Civil Rights

12th Grade 2012 Exam Slides Ms Wynne

What are Civil Rights?

Civil rights refer to those things that the government must do to provide equal protection and freedom from discrimination for all citizens. Traditionally, we think of civil rights as those rights rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. While the term civil rights goes back in history, early aAempts at true protection were unsuccessful because the Supreme Court believed that it was not within its purview to stop non- governmental discrimination. Since the 1950s, the Supreme Court has held the opposite view, thus enabling the government to oer broader protections to citizens equality in social and economic life.

African Americans and Slavery

Ending Servitude. With the passage of the Civil War amendments, slavery and some of the problems slavery had created were abolished. 1) The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) prohibits slavery within the United States. 2) The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) established that all persons born in the United States are citizens and no state shall deprive citizens of their rights under the Constitution. 3) The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) established the right of citizens to vote.

 The Civil Rights Acts of 1865 to 1875. After passing the Civil War amendments, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Acts of 18651875, which were aimed at the southern states. These laws aAempted to prevent states from passing laws that would circumvent the amendments. The Ineectiveness of the Civil Rights Laws The Civil Rights Cases: The United States Supreme Court invalidated much of the civil rights legislation in the Civil Rights cases (1883). Enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to correcting actions by states in their ocial acts. This would mean that private citizens could practice discrimination without interference from the national government.

Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate-but-Equal. The Supreme Court went further in this direction in 1892 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Court held that separate-but-equal treatment of people of dierent races by state governments was not a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Plessy v. Ferguson
Facts of the Case: The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested. Question: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion: No, the state law is within constitutional boundaries. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal. (The phrase, "separate but equal" was not part of the opinion.) Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. But Brown noted that "in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either." In short, segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.

 The system of racial segregation, most notably in the South, supported by laws were collectively known as Jim Crow Laws. These laws required separate drinking fountains; separate seats in theatres, restaurants and hotels; separate public toilets; and separate waiting rooms for the two races. Separate was the rule, but equal was never enforced, nor was it a reality.

 End of the Separate-but-Equal Doctrine

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Plessy v. Ferguson was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in 1954. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the separate but equal doctrine was reversed. With all Deliberate Speed. States were ordered to eliminate segregation policies with all deliberate speed.

Brown v. Board of Education

Facts of the Case: Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County. Question: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? Conclusion: Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.

Reactions to School Integration: States that mandated segregation were outraged at interference in state issues by the national government. Serious riots against desegregation took place in a number of localities. Key concepts: De facto segregationracial segregation that occurs because of past social and economic conditions and residential racial paAerns. De jure segregationracial segregation that occurs because of laws or administrative decisions by public agencies. Court-Ordered Busing. A solution to both forms of segregation, it involved busing black students to predominantly white schools and vice versa. It was very unpopular among whites and not very popular among African Americans, either. It is not common today.

The End of Integration?

By the 1990s the Court was willing in many cases to say

that local schools had done enough to desegregate, and no further actions were necessary, despite the continued existence of de facto segregation. Today, school admissions policies that favor minority applicants in any way may end up being challenged on the grounds of equal protection. The Resurgence of Minority Schools Many African Americans and members of other minority groups now seek to improve the performance of their local schools rather than make them more racially balanced.

The Civil Rights Movement

The elimination of segregationist policies and rintolerance would not have occurred without a strong civil rights movement. This movement began in the South and grew to a national scale. Although this movement included thousands and had many leaders, the most famous leader was the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Kings Philosophy of Nonviolence. One of the major reasons Dr. King was so successful was his philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience (a nonviolent, public refusal to obey allegedly unjust laws). 1. Nonviolent Demonstrations. Peaceful civil disobedience became the hallmark of the civil rights movement. 2. Marches and Demonstrations. This approach gained the support and respect of millions of Americans. What began as a small movement in the South quickly became a national mission.

QuickTime and a decompressor ar e needed to see this picture.

Malcolm X and The Black Panthers

Another Approach: Black Power. Leaders such as Malcolm X advocated a more forceful approach than King. The black power movement also resisted the cultural assimilation that was implied by the integrationist philosophy.

QuickTime and a decompressor ar e needed to see this picture.

The Climax of the Civil Rights Movement.

Civil Rights Legislation. 1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response to public demands for action, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibited discrimination in the areas of: 1) voter registration, 2) public accommodations, 3) public schools, and 4) employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was established by this law, was assigned the task of ending racial discrimination in the workplace. 2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The enactment of the Twenty-fourth Amendment in 1964, which eliminated any tax for the purpose of voting, was a modern beginning of the end to racial discrimination at the ballot box. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made state laws restricting political participation by minorities illegal. 3. Urban Riots. Even as the civil rights movement was winning victories, a series of intense civil insurrections spread through African American urban districts. The riots cost the movement considerable good will. 4. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 and Other Housing Reform Legislation. One of the major omissions of the 1964 act was discrimination in housing. In 1968, days after the assassination of Dr. King, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 became law. Part of this legislation prohibited racial discrimination in the area of housing.

