Civil Liberties And Civil Rights


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
1 Comment
  • Umm, there are no civil rights in america any more.. the land of the freebooter has turned on itself and is devouring its own population in fear and jingoism. I have always said that china and america are from the same mold... they get closer every day. Now america cannot criticize other nations for civil rights abuses when their own citizenry is without regard from the government departments, and especially without any responsibility on behalf of the media to provide facts in their reporting and be held accountable when they are shown to be misleading and false.

    When america can get this fixed, give the population some honesty in government, some credibility for its financial and media organisations, then maybe, just maybe, they can use their motto of land of the free and home of the brave. At present, it is land of the stupid and home of the bully....
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Civil Liberties And Civil Rights

  1. 1. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
  2. 2. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights: What’s the Diff? <ul><li>Civil Liberties </li></ul><ul><li>The Bill of Rights </li></ul><ul><li>The legal constitutional protections against the government </li></ul><ul><li>Limitations on government power </li></ul><ul><li>What the government cannot do </li></ul><ul><li>Civil Rights </li></ul><ul><li>14th Amendment </li></ul><ul><li>What the government must do to ensure equal protection </li></ul><ul><li>Protects against discriminatory treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Require government action </li></ul>
  3. 3. What Civil Liberties Do I Value Most? <ul><li>Freedom of Speech </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom of Religion </li></ul><ul><li>Right to a jury trial </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom of the press </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment </li></ul><ul><li>Right to keep and bear arms </li></ul><ul><li>Right to control your own property </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom of assembly </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom from quartering troops in your own home </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures </li></ul>
  4. 4. Civil Liberties and the Supreme Court <ul><li>Judicial interpretations shape the nature of civil liberties, and as these interpretations change over time, so do our rights </li></ul><ul><li>To understand the civil liberties and freedoms we have, we will examine several key Supreme Court decisions </li></ul><ul><li>One of the most common controversies addressed by the court: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Should the Bill of Rights apply to STATE governments? </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights <ul><li>The BoR were originally written to protect citizens from the national government (“Congress shall make no law…”) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Barron v. Baltimore (1833): The BoR only apply to national government… NOT the states </li></ul></ul><ul><li>However, over time most liberties protected by the BoR have been “selectively incorporated” (or applied) to the states through the 14 th Amendment’s due process clause </li></ul>
  6. 6. Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights <ul><li>The first Supreme Court case to “selectively incorporate” a part of the BoR was Gitlow v. New York (1925) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applies first Amendment protection of free speech to the states </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Since Gitlow, the Supreme Court has gradually incorporated other selected parts of the BoR to the states </li></ul>
  7. 8. Effective Oral Arguments <ul><li>Morse v. Frederick (2007) </li></ul><ul><li>At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message &quot;Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Frederick argued this action was a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. </li></ul>
  8. 9. Freedom of Religion <ul><li>Two Key Principles </li></ul><ul><li>The Establishment Clause: The Separation of Church and State </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Free Exercise Clause: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prevents the government from prohibiting individuals from practicing religion of their choice </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How can these two conflict with one another? </li></ul>
  9. 10. Freedom of Religion <ul><li>Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Direct state-aid cannot be used to fund religious instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Set-up the three-part “Lemon test:” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For a law to be constitutional under the establishment clause, it: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must have a secular (non-religious) legislative purpose </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can neither advance nor inhibit religion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must not result in excessive government “entanglement” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If any of these conditions are violated, the law is unconstitutional… but Court has changed opinion </li></ul></ul>
  10. 11. Freedom of Religion <ul><li>The Establishment Clause: Other Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Does prayer in public schools violate Establishment Clause? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>YES! Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What about prayer at graduations? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>YES! Lee v. Weisman (1992) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can families use state issued credits (vouchers) to “purchase” private, religious education? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>YES! Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What about displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and other government buildings? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yes ( Van Orden v. Perry) and No ( McCreary County v. ACLU), 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supreme Court… OK to display as long as it is secular </li></ul></ul>
  11. 12. Freedom of Religion <ul><li>The Free Exercise Clause </li></ul><ul><li>Prohibits government from interfering with the practice of religion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But not always…. Reynolds v. U.S. (1879) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some religious practices may conflict with other rights, and then be denied or punished </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Oregon v. Smith (1990) : Supreme Court rules that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to two drug counselors for using peyote religiously </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Controversial… Freedom Restoration Act (1993) passed in response. Declared unconstitutional </li></ul></ul>
