation that would require proof of immigration status at school enrollment, a move widely understood as a precursor to legal challenge.

Let’s be clear: this is not random. It is a strategy.

The most likely pathway to overturning Plyler is not legislative repeal—it is engineered litigation. A state passes a law that restricts access to education, gets sued, and uses the case to invite a newly configured Supreme Court to revisit precedent. We have seen this playbook before. It is deliberate, incremental, and designed to normalize what once seemed unthinkable.

But much of the rhetoric surrounding this effort depends on misdirection.

First, the claim that Plyler represents “judicial overreach.” It does not. The Court did what it has long done: interpret the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies to “persons,” not just citizens. This principle is not new. It dates back to cases like Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), which affirmed that noncitizens are entitled to constitutional protections.

Second, the assertion that Congress holds plenary power over immigration. True—but irrelevant here. Plyler is not about immigration enforcement. It is about whether a state can deny children access to education. That question falls squarely within constitutional limits on state power.

Third, the fiscal argument—that undocumented students strain public resources. This is not a constitutional argument; it is a political one. And it collapses under scrutiny. Public schools are funded through formulas tied to attendance. In an era of declining birth rates, many districts depend on stable or increasing enrollment to remain viable. Excluding students does not save systems—it destabilizes them. More importantly, denying education produces far greater long-term social costs: poverty, unemployment, and diminished civic participation.

What is unfolding, then, is not a good-faith debate about policy. It is a reframing of rights as liabilities.

And that reframing has consequences.

The article also points to a troubling operational shift: the erosion of long-standing norms that treated schools as protected spaces. With changes to federal enforcement posture, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity near or on school grounds is no longer off-limits. Reports of arrests involving parents and community members in proximity to schools are already emerging.

We need to name this for what it is: the transformation of schools from sites of learning into sites of surveillance.

When families fear school, they do not send their children. Attendance drops—not just among undocumented students, but across entire communities. Teachers become frontline responders to trauma. Classrooms become quieter, emptier, more precarious. And the damage extends far beyond immigration status.

There is also a deeper legal horizon to consider. Some observers have speculated that challenges to Plyler could intersect with broader efforts to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment, including debates over birthright citizenship. While the connection is not guaranteed, the logic is clear: narrow the definition of who counts as a constitutional “person,” and a cascade of exclusions becomes possible.

This is how rights erode—not all at once, but through strategic pressure points.

In my own work, I have described this as "discursive inversion": the process by which inclusion is reframed as excess, and rights are recast as threats. Under this logic, providing children with an education becomes an unfair advantage. Equal protection becomes preferential treatment. The moral universe flips, and exclusion begins to appear reasonable—even necessary.

We have seen this before. Historically, arguments about “limited resources” and “taxpayer burden” have been used to justify segregation, exclusion, and the rationing of opportunity. What changes are the targets, not the logic.

And here, the target is children.

Let us pause on that.

Plyler v. Doe did not create a broad new right. It prevented the state from imposing a devastating harm. The Court recognized that denying education to children—who have no control over their immigration status—would impose a “lifetime hardship,” effectively foreclosing their ability to participate meaningfully in society. Education, the Court reasoned, is foundational to individual dignity and democratic life.

To undo Plyler is to accept that some children can be rendered permanently disposable.

That is not a budgetary decision. It is a moral one.

It is also a profound shift in how we understand public education. For generations, public schooling in the United States has been grounded—however imperfectly—in the idea of universality. Not equality achieved, but equality aspired to. The notion that schools belong to the public, and that the public includes all who reside within it.

Overturning Plyler would mark a departure from that principle. Education would become conditional—granted not on the basis of presence or personhood, but on legal status. The classroom would no longer be a shared civic space, but a filtered one.

And once that line is drawn, it will not hold.

Because the question will not stop at undocumented children. It will expand—quietly at first—into other domains, other populations, other forms of conditional belonging.

This is how institutional unraveling begins. Not with a single decision, but with a redefinition of who is entitled to protection.

The Court answered that question in 1982. It affirmed that children, regardless of status, are persons under the Constitution and deserving of access to education.

The fact that we are now poised to revisit that decision should give us pause.

Not because precedent is sacred—it is not—but because the direction of change matters.

We are being asked, once again, to decide whether schools are instruments of democracy or tools of exclusion.

And this time, the answer will not be abstract.

It will be lived—in classrooms, in communities, and in the futures of millions of children watching closely to see whether this country believes they belong.