Rosa Parks

Consequences of Civil Rights Legislation:

1. Political Participation by African Americans. There are now many thousand African American elected ocials. 2. Political Participation by Other Minorities. Other groups, such as Hispanics, have also increased the number of elected ocials at all levels of government. 3. Lingering Social and Economic Disparities. Social and economic disparities between whites and blacks (and other minorities) persist. This is reected in levels of household income and rates of home ownership, college graduation, and poverty. How to address this fact is a major unresolved issue.

American Indians
1. Separation 2. Assimilation and citizenship 3. Tribal restoration

Womens Struggle for Equal Rights

Early Womens Political Movements. Activism for womens rights began with the Seneca Falls convention in 1848. Womens Suffrage Associations. The early struggle for equal rights for women began with a focus on suffrage, or the right to vote. This struggle would continue for more than 70 years until the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution that states the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Women did not get the right to vote throughout the US until 1920. 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

1916 Jeannette Rankin became 1st woman elected To House of Representatives.

Years, by Country, in which Women Gained the Right to Vote

The Modern Womens Movement: The modern womens movement started in the 1960s as a result of the awareness of rights stemming from the civil rights movement. The publication of Betty Friedans The Feminine Mystique and the formation of the National Organization for Women were significant early developments.

1. The Equal Rights Amendment. A major initial goal of the modern womens movement was the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which states, Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The ERA was sent to the state legislatures for ratification on March 22, 1972. It failed to win the necessary 38 states approvals in the traditional seven-year limit. The Congress extended the time limit, but the states again failed to support the ratification of the ERA. Part of the opposition to the ERA came from an anti-feminist backlash. This conservative reaction asserted that the passage of the ERA would significantly alter social relations in the United States, and that men and women would be the same under law (rather than equal). (35/38 have ratified this bill and it is pending further review in Congress) The 15 states whose legislatures have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment are:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

Additional Womens Issues: Issues advanced by the womens movement included domestic violence, abortion rights, and pornography (this last issue tending to divide the movement rather than unite it). Challenging Gender Discrimination in the Courts: With the failure of the ERA, the womens movement changed focus to challenge gender discrimination in the courts and through legislation. These efforts met with considerable success. Expanding Womens Political Activities: Organizations have been formed to promote greater representation of women in government.

Women in Politics Today

1. Women in Congress. There are a substantially larger number of women in Congress than ever before. Women in Congress after the 2006 Elections. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is now the rst female Speaker of the House. 2. Women in the Executive and Judicial Branches. Although no woman has yet been nominated for president by a major political party, Hillary Rodham Clinton began her campaign for the presidency hoping to become the 2008 Democratic nominee. Generally, though, it is now normal for the presidents cabinet and the Supreme Court to contain a number of women.

Statistically men continue to be overrepresented in positions of power however !!!

Gender-Based Discrimination in the Workplace

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This title prohibits gender discrimination in employment and has been used to protect women from workplace discrimination. In 1978, Title VII was amended to include the condition of pregnancy. Sexual Harassment: The Supreme Court also has held that Title VII includes prohibitions against sexual harassment. Some problems with addressing sexual harassment complaints are how to dene a hostile environment. The Court has aAempted to clarify the issue. In two 1998 cases the Supreme Court claried the responsibilities of employers in preventing sexual harassment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton should an employer be held liable for a supervisors sexual harassment of an employee even though they were unaware it was taking place? The court ruled that the employer was liable need to take reasonable care to prevent such behaviour. See also Burlington Industries v. Ellerth. Oncale v. Sundowner Oshore Services, Inc The Supreme Court addressed a further issue: Should Title VII protection be extended to cover situations in which individuals are harassed by members of the same gender? The court answered YES!!!

Wage Discrimination:
In the year 2010, women comprised a majority of the U.S. workforce. Yet women, in spite of Title VII and legislation such as the Equal Pay Act, continue, on average, to earn less than men.

 The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Employers cannot establish separate pay scales for men and women performing the same work. Despite this act, by 2007 women were earning on average 75 cents to every dollar earned by men. The Glass Ceiling: This term refers to hard-to- identify but very real barriers to the promotion of women into positions of authority. Women now hold 16 percent of the top corporate ocer positions in Fortune 500 companies, up from nine percent a decade ago. What is the solution?

1963 President Kennedy signed a bill to provide equal pay for women. ??????

Other Countries:

Accommodating Diversity/ Bilingual Education

About half of the states have passed English only laws to make English their ocial language.
Accommodating Diversity with Bilingual Education. Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act in 1968, which was intended to help Hispanic children learn English. The Supreme Court ruling in Lau v. Nichols (1974) bolstered the case that children have a right to bilingual education. (A class action suit brought by parents of non-English-proficient Chinese students against the San Francisco Unified School District. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that identical education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the district must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by the non-English speaking Chinese students in the district.) [414 U.S. 563 (1974)] Controversy over Bilingual Education. Bilingual programs have come under aAack; in 1998, California passed a ballot initiative that eectively ended eorts at bilingual education in the state.