  12. 13. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>“ Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” </li></ul><ul><li>What is the purpose of free speech and the press? </li></ul><ul><li>Important Note: Free speech and press are NOT absolute (without restriction) </li></ul><ul><li>Thus, when it comes to free speech and the press, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what the government can and cannot regulate </li></ul>
  13. 14. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>Limiting Speech to Ensure Public Order </li></ul><ul><li>Schenck v. U.S. (1919). Can the government limit free speech during wartime? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Clear and present danger test </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) But what constitutes a danger? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The direct incitement test: the government can punish speech that will likely lead to imminent illegal behavior </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes it more difficult to punish speech </li></ul></ul>
  14. 15. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>Protected Speech </li></ul><ul><li>The Supreme Court will not tolerate prior restraint (censorship) of speech or the press (before the fact) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Near v. Minnesota (1931): selectively incorporates free press </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New York Times v. U.S. (1971) and the Pentagon Papers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Court has also extended protections to symbolic speech </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Texas v. Johnson (1989) protects flag burning as symbolic speech </li></ul></ul>
  15. 16. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>Protected Speech </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom NOT to Speak </li></ul><ul><ul><li>West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) : Students cannot be compelled to salute the flag </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” (Justice Jackson) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 17. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>Protected (and Unprotected) Speech </li></ul><ul><li>Hate Speech and “Fighting Words:” Can the court regulate these types of speech? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942) : Words that instigate another person to fight can be regulated and are not protected by the first amendment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BUT, in R.A.V. v. St. Paul ( 1992), the Court ruled that the first amendment prohibits the governments from “silencing speech on the basis of content” (i.e. hate speech) </li></ul></ul>
  17. 18. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>Unprotected Speech: </li></ul><ul><li>Defamation of character: Libel (written) and slander (spoken) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NY Times v. Sullivan (1964): Court declares that libel must show “actual malice” or knowing disregard for the truth </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>Unprotected Speech: </li></ul><ul><li>Obscenity: But what is considered obscene? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Roth v. United States (1957): In order to be considered unprotected, obscene speech, the must be: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ utterly without redeeming social importance” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Whether to the average person… the dominant theme of the material” appeals to an unhealthy interest in sex (“prurience”) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Miller v. California (1971): Tries to make it easier for states to define obscenity by adding to Roth test: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The work appealed to a “prurient interest in sex” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The work portrays sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The work “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 20. Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly <ul><li>The Right to Assemble </li></ul><ul><li>What is the purpose? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To allow citizens to communicate their ideas on public issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BUT, can conflict with public order, so reasonable limits (time, place and manner) can be placed on assembly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are there limitations on the message of the assembly? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NO! Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Smith v. Collin (1978) </li></ul></ul>
  20. 21. The Right to Privacy: Is There a Right to Privacy in the Constitution? <ul><li>Definition: the right to a private personal life free from the intrusion of government </li></ul><ul><li>Not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but implied through the penumbras (implied rights) of the Bill of Rights </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Privacy is a transcendent, constitutional value, which is fundamental to the American way of life and to other basic rights outlined in the Bill of Rights </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court agrees that a right to privacy exists: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): CT law outlawing access to contraception violated constitutional right to privacy of married couples to make decisions about their families </li></ul></ul>
  21. 22. The Right to Privacy: The Abortion Debate
  22. 23. Roe Revisited: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) <ul><li>The issue: Was the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 constitutional? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Law required that a woman seeking an abortion meet several conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Would Roe be overturned? </li></ul><ul><li>No… Justice O’Connor argued that stare decisis (precedent of the Court) required the Court to not overturn Roe.  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb).  </li></ul></ul>
  23. 24. Roe Revisited: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) <ul><li>HOWEVER, the Court allowed certain restrictions on abortions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>States can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” (substantial obstacle) on the access to abortion.  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions to protect the health of the woman and the potential life of the fetus.  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thus, states can pass some laws that regulate abortion, but these laws cannot place a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.”  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But what is a “substantial obstacle?” </li></ul></ul>
  24. 25. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused <ul><li>Much of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) apply to people accused of crimes </li></ul><ul><li>Like other civil liberties, defendants’ rights are not clearly defined in the BoR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Just how speedy is a “speedy” trial? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How “cruel and unusual” must a punishment be to violate the 8 th amendment? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Courts continually rule on what action of the government is constitutional and what is not. </li></ul>
