Affirmative Action Supreme Court Cases 1970s-Present
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•2,158 views
This document summarizes several Supreme Court cases related to affirmative action from the 1970s to the present. It discusses key cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) which allowed race to be a factor in admissions but not the sole determining factor, Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987) which allowed gender to be one factor among many in a promotion decision, and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) which upheld the use of race in admissions to obtain a diverse student body at the University of Michigan Law School. The document analyzes how these and other cases have shaped affirmative action policies and interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Affirmative Action powerpoint
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in University of California v. Bakke that race can be considered as one factor in university admissions, but quotas based on race are unconstitutional. In 2003, the Court ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions process, which awarded points automatically to minority applicants, discriminated against non-minorities. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's holistic admissions process that considered race flexibly as one of several factors. In 2008, Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas, claiming her rejection was due to her race, bringing affirmative action back before the Court.
Grutter v bollinger
Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, sued the University of Michigan Law School for denying her admission, alleging discrimination against whites. The District Court ruled against the Law School's use of race in admissions. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding diversity a compelling interest. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, also ruled the Law School's affirmative action program was constitutional as it conducted highly individualized reviews and considered race alongside other factors to achieve a diverse student body.
Presentation1
This document summarizes key court cases related to diversity and discrimination in access to higher education. It discusses how the 14th Amendment and Title VI prohibit discrimination in public institutions. It reviews the Supreme Court case University of California v. Bakke, which ruled that race can be considered as a plus factor in admissions but not through quotas. It describes the cases Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, where the Court found the undergraduate admissions system violated equal protection but the law school system was constitutional as it considered race as one of many factors.
Group project
Barbara Grutter, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School despite having a high GPA and LSAT score. She sued the university, arguing that their consideration of race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of the university, finding that a narrowly tailored use of race as one factor among many in admissions is permissible to further the compelling interest of achieving a diverse student body. The four dissenting justices argued that the university's program amounted to an unconstitutional effort to achieve racial balancing.
First amendment and you
Three public school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended for refusing to remove them. They sued the school district for violating their 1st Amendment rights. The Supreme Court decided that the school had violated the students' rights by suspending them for a silent, passive expression of opinion unaccompanied by disruptive conduct.
A high school student gave a nominating speech at a school assembly that included graphic and explicit sexual metaphors. He was suspended for the speech. The Supreme Court decided that schools may restrict student speech that is lewd, indecent, or offensive.
A high school principal removed two articles from the school newspaper that discussed teen pregnancy and divorce because he found the
The First Amendment and Public Schools
Until 1969, First Amendment freedoms were not considered to apply seriously to school-age children. However, the 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Schools changed everything. Suddenly, students did not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates, as Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote. This slide presentation reviews the four major Supreme Court decisions that shape today's so-called school speech.
Wednesday's opening act kji 2010
- The document discusses three Supreme Court cases - Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - that set standards for student free speech rights in school newspapers and publications.
- It also discusses state laws, called Anti-Hazelwood laws, passed in response to Kuhlmeier, which aimed to protect student free speech and limit administrative censorship of school newspapers.
- The document concludes with ethical questions and dilemmas student journalists may face regarding accuracy, privacy, defamation, and censorship.
Week 2 visual
The National Gay Task Force sued the Oklahoma City Board of Education claiming a statute allowing firing of teachers for public homosexual activity violated teacher rights. The US District Court upheld the statute but the appeals court reversed.
A teacher in Colorado claimed the school district violated his religious rights by not providing paid leave for Jewish holidays. The district court and appeals court found no violation of Title VII.
A teacher was fired for writing a letter criticizing the school board. The Illinois Supreme Court found this violated the teacher's First Amendment rights.
[END SUMMARY]
Recommended
Affirmative Action powerpoint
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in University of California v. Bakke that race can be considered as one factor in university admissions, but quotas based on race are unconstitutional. In 2003, the Court ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions process, which awarded points automatically to minority applicants, discriminated against non-minorities. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's holistic admissions process that considered race flexibly as one of several factors. In 2008, Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas, claiming her rejection was due to her race, bringing affirmative action back before the Court.
