Ch 15 Legalities Affecting Schooling - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Ch 15 Legalities Affecting Schooling - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

on

  • 334 views

Ch 15 Legalities Affecting Schooling - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

Ch 15 Legalities Affecting Schooling - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

Statistics

Views

Total Views
334
Views on SlideShare
334
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ch 15 Legalities Affecting Schooling - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis Ch 15 Legalities Affecting Schooling - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis Document Transcript

  • CHAPTER 15–IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 78This book is protected under the Copyright Act of 1976. Uncited Sources,Violators will be prosecuted. Courtesy, National FORUM JournalsCHAPTER 15IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTINGSCHOOLING IN AMERICAKEY POINTSTHE THIRTEEN FEDERAL JUDICIAL CIRCUITSCopyright © 2005William KritsonisAll Rights Reserved / ForeverNYVT MENHCT RIMAPA NJDEWV VAMDNCSCWashington,D.C.Federal Courtof AppealsPuertoRicoVirgin IslandsGuam andN. MarinaIslandsFLGAALTNKYOHMIWIIL INIAMOARNESDND MNMTAKWAORIDWYKSOKCOUTNVCAAZNMTXMSLAHI
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 79CHAPTER 15–IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOL-ING IN AMERICAA. OVERVIEWChapter 15 presents information regarding important legalities affectingschooling in America. Specific content focuses on federal legislation,important court cases and decisions, and parts of the Constitution that affecteducation in America.B. KEY TERMS–DEFINITIONS – NONEC. SOME PRECEDING THOUGHTS1. Federal legislation affecting education.Land Ordinance of 1785• first legislation passed at the national level that had an impact oneducation;• required one section of each township established in the NorthwestTerritory be reserved for the establishment of public schools.Northwest Ordinance of 1787• expressed general commitment for education by the federalgovernment;• stated that “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to goodgovernment and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means ofeducation shall forever be encouraged”;• considered by many as the foundation for public education.Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862• gave 30,000 acres of federal land to each state for each electedrepresentative to Congress;• purpose of the land was to establish a college for agriculture andmechanical arts;• eventual donation of 17 million acres of land.
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 80The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917• provided funds to states to train teachers in the area of vocationaleducation;• primarily assisted high schools; however, some funds used in juniorcolleges;• helped establish an extensive network of vocational education in thecountry;National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-865)• passed after the launching of Sputnik;• primarily enacted as a defense action;• provided unprecedented amounts of federal money for publiceducation;• emphasized educational improvement in the areas of science andforeign languages.Vocational Education Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-210)• expanded federal support for vocational education;• main purpose was to assist states in maintaining, extending, andimproving existing vocational education programs and to provide part-time employment for youths;• provided for $60 million during fiscal year 1964 and $225 million peryear thereafter.Bilingual Education Act of 1964• provided funds for school districts to develop and operate specialprograms for students with limited English-speaking skills;• 1974 amendment removed requirements that students in the program befrom low income homes.Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10)• most extensive federal legislation passed dealing with public education;• focused public education efforts on children from poverty homes;• provided funds for library support;• established services for academic support and remedial instruction;• provided funding for research activities by universities;• funded programs at state education agencies to support personneltraining and planning.
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 81Economic Opportunity Act of 1965• continued efforts at providing services to poor children;• funded Head Start programs.Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-102)• basically civil rights legislation for the handicapped;• prevented discrimination against children and adults due to disabilities;• applied safeguards for school-age disabled children.Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142)• required the provision of a free, appropriate public education for allhandicapped children;• mandated that all handicapped children have an IndividualizedEducational Program (IEP);• required that handicapped children be educated with non-handicappedchildren as much as possible;• provided parents, students, and schools with due process safeguards;• required that parents be involved in the education of their handicappedchildren. Mandated that nondiscriminatory assessment practices beused with children.Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-88)• established the Department of Education.;• functions came from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 (Public Law97-35)• consolidated 42 programs into seven programs;• funding came from elementary and secondary block grant authority.Rehabilitation Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221)• revised and expanded Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504);• provided for the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf/Blind.