  25. 26. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused
  26. 27. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused <ul><li>Searches and Seizures </li></ul><ul><li>Probable Cause: police must have reason to believe that a person should be arrested </li></ul><ul><li>Unreasonable searches and seizures (4 th Amendment): evidence is obtained in a haphazard or random manner, prohibited by the Fourth Amendment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Probable cause and a search warrant are required in most cases to make a search and seizure constitutional </li></ul></ul>
  27. 28. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused <ul><li>Searches and Seizures </li></ul><ul><li>Exclusionary Rule: the rule that evidence, no matter how incriminating, cannot be introduced into trial if it was not constitutionally obtained </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Court broadens the application of this rule in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Selective incorporation: Because of Mapp , the exclusionary rule applies to state governments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What about the Patriot Act? </li></ul>
  28. 29. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused <ul><li>Self-Incrimination </li></ul><ul><li>Definition: when an individual accused of a crime is compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in court </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Court has ruled that police must inform suspects of these and other Fifth Amendment protections upon arrest. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Miranda v. Arizona (1966) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However, a coerced confession does not necessarily mean a mistrial if it is a “harmless error” </li></ul></ul>
  29. 30. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused <ul><li>Miranda Warnings </li></ul><ul><li>You have the right to remain silent. </li></ul><ul><li>Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. </li></ul><ul><li>You have the right to have an attorney present before any questioning. </li></ul><ul><li>If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning. Do you understand these rights? </li></ul>
  30. 31. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused <ul><li>The Right to Counsel (Sixth Amendment) </li></ul><ul><li>Always ensured in federal courts, but not state </li></ul><ul><li>Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Court rules that the state must provide lawyers in the case of a felony </li></ul></ul>
  31. 32. The Rights of Defendants and the Accused <ul><li>Cruel and Unusual Punishment (8 th Amendment) </li></ul><ul><li>Centered around the death penalty </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Furman v. Georgia (1972): Court overturned Georgia’s death penalty law because it punishment was arbitrary and random </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Gregg v. Georgia (1976) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The court has ruled that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It is “an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme crimes.” </li></ul></ul>
  32. 33. Civil Liberties Wrap-up <ul><li>Judicial interpretations shape the nature of civil liberties, and as these interpretations change over time, so do our rights </li></ul><ul><li>To understand the civil liberties and freedoms we have (and how they have changed), we examined several key Supreme Court decisions </li></ul><ul><li>One of the most common controversies addressed by the court: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Should the Bill of Rights apply to STATE governments? </li></ul></ul>
  33. 34. Civil Rights: The Struggle for Equality
  34. 35. Introduction: Defining Civil Rights <ul><li>Civil Rights </li></ul><ul><li>14th Amendment issues </li></ul><ul><li>Action required of the government to ensure equality </li></ul><ul><li>Protects against discriminatory treatment </li></ul><ul><li>What Types of Discriminatory Treatment Have Groups Faced? </li></ul><ul><li>Racial Discrimination </li></ul><ul><li>Gender Discrimination </li></ul><ul><li>Discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation and other factors </li></ul>
  35. 36. <ul><li>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws . </li></ul><ul><li>The Fourteenth Amendment </li></ul><ul><li>Does treating people equally mean treating people the same? </li></ul>
  36. 37. What does equality mean? <ul><li>Conceptions of Equality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Equal opportunity = same chances? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OR </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equal results = same rewards? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Constitution and Inequality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Equality is not in the original Constitution. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>First mention of equality in the 14 th Amendment: forbids states to deny “…equal protection of the laws” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But what does this mean? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  37. 38. The Struggle for Racial Equality <ul><li>Key Milestones During The Era of Slavery </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Slaves had no rights. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Invalidated Missouri Compromise </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Civil War </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Thirteenth Amendment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ratified after Union won the Civil War </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Outlawed slavery </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fourteenth Amendment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fifteenth Amendment </li></ul></ul>
  38. 39. The Struggle for Racial Equality <ul><li>The Era of Reconstruction and “Resegregation” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jim Crow laws </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relegated African Americans to separate facilities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key question: What would the Supreme Court do about segregation? </li></ul></ul>
  39. 40. The Struggle for Equality: Segregation, Equality and the Supreme Court <ul><li>Conflicting ideas of what it means to treat people equally has presented problems over the years for our Supreme Court </li></ul><ul><li>When the SC must decide cases where people claim to have been treated &quot;differently&quot; in violation of the 14th, justices need to determine whether different treatment leads to inequality. Plessy v. Ferguson was their first attempt to do this. </li></ul>