Grutter v bollinger
Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, sued the University of Michigan Law School for denying her admission, alleging discrimination against whites. The District Court ruled against the Law School's use of race in admissions. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding diversity a compelling interest. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, also ruled the Law School's affirmative action program was constitutional as it conducted highly individualized reviews and considered race alongside other factors to achieve a diverse student body.
Presentation1
This document summarizes key court cases related to diversity and discrimination in access to higher education. It discusses how the 14th Amendment and Title VI prohibit discrimination in public institutions. It reviews the Supreme Court case University of California v. Bakke, which ruled that race can be considered as a plus factor in admissions but not through quotas. It describes the cases Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, where the Court found the undergraduate admissions system violated equal protection but the law school system was constitutional as it considered race as one of many factors.
Group project
Barbara Grutter, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School despite having a high GPA and LSAT score. She sued the university, arguing that their consideration of race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of the university, finding that a narrowly tailored use of race as one factor among many in admissions is permissible to further the compelling interest of achieving a diverse student body. The four dissenting justices argued that the university's program amounted to an unconstitutional effort to achieve racial balancing.
First amendment and you
Three public school students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended for refusing to remove them. They sued the school district for violating their 1st Amendment rights. The Supreme Court decided that the school had violated the students' rights by suspending them for a silent, passive expression of opinion unaccompanied by disruptive conduct.
A high school student gave a nominating speech at a school assembly that included graphic and explicit sexual metaphors. He was suspended for the speech. The Supreme Court decided that schools may restrict student speech that is lewd, indecent, or offensive.
A high school principal removed two articles from the school newspaper that discussed teen pregnancy and divorce because he found the
The First Amendment and Public Schools
Until 1969, First Amendment freedoms were not considered to apply seriously to school-age children. However, the 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Schools changed everything. Suddenly, students did not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates, as Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote. This slide presentation reviews the four major Supreme Court decisions that shape today's so-called school speech.
Wednesday's opening act kji 2010
- The document discusses three Supreme Court cases - Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - that set standards for student free speech rights in school newspapers and publications.
- It also discusses state laws, called Anti-Hazelwood laws, passed in response to Kuhlmeier, which aimed to protect student free speech and limit administrative censorship of school newspapers.
- The document concludes with ethical questions and dilemmas student journalists may face regarding accuracy, privacy, defamation, and censorship.
Week 2 visual
The National Gay Task Force sued the Oklahoma City Board of Education claiming a statute allowing firing of teachers for public homosexual activity violated teacher rights. The US District Court upheld the statute but the appeals court reversed.
A teacher in Colorado claimed the school district violated his religious rights by not providing paid leave for Jewish holidays. The district court and appeals court found no violation of Title VII.
A teacher was fired for writing a letter criticizing the school board. The Illinois Supreme Court found this violated the teacher's First Amendment rights.
[END SUMMARY]
Tinker vs. DesMoines - Student Free Speech
The document summarizes the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines from 1969. It details how several students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The ACLU filed a complaint and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that students have the right to freedom of expression as long as it does not cause substantial disruption or infringe on others' rights, establishing that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The decision shaped school administrators' ability to limit student expression.
First Amendment at School
The document discusses three Supreme Court cases that shaped the extent of students' First Amendment rights in schools:
1) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) established that students have free speech rights and can protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands, unless it substantially disrupts school.
2) Bethel v. Fraser (1986) upheld a student's suspension for giving a sexually explicit nominating speech, as schools can restrict vulgar or offensive language.
3) Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ruled schools can exercise editorial control over school-sponsored publications if reasonably related to pedagogical concerns, allowing a principal to censor articles in a school newspaper.
Tinker Vs. Des Moines
John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Echardt wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended as a result. Their family sued the Des Moines school district, arguing this violated their right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 7-2 in favor of the students, establishing that student expression could not be limited without interfering with the work of the school or impinging on the rights of others. This case set a precedent that student rights to free speech in schools are protected unless they cause a substantial disruption.