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 82Reauthorization of the Education of the Handicapped ActAmendments (Public Law 99-457)• reauthorized three-year programs under Public Law 94-142;• mandated services for children with disabilities, ages 3-5, by 1990-1991;• provided financial incentives to serve children 0-2 years withdisabilities.The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-570)• authorized funding for FY 87-89;• part of Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986;• established programs for drug abuse education and prevention.2. Important court cases affecting education.Commonwealth vs. Hartment (1851) – the Pennsylvania Supreme Courtruled that the state constitution and school laws only establish minimumrequirements and that schools could establish more stringent requirements,in this case, mandatory education.Springfield vs. Quick (1859) – the United States Supreme Court ruled thatstates could collect taxes and tax funds for public educational programs.Kalamazoo Case (1874) – the Michigan Supreme court ruled that theKalamazoo school district could levy taxes to support high schools.Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) – the United States Supreme Court upheld aLouisiana law that required railways to provide separate-but-equalfacilities for white and black individuals.Attorney General of Michigan vs. Lowrey (1905) – the United StatesSupreme Court upheld the right of state legislature to make and changeboundaries of school districts.Pierce vs. Society of Sisters (1925) – the United States Supreme Courtruled that state laws may require the attendance of children in school, butcould not regulate whether the school is private or public.Cochran vs. Louisiana State Board of Education (1930) – the UnitedStates Supreme Court ruled that state funds could be used to purchasetextbooks for all school-age children, including those attending private,sectarian schools.
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 83Illinois ex. rel. vs. Board of Education (1948) – the United States SupremeCourt ruled as unconstitutional a school program that permitted students toattend religious instruction in school during school hours.Illinois ex rel. Mccollum vs. Board of Education (1948) – the United StatesSupreme Court ruled that school programs permitting religious instructionduring school hours, and allowing students to leave their regular classesfor the religious classes, was unconstitutional.Sweatt vs. Painter (1950) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that ablack student could not be denied admission to the University of TexasLaw School for the sole reason of race.Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954) – the United StatesSupreme Court ruled that children could not be denied admission to publicschools on the basic of race; ruling declared segregated public schools tobe unconstitutional based on the Fourteenth Amendment to theConstitution.Engel vs. Vitale (1962) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that aNew York State law that required the reading of a 22-word,nondenominational prayer unconstitutional.Abington School District vs. Schempp, Murray vs. Curlett (1963) – theUnited States Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional a law that requiredthe reading of 10 Bible verses and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer duringschool hours, on school grounds, conducted by school personnel.Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968) – a law forbidding the teaching of evolutionwas ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.Green vs. County School Board (1968) – the United States Supreme Courtdeclared that a “freedom of choice” plan in a previously segregated schooldistrict offers little likelihood for desegregation. The ruling required thatan effective plan for desegregation be implemented.Pickering vs. Board of Education (1968) – teachers may express theiropinions as long as the school’s regular operation is not disrupted.Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) –the United States Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the suspensionof students wearing armbands or other symbolic expressions unless thewearing of such interferes with school.Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) – federalcourt ruling upheld busing as a legitimate means for desegregatingschools. It gave district courts wide discretion in remedying longstandingsegregated school systems.
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 84Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. Pennsylvania(1971) – federal court required local schools to provide a free, appropriatepublic education for all school-aged, mentally retarded children.Board of Regents of State Colleges vs. Roth (1972) – after a specifiedprobationary period, teachers have a property interest in continuedemployment.San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriquez (1973) – federalcourt upheld a state funding model where local property taxes are used toprovide a minimum educational program for all students.Sloan vs. Lemon (1973) – the United States Supreme Court ruled asunconstitutional a law allowing for partial reimbursement by the state fortuition paid by parents sending their children to private schools.Cleveland Board of Education vs. Lefleur (1974) – board of education mayestablish leave policies for pregnant teachers, but these policies may notcontain arbitrary leave and return dates.Milliken vs. Bradley (1974) – the United States Supreme Court, in a five tofour decision, overturned lower court rulings that required the busing ofchildren between Detroit and suburban school districts to desegregate theDetroit system.Baker vs. Owen (1975) – the United States Supreme Court ruled that astatute allowing for reasonable corporal punishment was constitutional aslong as certain procedural rights were afforded.Hortonville District vs. Hortonville Education Association (1976) – in adue process hearing, a school board may be the impartial body conductingthe hearing.Washington vs. Davis (1976) – under-representation of a group in the workforce does not, in itself, prove unconstitutional employmentdiscrimination, but the employer in this situation must prove that hiringhas not been discriminatory.Wolman vs. Walter (1977) – the United States Supreme Court ruled thatstates may supply secular texts, standardized tests, diagnostic speech,hearing and psychological services, and guidance and remedial servicesprovided on religiously neutral territory to religious, private schools.Steelworkers vs. Weber (1979) – employers (including school districts)may use affirmative action plans to increase the number of minorityemployees.