 Controversy over Bilingual Education.

Bilingual programs have come under aAack; in 1998, California passed a ballot initiative that eectively ended eorts at bilingual education in the state.

Affirmative Action
Affirmative action describes those policies that give special preferences in educational admissions and employment decisions to groups that have been discriminated against in the past. As originally intended, affirmative action policies were an attempt by the federal government to level the playing field for women and African Americans in particular. The policy of affirmative action goes beyond a strict interpretation of the equal protection clause. Affirmative action remains a controversial issue for several reasons: 1. Some people argue that racial and gender-based discrimination in employment and school admissions decisions is now so infrequent that affirmative action is no longer warranted. 2. Others argue that the backlash created hurts race relations. Some women and African Americans argue that the presence of affirmative action discredits their achievements. On the other side of the argument are the economic realities. There is no doubt that women and African Americans lack economic parity in the U.S. Affirmative action represents one attempt to remedy this. Popular support of affirmative action programs seems to be based somewhat on racial identity, with majorities of African Americans and Hispanics supportive of affirmative action, and whites widely divided on the issue.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978

Facts of the Case: Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

 Conclusion: No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action. Quota systems that only considered the race of an applicant were unconstitutional.

In Brief:
Further Limits on Armative Action. In another decision, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a government uses armative action programs, it must do so under the strict scrutiny rule. This means that governments typically cannot use quota systems, and once a program has been deemed successful, it must be eliminated. In two University of Michigan cases in 2003, the Court indicated that diversity was a legitimate goal in college admissions, but could not be achieved by automatically assigning points to minority applicants.

1995 White House guidelines on affirmative action

President Clinton asserted in a speech that while Adarand set "stricter standards to mandate reform of affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need for affirmative action and reaffirmed the continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States. In a White House memorandum on the same day, he called for the elimination of any program that "(a) creates a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."

1996 Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School

Cheryl Hopwood and three other white law-school applicants at the University of Texas challenged the school's affirmative action program, asserting that they were rejected because of unfair preferences toward less qualified minority applicants. As a result, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals suspended the university's affirmative action admissions program and ruled that the 1978 Bakke decision was invalidwhile Bakke rejected racial quotas it maintained that race could serve as a factor in admissions. In addition to remedying past discrimination, Bakke maintained that the inclusion of minority students would create a diverse student body, and that was beneficial to the educational environment as a whole. Hopwood, however, rejected the legitimacy of diversity as a goal, asserting that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand. In 1997, the Texas Attorney General announced that all "Texas public universities [should] employ race-neutral criteria." The June 23, 2003, Supreme Court ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger invalidates Hopwood.

1997 Proposition 209 enacted in California A state ban on all forms of affirmative action was passed in California: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Proposed in 1996, the controversial ban had been delayed in the courts for almost a year before it went into effect.

1998 Initiative 200 enacted in Washington State

Washington becomes the second state to abolish state affirmative action measures when it passed "I 200," which is similar to California's Proposition 209. 2000 Florida bans race as factor in college admissions. Florida legislature approves education component of Gov. Jeb Bush's "One Florida" initiative, aimed at ending affirmative action in the state.

2000 University of Michigans undergrad affirmative action policy

In Gratz v. Bollinger, a federal judge ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Michigan was constitutional. The gist of the university's argument was as follows: just as preference is granted to children of alumni, scholarship athletes, and others groups for reasons deemed beneficial to the university, so too does the affirmative action program serve "a compelling interest" by providing educational benefits derived from a diverse student body.

2001 Univ. of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy

In Grutter v. Bollinger, a case similar to the University of Michigan undergraduate lawsuit, a different judge drew an opposite conclusion, invalidating the law school's policy and ruling that "intellectual diversity bears no obvious or necessary relationship to racial diversity. But on May 14, 2002, the decision was reversed on appeal, ruling that the admissions policy was, in fact, constitutional.

2003 Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions

In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court (54) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rates students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, does not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action

2006 Supreme Court Rules Against Considering Race to Integrate Schools

In Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, affirmative action suffers a setback when a bitterly divided court rules, 54, that programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., which tried to maintain diversity in schools by considering race when assigning students to schools, are unconstitutional. 2008 Ballot Measure to Ban Affirmative Action Goes Before Voters Ballot measures proposing to ban affirmative action race and gender based preferences by public entities goes before voters in two states, Nebraska and Colorado. The ban passes with more than 50% of the vote in Nebraska. Voters in Colorado, though, reject the proposed ban.

2009 Ricci v. DeStefano, Firefighters Go to Court

In a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, 18 plaintiffs 17 white and 1 Hispanicargued that results of the 2003 lieutenant and captain exams were thrown out when it was determined that few minority firefighters qualified for advancement. The city claimed they threw out the results because they feared liability under a disparate-impact statute for issuing tests that discriminated against minority firefighters. The plaintiffs claimed that they were victims of reverse discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled (54) in favor of the firefighters, saying New Haven's "action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII."

The End of Affirmative Action?