  40. 41. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) <ul><li>The Supreme Court rules in favor of the state of Louisiana, declaring that the “Separate Car Act” was constitutional </li></ul><ul><li>Establishes “Separate but equal” doctrine: Segregation of blacks and whites was constitutional as long as both have access to equal facilities </li></ul><ul><li>The Court’s reasoning: The Constitution and the law are not responsible for promoting social equality, just equal treatment under the law. Do you agree? </li></ul>
  41. 42. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Plessy (Cont’d) <ul><li>We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. . . . The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits and a voluntary consent of individuals. . . . Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane </li></ul>
  42. 43. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) <ul><li>Chief Justice Earl Warren argues that “in the field of public education…separate but equal has no place.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal .” </li></ul><ul><li>The case overturns Plessy v. Ferguson and ends segregation in public schools </li></ul>
  43. 44. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Brown II (1955) <ul><li>BUT, Brown brought up questions… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How quickly should schools be desegregated ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What can the Supreme Court do to enforce its decisions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This question was never addressed in the first Brown case! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In 1955, the Supreme Court rules that a “prompt and reasonable start” to desegregation should take place “with all deliberate speed.” </li></ul><ul><li>What does that mean? “With all deliberate speed”????? </li></ul><ul><li>Desegregating Schools: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Busing of students became the solution for two kinds of segregation: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>de jure, “by law” segregation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>de facto, “in reality” segregation </li></ul></ul></ul>
  44. 45. The Struggle for Racial Equality
  45. 46. (Furman Pic)
  46. 47. The Struggle for Racial Equality <ul><li>Civil Rights Act of 1964 </li></ul><ul><li>Made racial discrimination illegal in hotels, restaurants, and other public accommodation </li></ul><ul><li>Forbade employment discrimination based on race </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to monitor and enforce rules </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strengthened voting right legislation </li></ul><ul><li>Provided for the withholding of federal funds for discriminatory state and local programs </li></ul><ul><li>Authorized Department of Justice to initiate lawsuits to desegregate public facilities and schools </li></ul>
  47. 48. The Struggle for Racial Equality <ul><li>Impact of Civil Rights Act of 1964 </li></ul><ul><li>Education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Authorized the federal government to bring action against school districts who failed to comply with Brown </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Employment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Title VII of the act prohibited employment discrimination based on race, gender, sex, age, and national origin </li></ul></ul>
  48. 49. The Struggle for Racial Equality <ul><li>The Right to Vote </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Suffrage: the legal right to vote </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fifteenth Amendment: extended suffrage to African Americans </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Restricted Black Voting Rights During Jim Crow </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Poll Taxes: small taxes levied on the right to vote </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Literacy tests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>White Primary: Only whites were allowed to vote in the party primaries. </li></ul></ul>
  49. 50. The Struggle for Racial Equality <ul><li>The Right to Vote </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Twenty-fourth Amendment (1962): eliminated poll taxes for federal elections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Voting Rights Act of 1965: helped end formal and informal barriers to voting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ended discriminatory voter registration tests </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Authorized federal voting registrars to sign up black voters </li></ul></ul></ul>
  50. 51. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Affirmative Action <ul><li>A policy designed to give special attention or compensatory treatment to members of some previously disadvantaged group. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implemented in 1965 by Johnson’s executive order </li></ul></ul>
  51. 52. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Affirmative Action <ul><li>In education </li></ul><ul><li>Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke (1978) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First SC case to address constitutionality of AA, brought up issue of reverse discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Court rejected the university’s use of “quotas,” which reserved a fixed number of seats for racial minorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HOWEVER, Court declared affirmative action programs are constitutional if they consider race as a &quot;plus&quot; in the application process. </li></ul></ul>
  52. 53. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Affirmative Action <ul><li>In education (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gratz: Supreme Court struck down U Michigan’s undergraduate “point system” that awarded points to minority applicants because race became a deciding factor that did not treat applicants as individuals </li></ul></ul>
  53. 54. The Struggle for Racial Equality: Affirmative Action <ul><li>In education (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grutter: BUT, allowed University of Michigan Law School to consider race as one of many factors because diversity is a compelling interest in higher education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significance: Court acknowledges that AA programs are acceptable and diversity is a legitimate goal in education, BUT race can not be the predominant factor (no quotas) AND applicants must be treated as individuals, not as members of a race </li></ul></ul>
  54. 55. The Struggle for Equality: Affirmative Action <ul><li>In employment </li></ul><ul><li>United Steelworks v. Weber (1979) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quotas to remedy past discrimination are constitutional. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To be constitutional, affirmative action must be “narrowly tailored” to meet a “compelling governmental interest.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Did not ban affirmative action, but severely limited its reach </li></ul></ul>
  55. 56. DISCUSSION <ul><li>Affirmative Action programs are necessary to safeguard equal opportunity in both education and employment for minorities </li></ul>