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 85Battle vs. Commonwealth (1980) – Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruledthat some handicapped children should be afforded extended school yearservices in cases where significant regression would occur during thesummer.Board of Education vs. Rowley (1982) – the United States Supreme courtruled that Public Law 94-142 guaranteed the right of disabled children to aminimally appropriate educational program, not a program designed tomaximize the educational performance of students.Firefighters vs. Stotts (1984) – in affirmative action programs, governmentunits may not ignore seniority unless the minority candidates who benefithave personally experienced discrimination.New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985) – the United States Supreme Court ruled thatwhile students had Fourth Amendment Rights relative to search andseizure, schools could use “reasonable suspicion” as a reason for searchesrather than “probable cause.”Spring Branch Independent School District vs. Stamos (1985) – the TexasSupreme Court upheld the “no-pass no-play” rule in Texas requiringstudents to meet certain academic standards before being eligible forextracurricular activities.Day vs. South Park Independent School District (1985) – this case, whichwill likely disturb educators, upheld the right of a school district toterminate an employee simply because the employee had used theemployee grievance procedure.District 27 Community School Board vs. The Board of Education of theCity of New York (1986) – the court ruled that a child with AcquiredImmune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) could be considered handicappedunder Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and therefore eligiblefor certain protections under the law.Jager and Jager vs. Douglas County School District and Douglas CountyBoard of Education (1987) – this case resulted in an ambiguous opinionthat made it unconstitutional for clergy to give a pregame invocation at ahigh school athletic event. The decision left the door open for other thanclergy to give the invocation.Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987) – the United States Supreme Court upheld alower court’s decision that the Louisiana law, the Balanced Treatment forCreation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, was unconstitutional.School Board of Nassau County vs. Arline (1987) – dismissing a teacherbecause of physical impairment or contagious disease is unconstitutional.
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 86Hoenig vs. Doe (1988) – in this case, the United States Supreme Courtruled that schools had to keep a child with emotional problems in theplacement pursuant to the individualized educational program (IEP) unlessthe parents and school agreed to a change, or until the due processprocedures for changing placement were carried out.Lehnert vs. Ferris Faculty Association (1991) – employees who are notunion members cannot be required to pay dues used for political purposesunrelated to collective bargaining agreements.3. Important United States Supreme Court desegregation cases relatedto the public schools.Case DecisionBrown vs. Board of Education ofTopeka (1954)The doctrine of separate butequal in education is a violationof the Fourteenth Amendment.Green vs. County School Boardof New Kent County (1968)Local school boards shouldimmediately take whatever stepsare necessary to achieve aunitary system.Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education(1971)Transportation of students toopposite-race school ispermissible to achievedesegregation.Keyes vs. School District No. 1(Denver) (1973)Proof of intent to segregate inone part of a district is sufficientto find the district to besegregated and to warrant adistrict-wide remedy. Forpurposes of defining asegregated school, blacks andHispanics may be consideredtogether.Milliken vs. Bradley (1974) In devising judicial remedies fordesegregation, the scope of thedesegregation remedy cannotexceed the scope of theviolation.Dayton Board of Education vs.Brinkman (1977)Judicially mandateddesegregation plans cannot
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 87exceed the impact of thesegregatory practices.Case DecisionBoard of Education of OklahomaCity Public Schools vs. Dowell(1991)Desegregation decrees are notintended to operate inperpetuity, and can be dissolvedwhen a district has made goodfaith effort to comply and to theextent practical has eliminatedthe vestiges of pastdiscrimination.Freeman vs. Pitts (1992) Lower courts can relinquishsupervision of a school districtunder desegregation decree inincremental stages before fullcompliance has been achievedin every area of schooloperations.Missouri vs. Jenkins (1995) Once the effects of legallyimposed segregation have beeneliminated, the goal ofdesegregation plans need not beto maintain racial balance but toreturn control to state and localauthorities. Any resegregationof neighborhood schools thatmay result is notunconstitutional.4. Summary of important major civil rights statues affecting education.Statute Major ProvisionCivil Rights Act of 1866, 187042 U.S.C. § 1981Provides all citizens equal rightsunder the law regardless of race.Civil Rights Act of 187142 U.S.C. § 1983Any person who deprivesanother of his/her rights may beheld liable to the injured party.Table continuedTable continues