References

Lonas Cochran, L. (2026, March 30). GOP calls to get undocumented children out of public schools grow. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5804304-undocumented-kids-public-schools-plyler/

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

Honoring La Raza Unida: A Third Party That Changed Texas Politics and Our Sense of What Is Possible by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Honoring La Raza Unida: A Third Party That Changed Texas Politics and Our Sense of What Is Possible

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Sometimes you strike gold. It helps being married to a historian, who asked me to scan this document for a friend and send it along—reminding me how easily treasures like these can slip through the cracks of history, particularly for the casual reader.

In any case, here is a link to the Raza Unida Party platform (1974) that all can read. For the record, raza is an endearing insider term that means “the people.” Hence, the party platform of a “people united”—a bold declaration of dignity and self-determination at a time when Mexican Americans were still struggling to be seen and heard in the halls of power. While the fight for representation continues today, the barriers facing our community were even more formidable in those years.

This morning is the first time I have ever seen or read it. I was in middle school at a time when history itself seemed to march in the streets—the Chicana/o Movement in full stride, the women’s movement gaining strength, and the anti–Vietnam War movement shaking the nation’s conscience. It was then that I first exclaimed that I was “Brown and proud”—a declaration resonant with the spirit of the Black, Red, and Yellow Power movements. All of this action clearly shook the establishment and resulted in Civil Rights legislation that remains among the most significant victories for equity and democracy in U.S. history.

Because network television and newspapers were our major sources of information, it was almost impossible not to hear about what was happening in Texas and other places throughout the Southwest where it took root. In fact, the Raza Unida Party was very much present in my hometown of San Angelo, West Texas, during the early 1970s. These stories seeped into my consciousness, shaping the way I understood politics, justice, and my place in the world.

As this contributed to my political formation, I dedicate this blog to honoring the hard work of those who dared to form a third party—many of them still with us today—because both major parties were largely indifferent to Chicanas/os and Mexican Americans in Texas and throughout the Southwest. Sadly, this reality still resonates with sectors of our communities who continue to feel left behind. Yet most positively, it reminds us of our long history of resistance to exclusion and subordination, particularly in the realm of education—education that is culturally relevant, adequately resourced, and a genuine pathway to higher learning.

Our community has never received these things as gifts from above. They have always been won through struggle, sacrifice, and organizing. Despite the current Epoch of Institutional Unraveling, as I term it, the silver lining is that the vision of Raza Unida lives on today. It lives on in grassroots efforts—whether through Ethnic Studies programs, culturally sustaining schools, bilingual and dual language programs, community-based initiatives like Academia Cuauhtli, or movements for political representation—that continue to build on this legacy of courage.

The party’s story is a reminder that when communities come together to demand representation, justice, and dignity, they can build power against the odds. Its legacy calls on us not only to remember but also to continue imagining and creating the structures of democracy we deserve.

La lucha de La Raza Unida nos recuerda que la justicia nunca se concede, sino que se conquista. Su legado vive en cada esfuerzo comunitario por representación, educación y dignidad—y nos llama a seguir construyendo la democracia que merecemos.

---

Historical Note

La Raza Unida Party (RUP), founded in 1970 in Crystal City, Texas, emerged from the frustrations of Mexican American activists with the Democratic Party’s neglect of Chicano communities. Its roots lay in the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO), created in 1967 by José Ángel Gutiérrez, Mario Compean, Willie Velasquez, Ignacio Perez, and Juan Patlan. Inspired by the Civil Rights Movement, they sought to create a new political force that advanced Chicano nationalism and self-determination.

From its earliest years, women shaped the party’s trajectory—activists like Luz Gutiérrez, Martha P. Cotera, Rosie Castro, Evey Chapa, and others demanded and secured space for Chicana leadership. RUP’s first major successes came in South Texas towns such as Crystal City, Cotulla, and Carrizo Springs, where candidates swept local elections. Alma Canales made history in 1972 as the first Chicana to run for lieutenant governor of Texas.

Dr. Emilio Zamora, now a distinguished historian, served as Travis County chair of the party in the 1970s, helping organize Mexican American political participation during a pivotal moment in Texas history. Today, his scholarship and mentorship continue to amplify Chicana/o voices.

The RUP’s statewide visibility peaked with the gubernatorial campaigns of Ramsey Muñiz in 1972 and 1974, which drew more than 200,000 votes and challenged the dominance of the two major parties. While RUP never succeeded at the state or national level, its campaigns demonstrated the potential of a united Chicana/o electorate and left a lasting imprint on Texas politics.

