142 Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol.20 Tian's situation was serious:he stood to lose not only all of the money that his family had paid in tuition,but more importantly,his job prospects would be severely impaired without a degree.Measuring his limited op- tions,Tian decided to take matters into his own hands and in the fall of 1998,sued the school for violating both his right to education and for failing to award him the degree that he had earned. In this Article,I argue that lawsuits by students and teachers against educational institutions have served as a key experiment for rights adjudica- tion by Chinese courts.Since the mid-1990s,a growing number of courts have adjudicated the complex rights claims raised by education cases with- out excessive outside interference.In doing so,the courts have radically revised the relationship between students,teachers,and educational institu- tions.They have also taken actions not typically associated with Chinese courts,including:expanding their own jurisdiction,striking down regula- tions that are inconsistent with national law,and creating legal require- ments that have little or no basis in relevant legislation.These education cases are crucial to understanding the development of the judiciary as an important mechanism for rights protection in China. Education cases provide an excellent opportunity for the courts to de- velop a rights-based jurisprudence for a number of reasons.First,in most cases,the defendant,a local school or university,while far from politically impotent,often has less political clout than a government defendant would, and therefore is less able to pressure the courts into ruling in its favor.2 Second,over the past decade or more,there has been a steady stream of relatively sympathetic plaintiffs,including a number of young students who,through little or no fault of their own,faced serious barriers to contin- uing their education.In education-obsessed China,such plaintiffs often won public support for their legal claims.In many of these cases,the plaintiffs have been assisted by ambitious young lawyers who have made creative legal arguments on their clients'behalf,thus increasing the chances of a favorable ruling.3 Media coverage has also generally favored the student plaintiffs and played an important role in transmitting the new legal norms being developed by the courts both to new potential plaintiffs and to judges themselves.4 2.RANDALL PEERENBOOM,CHINA'S LONG MARCH TOWARD RULE OF LAW 399 (2003)(noting that "many judges resist appointment to the administrative division [of the court system]because of the politically sensitive nature of the cases.). 3.Given the important role that plaintiffs and plaintiffs'lawyers have played in the development of law through suits against universities,education litigation is another example of how "the ways in which litigants use the legal system to pursue their own interests may be increasingly important in shaping the evolution of law in China."STANLEY B.LUBMAN,BIRD IN A CAGE:LEGAL REPORM IN CHINA AFTER MAO 287-88(1999)(quoting Note,Class Action Litigation in China,111 HARV.L.REV. 1523,1541(1998). 4.For a selection of media reports on the 1999 Tian Yong and the 2000 Lim Yamen cases in particular,see generally GAODENG JIAOYU YU XINGZHENG SUSONG [HIGHER EDUCATION AND ADMIN- ISTRATIVE LrGATION].supra note 1.For a discussion of the role that the media plays in litigation in\\server05\productn\H\HLH\20\HLH2001.txt unknown Seq: 2 12-JUN-07 16:27 142 Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 20 Tian’s situation was serious: he stood to lose not only all of the money that his family had paid in tuition, but more importantly, his job prospects would be severely impaired without a degree. Measuring his limited op￾tions, Tian decided to take matters into his own hands and in the fall of 1998, sued the school for violating both his right to education and for failing to award him the degree that he had earned. In this Article, I argue that lawsuits by students and teachers against educational institutions have served as a key experiment for rights adjudica￾tion by Chinese courts. Since the mid-1990s, a growing number of courts have adjudicated the complex rights claims raised by education cases with￾out excessive outside interference. In doing so, the courts have radically revised the relationship between students, teachers, and educational institu￾tions. They have also taken actions not typically associated with Chinese courts, including: expanding their own jurisdiction, striking down regula￾tions that are inconsistent with national law, and creating legal require￾ments that have little or no basis in relevant legislation. These education cases are crucial to understanding the development of the judiciary as an important mechanism for rights protection in China. Education cases provide an excellent opportunity for the courts to de￾velop a rights-based jurisprudence for a number of reasons. First, in most cases, the defendant, a local school or university, while far from politically impotent, often has less political clout than a government defendant would, and therefore is less able to pressure the courts into ruling in its favor.2 Second, over the past decade or more, there has been a steady stream of relatively sympathetic plaintiffs, including a number of young students who, through little or no fault of their own, faced serious barriers to contin￾uing their education. In education-obsessed China, such plaintiffs often won public support for their legal claims. In many of these cases, the plaintiffs have been assisted by ambitious young lawyers who have made creative legal arguments on their clients’ behalf, thus increasing the chances of a favorable ruling.3 Media coverage has also generally favored the student plaintiffs and played an important role in transmitting the new legal norms being developed by the courts both to new potential plaintiffs and to judges themselves.4 2. RANDALL PEERENBOOM, CHINA’S LONG MARCH TOWARD RULE OF LAW 399 (2003) (noting that “many judges resist appointment to the administrative division [of the court system] because of the politically sensitive nature of the cases.”). 3. Given the important role that plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ lawyers have played in the development of law through suits against universities, education litigation is another example of how “the ways in which litigants use the legal system to pursue their own interests may be increasingly important in shaping the evolution of law in China.” STANLEY B. LUBMAN, BIRD IN A CAGE: LEGAL REFORM IN CHINA AFTER MAO 287–88 (1999) (quoting Note, Class Action Litigation in China, 111 HARV. L. REV. 1523, 1541 (1998)). 4. For a selection of media reports on the 1999 Tian Yong and the 2000 Liu Yanwen cases in particular, see generally GAODENG JIAOYU YU XINGZHENG SUSONG [HIGHER EDUCATION AND ADMIN￾ISTRATIVE LITIGATION], supra note 1. For a discussion of the role that the media plays in litigation in R