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 88Civil Rights Act of 187142 U.S.C. § 1985 and 1986Persons conspiring to depriveanother of his/her rights, or anyperson having knowledge of anysuch conspiracy, are subject toany action to recover damages.Statute Major ProvisionCivil Rights Act of 1866, 1870(as amended)42 U.S.C. § 1988Courts may award reasonableattorney fees to the prevailingparty in any action arising out ofthe above acts and Title VI ofthe Civil Rights of 1964.Civil Rights Act of 1964Title VI42 U.S.C. § 2000(d)Prohibits discrimination on thebasis of race, color, or nationalorigin.Equal Pay Act of 196329 U.S.C. § 206(D)Prohibits sex discrimination inpay.Civil Rights Act of 1964, TitleVII42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)Prohibits discrimination inemployment on the basis ofrace, color, religion, sex, ornational origin.Age Discrimination inEmployment Act of 196729 U.S.C. § 621Prohibits discrimination againstany individual with respect toemployment unless age is a bonafide occupational qualification.Education Amendments of 1972,Title IX20 U.S.C. § 1681Prohibits sex discrimination inany education program oractivity receiving federalfinancial assistance.Rehabilitation Act of 1973(as amended)29 U.S.C. § 791Prohibits sex discriminationagainst any “otherwise qualifiedhandicapped individual.”Equal Educational OpportunitiesAct of 197420 U.S.C. § 1703Prohibits any state from denyingequal educational opportunitiesto any individual based onhis/her race, color, sex, ornational origin.Americans with Disabilities Act Prohibits discrimination againstTable continuesTable continuedTable continues
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 89of 199042 U.S.C. §12112persons with disabilities.Statute Major ProvisionIndividuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act of 199020 U.S.C. § 1400-1485Individuals with disabilitiesmust be guaranteed a freeappropriate education byprograms receiving federalfinancial assistance.Civil Rights Restoration Act of199142 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.Amends the Civil Rights Act of1964, the Age Discrimination inEmployment Act of 1967, andthe Americans with DisabilitiesAct of 1990 with regard toemployment discrimination.5. Important U.S. Supreme Court cases affecting teachers’ rights.Case DecisionIndiana ex rel. Anderson vs.Branch (1938)Tenure statutes provide qualifyingteachers with contractual rightsthat cannot be altered by the statewithout good cause.Keyishian vs. Board ofRegents (1967)Loyalty oaths that make meremembership in a subversiveorganization grounds for dismissalare unconstitutionally overboard.Pickering vs. Board ofEducation (1968)Absent proof of false statementsknowingly or recklessly made,teachers may not be dismissed forexercising the freedom to speak onmatters of public interest.Board of Regents vs. Roth(1972)A nontenured teacher does not havea property right to continuedemployment and can be dismissedwithout a statement of cause or aTable continued
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 90hearing as long as the employee’sreputation or future employmenthave not been impaired.Case DecisionPerry vs. Sindermann (1972) Teacher may not be dismissed forpublic criticism of superiors onmatters of public concern.Cleveland Board ofEducation vs. Le Fleur (1974)School board policy requiring thatall pregnant teachers takemandatory leave isunconstitutional.Hortonville Joint SchoolDistrict No. 1 vs. HortonvilleEducation Association (1976)A school board may serve as theimpartial hearing body in a dueprocess hearing.Washington vs. Davis (1976) To sustain a claim ofdiscrimination, an employee mustshow that the employer’s actionwas a deliberate attempt todiscriminate, not just that the actionresulted in a disproportionateimpact.Mount Healthy City SchoolDistrict vs. Doyle (1977)To prevail in a First Amendmentdismissal case, school districtemployees must show that theconduct was protected and was asubstantial and motivating decisionnot to renew the contract, and theschool board must prove that itwould have reached the samedecision in the absence of theprotected conduct.United States vs. SouthCarolina (1978)Use of the National TeachersExaminations both as a requirementfor certification and as a factor insalary determination serves aTable continued Table continues