  56. 57. BBC S. Africa Pictures
  57. 60. Today’s Key Questions <ul><li>What other groups have historically struggled for equal treatment under the law? Which groups continue to fight for their civil rights? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What types of discrimination have these groups faced? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What governmental action has been taken in addressing these civil rights issues? </li></ul></ul>
  58. 61. The Struggle for Civil Rights: Other Groups <ul><li>Other minorities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Hispanic Americans </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Women </li></ul><ul><li>Disabled </li></ul><ul><li>“ Older” Americans </li></ul><ul><li>Gays and Lesbians </li></ul>
  59. 62. The Struggle for Gender Equality <ul><li>Early Women’s Rights: The Battle for the Vote </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nineteenth Amendment: extended suffrage to women in 1920 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fragile alliance of diverse women’s groups quickly disintegrated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Widespread women’s rights activity would not emerge until 1960s </li></ul></ul>
  60. 63. The Struggle for Gender Equality <ul><li>Equality Under the Law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Organization for Women (NOW) pushed for Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) from 1923 to 1980s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Passes in both houses of Congress in 1972 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>States fail to ratify over the next eight years (35 vote yes, 38 needed) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support for amendment has died out as Supreme Court has extended 14 th Amendment to women </li></ul></ul></ul>
  61. 64. The Struggle for Gender Equality <ul><li>Equality in Education and Employment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prohibits gender discrimination by private and public employers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Used to fight sexual harassment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Title IX of 1972 Educational Amendments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prevents educational institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating against female students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Often used to ensure equal access, resources and funding for sports teams </li></ul></ul></ul>
  62. 65. The Struggle for Gender Equality <ul><li>Other issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Women in the military </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equal pay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sexual harassment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993) : Sexual harassment violates Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the workplace environment becomes “hostile or abusive” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998): The employer is responsible for preventing and eliminating harassment at work </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999): Schools can be held liable! </li></ul></ul></ul>
  63. 66. The Struggle for Equality: Other Minority Groups <ul><li>Hispanic Americans </li></ul><ul><li>Largest and fasting growing minority group </li></ul><ul><li>Controversial issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Should the government provide services to those that enter the country illegally? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bilingual education </li></ul></ul>
  64. 67. The Struggle for Equality: Other Minority Groups <ul><li>Asian Americans </li></ul><ul><li>Korematsu v. United States (1944): Court declares Japanese internment camps constitutional due to a compelling state interest to ensure national security during a time of war </li></ul>
  65. 68. Controversial Civil Rights Issues Today
  66. 69. The Struggle for Equality: Disabled Americans <ul><li>What discrimination have Americans with disabilities faced? </li></ul><ul><li>Government Intervention: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Disabled person = someone with a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more life activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guarantees access to public facilities, employment, and communication services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employers/schools must acquire or modify work equipment, adjust schedules, or make facilities accessible </li></ul></ul>
  67. 70. The Struggle for Equality: Disabled Americans <ul><li>Controversy: Which ailments are considered true disabilities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Since 1999, the Supreme Court has redefined and limited the scope of the ADA. Workers are not “disabled” if their conditions can be corrected with medication or devices </li></ul></ul>
  68. 71. The Struggle for Equality: Older Americans and Age Discrimination <ul><li>Older Americans have traditionally faced discrimination in workplace. Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Government Intervention: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of age unless is a bona fide requirement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Targets workers over 40 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To win a lawsuit, the plaintiff must show that an employer’s action (i.e. firing) was motivated by age </li></ul></ul>
  69. 72. The Struggle for Equality: Gays and Lesbians <ul><li>What challenges have gays and lesbians faced in their struggle for equality? </li></ul><ul><li>Government interventions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): Allowed states to ban homosexual relations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lawrence v. Texas (2003): Overturned Bowers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Private homosexual acts are protected by the Constitution </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gay marriage: Many state constitutions amended to prohibit practice, but a MA court decision allowed gay marriage </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Controversy: Do civil rights protections apply here? </li></ul>
  70. 73. Civil Rights Wrap-up <ul><li>Equality is essential to any democracy! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Racial minorities and women have struggled for equality since the beginning of the republic. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Our government has taken action in various ways (legislation, amendments, court rulings) in order to ensure equality </li></ul><ul><li>Civil rights have expanded to new groups and issues of equality continue to be the subject of debate </li></ul>
  71. 74. DISCUSSION <ul><li>The government should actively ensure that as many Americans as possible fall under the protection of the ADA, including people who suffer from AIDS, bad eyesight, and diabetes (for example) </li></ul>
  72. 75. DEBATE! <ul><li>Civil rights and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law should not apply to gays and lesbians </li></ul>