Creation-Resistance in our Struggle for a Just and Equitable Multiracial/Multiethnic Democracy in an Epoch of Institutional Unraveling, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Creation-Resistance in our Struggle for a Just and Equitable Multiracial/Multiethnic Democracy in an Epoch of Institutional Unraveling

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

August 20, 2025

Those of us at the Texas legislature in 2023 in the fight for diversity, equity and inclusion in
Texas and for the multiracial/multiethnic democracy we deserve. Photo credit: Lana Husband

We are living through a time of profound crisis—what I call the Epoch of Institutional Unraveling. Our most essential public institutions—schools, colleges, libraries, courts—are under relentless attack. Built, however imperfectly, to serve the public good, they are now being hollowed out, defunded, politicized, and transformed into tools of exclusion rather than engines of opportunity.

This is no accident. It is the culmination of a decades-long project rooted in neoliberalism, racial capitalism, and white grievance politics. From anti-DEI laws to book bans, from the gutting of voting rights to the criminalization of dissent, authoritarian tendencies are taking root beneath the banner of patriotism and “parental rights.” 

In Texas, the brazen mid-decade redistricting coup d'état sheds light on this agenda with particular clarity. By attempting to rig political maps for partisan gain, state leaders have not only angered the public but also energized progressives and the growing majority who care deeply about democracy. Such maneuvers expose the raw fear driving these efforts: fear of a multiracial democracy, fear of truth, fear of us.

This fear manifests as epistemic control. As the late Michel Foucault (1980) reminds us, knowledge is not merely discovered—it is produced, legitimized, and controlled by those in power. In Texas, Senate Bill 17, targeting DEI in higher education, and Senate Bill 12 that extends similar epistemic regulation into K–12 schools are of great concern.

These laws are not only anti-DEI; they are anti-knowledge. They sanction a return to sanitized, monocultural narratives that erase the histories, contributions, and struggles of Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian American, women, and LGBTQ+ communities.

What is so incredibly ironic is that today, knowledge is not merely expanding—it is multiplying at an unprecedented pace. Buckminster Fuller once described a “knowledge-doubling curve,” and by 2013 IBM projected that in some fields, human knowledge could double in a matter of hours. Yet this acceleration raises urgent questions: Who has access to this knowledge? Who controls its production and dissemination? And whose ways of knowing are excluded or erased in the process?After all, as ethnographers remind us, every way of seeing is also, inevitably, a way of not seeing.

The sheer velocity of information growth does not equate to justice, truth, or liberation—unless we intervene in how knowledge is made, valued, and shared.

Figure 1: Buckminster Fuller’s Knowledge Doubling Curve, with post-1982 addition by IBM Source: https://www.learningguild.com/articles/marc-my-words-the-coming-knowledge-tsunami?utm_source

And this erasure is not limited to policy. It reverberates through our collective cultural memory—what is remembered, celebrated, or forgotten. When Ethnic Studies programs are targeted, when books are banned, when educators are censured for telling the truth, we are witnessing a deliberate effort to reshape memory itself. 

The perverse goal is not only to suppress dissenting viewpoints but to render whole histories unintelligible to future generations. In such a landscape, ignorance becomes not a void, but a construct—built, reinforced, and weaponized in the service of maintaining the status quo.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

In this moment, we must see clearly: this is not just a dismantling of institutions—it is a dismantling of hope. Of imagination. Of the very idea that another world is possible. So that’s why we must respond not only with resistance, but with creation—with what my dear friend and colleague, the late Dr. Roberto Cintli Rodríguez, called "creation-resistance." That is, the simultaneous act of pushing back and building forward—of saying no to oppression while creating spaces of healing, learning, and collective liberation. It's a new Zeitgeist for our era and for this time.

May we never stop doing what we all do to build a better world.

We see this in Ethnic Studies classrooms that center ancestral knowledge. In community schools like Academia Cuauhtli, where young children reclaim their language and their dignity. In our organizing spaces, our coalitions, and our testimonios before the legislature, these are all acts of creation-resistance. They arise not just from critique, but from a deep and abiding love—for our communities, our cultures, our children, and our future.

The mid-decade redistricting stunt in Texas is a prime example of why creation-resistance is so necessary. Though intended to silence and sideline, it has had the opposite effect: communities are mobilizing, coalitions are expanding, and ordinary people are stepping into leadership roles with renewed urgency. 

From courtroom challenges to grassroots voter education drives, from art that speaks truth to power to neighborhood canvassing, Texans are responding not just with outrage but with imagination. 

We are re-drawing our own maps. These are not only maps of resistance, but also simultaneously maps of respectful relations that provide a sense of care and belonging. We insist that democracy not get stolen in the dead of night. In this way, the very tactics meant to unravel democracy are fueling its reinvention—proving that resistance, when paired with creation, can transform even acts of suppression into catalysts for collective power.

