1 / 30

Civil Rights

Civil Rights. African American Situation A-A Campaign in the Courts A-A Campaign in Congress Women Affirmative Action Homosexuals and the Supreme Court. I. African American Situation. African Americans’ Predicament.

michelle-grant
Download Presentation

Civil Rights

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Civil Rights African American Situation A-A Campaign in the Courts A-A Campaign in Congress Women Affirmative Action Homosexuals and the Supreme Court

  2. I. African American Situation

  3. African Americans’ Predicament • Civil rights: rights of citizens to vote, receive equal treatment before law, share equally benefits of public facilities • Central question: how reasonable is different treatment of different people? • “Suspect classifications:” based on race, ethnicity • Black-white relations have defined civil rights problems

  4. Reasons for Unfair Treatment • Perceived costs of granting demands to A-As not widely distributed to public but concentrated on small group • Interest group politics – competition • A-As had numerous disadvantages • Majoritarian politics works to A-As disadvantage • White attitudes • Left lynching alone legally, opposed civil rights movement • Result: A-As could not advance interests legally • Opponents aroused, organized, powerful

  5. Strategies to Address Problems • Patient, prolonged legal struggle • Shifted decision-making power from Congress to courts • Some successes meant A-As able to assert demands in legislative, executive branches • Civil rights became matter of waging interest group politics (instead of gaining access to political system)

  6. II. Campaign in the Courts

  7. Campaign in the Courts • 14th Amendment problem • Broad interpretation: Constitution is color-blind • No state laws could have effect of treating whites, A-As differently • Narrow interpretation: whites and A-As share certain fundamental legal rights, but can be treated differently • Until mid-20th century, SC took narrow view • Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): “separate but equal”

  8. “Separate but Equal” • National Association for Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) wages legal battle: • 1. Get SC to declare unconstitutional laws creating school that were separate and unequal • 2. Get SC to declare unconstitutional laws creating school that were separate and unequal in not-so-obvious ways • 3. Get SC to declare racially separate schools inherently unequal, unconstitutional

  9. 1st step:Gaines (1938) had to be admitted to all-white Missouri law school because all-black one not yet built • 2nd step:Sweatt (1950): admitted to white law school, but segregated, imposing unconstitutional barriers to educational opportunities • 3rd step:Brown (1954): separate educational facilities inherently unequal

  10. Brown v. Board of Education • Class-action suit: A-A children had right to attend formerly all-white schools • Implementation: “with all deliberate speed” • Especially in South: little change until presidential action forced it • Rationale: segregation had detrimental effects on A-A children by generating feelings of inferiority • Authors of 14th Amendment might not have intended to outlaw segregated schools • Some justices didn’t agree 14th Amendment made Constitution color-blind

  11. Desegregation v. Integration • Was it enough to remove barriers for A-A children or was it necessary that A-As go to school with whites? • De jure (by law) segregation: outlawed • De facto (by fact) segregation: unclear at first • Green (1968): SC interpreted Constitution as requiring actual race mixing in schools • Swann (1971): SC upheld court-ordered busing to achieve “unitary school system”

  12. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education • Schools are unconstitutional if intending to discriminate • Existence of all-white or all-black schools creates presumption of intent to discriminate • Remedy for past discrimination can include racial quotas, new district boundaries, court-ordered busing

  13. III. Campaign in Congress

  14. Civil Rights Laws • Difficult to get Congress to pass civil rights laws • Had to convince people something needed to be done • Sit-ins, nonviolent civil disobedience successful • Violence, riots unsuccessful • Problem: conflict between setting agenda, building coalition • 3 developments change situation • 1. public opinion changed, helped by violence of white resistors • 2. JFK assassinated, some thought by right-wing • 3. Democrats received Congressional majority (1964)

  15. Result • Civil Rights Act of 1964: high-water mark • Banned discrimination in employment on basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin • Outlawed discrimination in public accommodations • Allowed Justice Dept. to sue to enforce desegregation • “Civil rights” measures now guaranteed passage • Why? • Growing political power of southern A-As • Changes in whites’ attitudes

  16. IV. Women and Rights

  17. 14th Amendment • SC interpreted to prohibit any state from denying to “any person” the “equal protection of the laws” • Does Constitution bar sexual discrimination? • 1. “Reasonableness” standard – if govt treats some classes of people different from others, it must be reasonable, not arbitrary • 2. “Strict scrutiny” standard – some examples of drawing distinctions between different groups is inherently suspect, thus SC will subject them to strict scrutiny

  18. Illegal (examples): • Different ages for adulthood • Barred from jobs by height, weight • Business, service clubs have to admit women • Legal (examples): • Single-sex schools • Require only men for registering for draft, combat duties

  19. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) • Congress passed in 1972 • Ratification stalled in 1974 at 35 states • Extended ratification period to 1982, failed • Why did it fail? • Many women opposed to getting drafted for combat duty • Some thought ERA would eliminate laws that protected women at work (minimum-wage laws)

  20. Abortion • Until 1973, states allowed to determine circumstances for abortions • Roe v. Wade (1973) • SC argued due process clause implied “right to privacy” that protects woman’s freedom to choose • 1st trimester: right to choose • 2nd trimester: states could regulate to protect mother’s health • 3rd trimester: states could outlaw abortions

  21. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) • Refused to overturn Roe • Upheld state restrictions: • 24-hour waiting period • Parental consent for teens • Requirements that women contemplating abortion receive information about alternatives

  22. Women and the Economy • Many feminists and supporters fight for • Govt-funded health care • Child support enforcement • Pregnancy leave • Doctrine of “comparable worth” • Workers’ compensation determined by “worth” of work • To measure worth, experts assign points

  23. V. Affirmative Action

  24. Affirmative Action • Equality of results • Proponents say racism, sexism can only be overcome by taking race, sex into account • Favor preferential hiring practices • Now: institutions should reflect cultural diversity • Equality of opportunity • If it’s wrong to discriminate against minorities, women, it’s equally wrong to give them preferential treatment • Reverse discrimination

  25. Ideas about Affirmative Action • Looking hard for qualified women, minorities and giving them fair shot at jobs • Setting numerical goals (targets, quotas) for number of women, minorities that should be hired and insisting the goal be met

  26. Recent Decisions • Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) • Should govt be allowed to use quota system? • SC ruled it unconstitutional • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) (University of Michigan) • Use of racial preferences violates equal protection clause • Points based on race not narrowly enough tailored • Upheld diversity as compelling state interest • General standards • SC will subject quotas to “strict scrutiny” • Quotas can’t be used w/o showing attempts to correct past discrimination

  27. Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995) • Any discrimination based on race is subject to strict scrutiny • Strict scrutiny means • Any racial preference must serve “compelling govt interest” • Preference must be “narrowly tailored” to serve that interest

  28. Americans’ Beliefs • Favor compensatory actions – helping disadvantaged people “catch up” • Oppose preferential treatment – getting something without deserving it

  29. Homosexuals andthe Supreme Court

  30. Current Status Unclear • Some states have passed laws outlawing homosexual activities • A few states have permitted same-sex marriages, most have not • Still largely undecided

More Related