Walking the Regulatory Tightrope
This document discusses the complex issue of balancing students' free speech rights with addressing bullying. It summarizes key Supreme Court rulings on student speech and examines how different circuits have applied these rulings to cyberbullying cases. The document also notes guidance from the Department of Education regarding when bullying may constitute harassment. It concludes by proposing schools apply the substantial disruption test from Tinker v. Des Moines, but also consider speech that "collides with the rights of others" if it is bullying, harassing, libelous or threatening. The ultimate goal is to provide safe schools while preserving political speech.
Tinker v. Des Moines
Two students, John and Mary Beth Tinker, wore black armbands to school to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War and were suspended as a result. They sued the school district for violating their first amendment rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 7-2 in favor of the Tinkers, establishing that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate and setting the precedent known as the "Tinker test" for student speech rights.
First Amendment in Schools
The First Amendment protects several fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. However, certain types of speech like threats, incitement of violence, obscenity, and fighting words are not protected. In schools, student speech can be regulated if it substantially disrupts school activities or invades others' rights, while teacher speech on matters of public concern is generally protected unless it impairs workplace functions. Schools must remain neutral toward religion and may teach about but not doctrine of religions.
P U B L I C S C H O O L L A W O U T L I N E
This document summarizes educator and student expression and association rights under the First Amendment. It discusses several important Supreme Court cases that established: 1) public school teachers have a right to free expression as citizens outside of school; 2) teacher in-school speech is protected if it addresses matters of public concern; and 3) students' freedom of expression is protected unless it causes substantial disruption to school activities. The document also reviews legal precedents around academic freedom, whistleblowing protections, and freedom of association for educators and students.
Brown v. Board of Education
The document summarizes key Supreme Court cases related to civil rights in the United States:
Brown v. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overturning the separate but equal doctrine. This landmark decision helped spur the civil rights movement.
Miranda v. Arizona established that suspects must be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights prior to questioning. As a result, police are now required to read suspects their "Miranda rights" before obtaining statements admissible in court.
The 15th Amendment guaranteed the right of all citizens to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This helped protect voting rights for newly emancipated African Americans.
The 19th
Curriculum Vitae 12'29'16
Provided policy analysis and advice on issues including criminal justice, voting rights, education,
healthcare, and economic development.
Drafted legislation, floor statements, committee testimony, and policy briefs.
Organized Congressional briefings, hearings, and town hall meetings.
Managed interns and coordinated constituent casework.
Liaised with Executive Branch agencies, advocacy groups, and other Members of Congress.
Legislative Director:
Managed legislative staff and operations for a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Developed and implemented legislative strategy across a range of domestic policy issues.
Abbott v.-pastides-complaint-and-exhibits
This document is a complaint filed in United States District Court by Ross Abbott, the College Libertarians at the University of South Carolina, and Young Americans for Liberty at the University of South Carolina against several administrators at the university. The plaintiffs allege that the university's speech codes and policies restricting expression outside of designated "free speech zones" violate their First Amendment rights. They held a "Free Speech Event" on campus to raise awareness of free speech issues, but Abbott was later summoned by the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs due to complaints that the event's content was offensive. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief protecting students' free speech rights at the university.
Unit 6 pp court cases-1
This document provides summaries of important Supreme Court cases. It summarizes Marbury v. Madison as establishing judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to determine if laws are constitutional. It summarizes McCulloch v. Maryland as establishing that federal laws supersede state laws. It summarizes Gibbons v. Ogden as establishing that the federal government has power over interstate commerce.
6. law presentation
The document discusses several Supreme Court cases that shaped students' First Amendment rights in schools. It summarizes the key rulings in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which established that students' free speech rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate, and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), which gave schools more authority to censor school-sponsored student media. It also briefly discusses Bethel v. Fraser (1986) and Morse v. Frederick (2007) and their impacts. The document aims to educate student journalists on their legal rights and responsibilities regarding censorship and content restrictions in student media.
Law of the student press 2 nbtb
Slide presentation for student journalists on Supreme Court case law and California protections for student free speech.
Lawpresent
Racial segregation in public schools was established by the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision that upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal". This legalized racial segregation until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision overturned it, finding that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. However, desegregation progressed slowly. Subsequent court cases dealt with how to enforce desegregation through measures such as busing students across districts, with mixed results regarding limiting desegregation orders. The 2007 Parents Involved decision placed new restrictions on considering race as a factor in student assignments.