I know many of you feel disillusioned by a political system that seems broken and unresponsive. But I learned early in life that when things get political, we must become more political. Channel your frustration into action: join an organization, a church, a mosque, or synagogue. Find community, find solidarity, and remember that change has always come from those who refused to sit on the sidelines.

That is how we change the course of history. Your voice, your vision, and your vote matter—not just in presidential elections but at school board meetings, city councils, and yes, even as candidates yourselves. Our ancestors endured genocide, slavery, colonization, and Jim Crow—and Juan Crow—so that we could rise in moments like this. Let us not shrink. Let us be disciplined, organized, and loving—because love is a political act. To love is to act, to fight for a world that honors the dignity of all.

References

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

IBM. (2013). The digital universe study: Knowledge doubling every 12 hours. IBM Research. https://www.industrytap.com/knowledge-doubling-every-12-months-soon-to-be-every-12-hours/3950

Angela Valenzuela, Photo Credit: Sebas
Santana, July, 2025

Book Censorship Database in this Epoch of Institutional Unraveling by Dr. Tasslyn Magnusson

Friends,

The EveryLibrary Institute and EveryLibrary have partnered with researcher Tasslyn Magnusson, Ph.D., to track and expose the individuals, networks, and organizations behind the growing wave of book bans and challenges in school and public libraries across the United States. Since 2021, Dr. Magnusson has maintained a publicly accessible, meticulously organized database that documents these efforts by school district, library type, and affiliated groups.

This vital resource equips educators, librarians, and advocates with the information they need to defend intellectual freedom and the fundamental right to read. Free to access and grounded in public records, the database is updated regularly with input from the community, helping us all distinguish between genuine local concerns and politically motivated censorship.

In this Epoch of Institutional Unraveling, it’s more important than ever to ask: What knowledge is disappearing? This archive shows us what’s under threat—knowledge we can still access, even if it’s no longer available through many of our schools, classrooms, and libraries.

This is all so incredibly Midieval. The idea that knowledge, stories, and voices are being suppressed or erased through coordinated bans recalls the darkest periods of history when books were burned, censored, or locked away from the public. What we're seeing today—this rollback of intellectual freedom and critical inquiry—echoes those times when fear and power sought to control not just what people could read, but what they were allowed to think.

I’d venture to say this may be the best reading list ever assembled. I even found my award-winning book Subtractive Schooling listed—and I take that as my badge of honor.

—Angela Valenzuela

The EveryLibrary Institute and EveryLibrary are partnering with Dr. Tasslyn Magnusson, an independent researcher focused on the networks, organizations, and individual actors who are leading book banning and book challenge efforts in our nation's school libraries and public libraries.

Access the Data Here: Censorship Attacks 

Dr. Magnusson's spreadsheet of book bans and challenges has been available online since October 2021 to aid library organizations, library staff, education stakeholders, and concerned parents. Her findings have helped numerous school libraries and public libraries. Through this partnership, EveryLibrary and ELI are supporting her ongoing research and monitoring as well as aiding in the discoverability of these valuable resources online. All of these resources continue to be available free of charge to aid local and statewide efforts to defend the freedom to read, the role of libraries in communities and schools, and, most especially, support the people and ideas the books represent.
Dr. Magnusson's Database of Book Bans and Challenges in the United States 2021 - Present

Dr. Magnusson’s research begins near the start of the 2021-22 school year. The tabs are organized by School District, Books Challenged/Banned in School Districts, by public libraries, and books banned/challenged in school libraries. Additional tabs include lists of groups formed to push book bans and challenges and organizations and groups formed to push back against these political actions. The final tab is a list of other relevant articles found during research which includes student and teacher responses to bans as well as investigative pieces on funding of the political groups supporting bans.

The data is available as view only - with sorting capabilities at: “Censorship Attacks”.

Please note that no personal information is collected or solicited by Dr. Magnusson or EveryLibrary/ELI when you visit these free resources. Information about groups and individuals who are involved in book bans or materials challenges are cross-referenced from publicly available sources like news reports, online forums, and social media posts. Dr. Magnusson invites people to report new information or help correct errors and omissions by contacting her at Bookbanschallenges@gmail.com.

Our hope is to help stakeholders understand and differentiate between legitimate questions of local concern and the politicized or performative book and materials challenges that are attacking our libraries. If you are concerned with book banning efforts in schools and libraries, please visit EveryLibrary's Action site to learn more and to sign up to be a part of this national network.

The EveryLibrary Institute is a donor-supported 501c3 non-profit research and public policy organization dedicated to the future of libraries. We are only able to support this kind of important work because of our donors.
Please consider making a donation today.