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 91legitimate state purpose and is notunconstitutional despite itsdisparate racial impact.Connick vs. Myers (1983) The First Amendment guarantee offreedom of expression does notextend to teachers’ publiccomments on matters of personalinterest (as opposed to matters ofpublicconcern).Case DecisionCleveland Board ofEducation vs. Laudermill(1985)A teacher who can be dismissedonly for cause is entitled to an oralor written notice of charges, astatement of the evidence againsthim or her, and the opportunity topresent his or her side prior totermination.Garland Independent SchoolDistrict vs. Texas StateTeachers Association (1986)Teachers can use the interschoolmail system and school mailboxesto distribute union material.Wygant vs. Jackson Board ofEducation (1986)Absent evidence that the schoolboard has engaged indiscrimination or that the preferredemployees have been victims ofdiscrimination, school boardpolicies may not give preferentialtreatment based on race or ethnicityin layoff decisions.School Board of NassauCounty vs. Arline (1987)Persons suffering from contagiousdiseases are consideredhandicapped persons, anddiscrimination against them basedsolely on fear of contamination isconsidered unconstitutionaldiscrimination against thehandicapped.Table continuedTable continues
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 926. Important U.S. Supreme Court cases affecting students’ rights.Case DecisionTinker vs. Des Moines (1969) School officials cannot limitstudents’ rights to free expressionunless there is evidence of amaterial disruption or substantialdisorder.Goss vs. Lopez (1975) For suspensions of less than 10days, the student must be given anoral or written notice of charges, anexplanation of the evidence againsthim or her, and the opportunity torebut the charges before anobjective decision maker.Case DecisionWood vs. Strickland (1975) Students may sue school boardmembers for monetary damagesunder the Civil Rights Act of 1871.Ingraham vs. Wright (1977) Corporal punishment does notconstitute cruel and unusualpunishment under the EighthAmendment and does not requiredue process prior to administration.Board of Education, IslandTrees Union Free SchoolDistrict vs. Pico (1982)Censorship by the school boardacting in a narrowly partisan orpolitical manner violates the FirstAmendment rights of students.Pyler vs. Doe (1982) The denial of a free public educationto undocumented alien childrenviolates the equal protectionguarantees of the FourteenthAmendment.Bethel School District vs.Fraser (1985)School boards have the authority todetermine what speech isinappropriate and need not toleratespeech that is lewd or offensive.New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1986) School officials are not required toTable continued Table continues
  • SCHOOLING (2002)PAGE 93obtain a search warrant or showprobable cause to search a student,only reasonable suspicion that thesearch will turn up evidence of aviolation of law or school rules.Hazelwood School District vs.Kuhlmier (1988)School officials may limit school-sponsored student speech as long astheir actions are related to alegitimate pedagogical concern.Honig vs. Doe (1988) Disruptive handicapped childrenmay be expelled but materials mustbe kept in their current placementuntil an official hearing is held.Case DecisionFranklin vs. Gwinnett (1992) The sexual harassment of a studentmay be a violation of Title IX forwhich monetary damages can besought.Vernonia School District vs.Acton (1995)Special needs can justify“suspicionless” random searchingof students.7. Important parts of the United States Constitution.Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishmentof religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, but upon probablecause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing theplace to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment V – No person shall be held to answer for a capital orotherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of aGrand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in theMilitia, when in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person beTable continuedTable continues
  • CHAPTER 15– IMPORTANT LEGALITIES AFFECTING SCHOOLING IN AMERICAPAGE 94subject to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; norshall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, norbe deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; norshall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by theConstitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.Amendment XIV –Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subjectto the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the stateswherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shallabridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; norshall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equalprotection of the laws.Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several statesaccording to their respective number, counting the whole number ofpersons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right tovote at any election for the choice of electors for President and VicePresident of the United States, Representative in Congress, the Executiveand Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof,is denied any of the male inhabitants of such state, being 21 years of age,and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except forparticipation in rebellion, or the crime, the basis of representation thereinshall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizensshall bear to the number of male citizens 21 years of age in such state.D. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES – NONEE. REVIEW ITEMS – NONE