Hynek - Communication and the Law - Final Slides
The document summarizes the legal history of censorship and prior restraint of student publications. It discusses landmark Supreme Court cases like Tinker v. Des Moines and Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier that set precedents for student speech rights. It also outlines more recent cases like Chudley v. Shawnee Mission Unified Sch. Dist. that dealt with issues like censorship of student journalists documenting school walkouts. Finally, it analyzes how different states have interpreted student press freedoms in the wake of Hazelwood and the importance of protecting student journalists under the First Amendment.
C E N S O R H S I P
This document discusses censorship of student publications and free speech rights in schools. It summarizes key Supreme Court cases like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier which found schools can censor school-sponsored student media, but not underground or off-campus student media. It also discusses how schools can regulate the time, place and manner of distributing underground publications but not the content. The document analyzes other court cases related to religious publications, internet speech, and funding of religious student groups.
Brown v. board of education
Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that ruled racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The case was brought by Linda Brown and other African American families against the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas, as their local schools were racially segregated. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that had established the "separate but equal" doctrine. The Brown ruling had major impacts by desegregating all public schools and rejecting racial segregation in other public facilities across the United States.
C E N S O R H S I P S T U D E N T P U B L I C A T I O N S
This document discusses censorship of student publications and free speech rights in schools. It summarizes key Supreme Court cases like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier which found schools can censor school-sponsored student media, but not underground or off-campus student media. It outlines the different categories of student media and the legal precedents that apply. Cases like Beussink v. Woodland upheld students' free speech rights for expression off-campus, while Rosenberger v. University of Virginia found schools cannot deny funding to religious student groups.
Expanding Civil Protections Brandon-L-Blankenship
Illustrating the expansion of civil liberties from de jure to de facto protections. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Case summaries illustrating facially neutral and constitutionally invalid holdings: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Washington v. Davis, Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, and Gratz v. Bollinger.
Expanding Civil Protections Brandon-L-Blankenship
Expanding fundamental constitutional rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. The distinction between Dejure and De facto. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Yick Wo v. Hopkins illustration of disparate impact of licensing laundries. Washington v. Davis illustration of disparate impact based on culturally biased employment application test. Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb. illustration of disparate impact based on neutral requirement to be clean shaven. Gratz v. Bollinger illustration of disparate impact in college admission practices.
The affirmative action 7
The document discusses the history and purpose of affirmative action policies in education. It begins with definitions of affirmative action and its origins in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. It then outlines key Supreme Court cases that shaped affirmative action's focus on improving access to education for minority groups. While controversy remains around affirmative action, the document argues it can help compensate for historical disadvantages and result in greater opportunities for minorities through higher education.
DEBATE 22 EDUCATION POLICYASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BA.docx
DEBATE
22
EDUCATION POLICY
ASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BASED ON RACE:
Justified or Unacceptable? ADVOCATE: National Education Association, et al.
JUSTIFIED
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) UNACCEPTABLE
ADVOCATE: Asian American Legal Foundation
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
The intersection between education and race has long sparked emotional debate. Prior to the Civil War it was uncommon and in some places illegal to educate children who were not white. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) requiring equal protection of the law for all citizens made it illegal to overtly deny children of color an education or to give them an expressly inferior one. However, the changes were more cosmetic that substantive. In many places, Jim Crow laws legalized accommo- dations that were supposedly “separate but equal,” but in reality were highly unequal. Blacks were the most numerous victims, but Asian Americans, Hispanics, and others also were relegated to second-class facilities and services. The Supreme Court upheld this fictitious equality in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that involved railroad car accommodations but also applied to schools and many other points of segregation. That decision stood until the Supreme Court overturned it in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice Earl Warren opined that in “public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Over the years, the application Brown v. Board of Education slowly eliminated the overtly intentional school segregation, but, like the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a large gap between theoretical importance and practical impact. Two factors lim- ited Brown. One was that some school districts build schools or drew district lines in ways that maintained or created schools that were de facto racially segregated. The second factor involved living patterns. Whites fled cities to the suburbs or sent their children to private schools to avoid racially integrated schools, and urban schools became more and more minority dominated. These population shifts also left cities with diminished tax bases, and the schools declined for want of adequate funding.
In response, the courts moved to a more proactive stance. In a case involving the region centered on Charlotte, North Carolina, where schools remained very segre- gated and the school board resisted moving to desegregate, a federal judge in 1965 found that the segregation was intentional, ordered that all 105 schools integrate, and specified that children be bussed between schools in necessary. The Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) unanimously backed
2
John T. Rourke, You Decide! 2012 Copy.
More Related Content
What's hot
Tinker vs. DesMoines - Student Free Speech
The document summarizes the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines from 1969. It details how several students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The ACLU filed a complaint and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that students have the right to freedom of expression as long as it does not cause substantial disruption or infringe on others' rights, establishing that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The decision shaped school administrators' ability to limit student expression.
First Amendment at School
The document discusses three Supreme Court cases that shaped the extent of students' First Amendment rights in schools:
1) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) established that students have free speech rights and can protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands, unless it substantially disrupts school.
2) Bethel v. Fraser (1986) upheld a student's suspension for giving a sexually explicit nominating speech, as schools can restrict vulgar or offensive language.
3) Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ruled schools can exercise editorial control over school-sponsored publications if reasonably related to pedagogical concerns, allowing a principal to censor articles in a school newspaper.
Tinker Vs. Des Moines
John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Echardt wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended as a result. Their family sued the Des Moines school district, arguing this violated their right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 7-2 in favor of the students, establishing that student expression could not be limited without interfering with the work of the school or impinging on the rights of others. This case set a precedent that student rights to free speech in schools are protected unless they cause a substantial disruption.
Walking the Regulatory Tightrope
This document discusses the complex issue of balancing students' free speech rights with addressing bullying. It summarizes key Supreme Court rulings on student speech and examines how different circuits have applied these rulings to cyberbullying cases. The document also notes guidance from the Department of Education regarding when bullying may constitute harassment. It concludes by proposing schools apply the substantial disruption test from Tinker v. Des Moines, but also consider speech that "collides with the rights of others" if it is bullying, harassing, libelous or threatening. The ultimate goal is to provide safe schools while preserving political speech.
Tinker v. Des Moines
Two students, John and Mary Beth Tinker, wore black armbands to school to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War and were suspended as a result. They sued the school district for violating their first amendment rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 7-2 in favor of the Tinkers, establishing that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate and setting the precedent known as the "Tinker test" for student speech rights.
First Amendment in Schools
The First Amendment protects several fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. However, certain types of speech like threats, incitement of violence, obscenity, and fighting words are not protected. In schools, student speech can be regulated if it substantially disrupts school activities or invades others' rights, while teacher speech on matters of public concern is generally protected unless it impairs workplace functions. Schools must remain neutral toward religion and may teach about but not doctrine of religions.
P U B L I C S C H O O L L A W O U T L I N E
This document summarizes educator and student expression and association rights under the First Amendment. It discusses several important Supreme Court cases that established: 1) public school teachers have a right to free expression as citizens outside of school; 2) teacher in-school speech is protected if it addresses matters of public concern; and 3) students' freedom of expression is protected unless it causes substantial disruption to school activities. The document also reviews legal precedents around academic freedom, whistleblowing protections, and freedom of association for educators and students.
Brown v. Board of Education
The document summarizes key Supreme Court cases related to civil rights in the United States:
Brown v. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overturning the separate but equal doctrine. This landmark decision helped spur the civil rights movement.
Miranda v. Arizona established that suspects must be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights prior to questioning. As a result, police are now required to read suspects their "Miranda rights" before obtaining statements admissible in court.
The 15th Amendment guaranteed the right of all citizens to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This helped protect voting rights for newly emancipated African Americans.
The 19th
Curriculum Vitae 12'29'16
Provided policy analysis and advice on issues including criminal justice, voting rights, education,
healthcare, and economic development.
Drafted legislation, floor statements, committee testimony, and policy briefs.
Organized Congressional briefings, hearings, and town hall meetings.
Managed interns and coordinated constituent casework.
Liaised with Executive Branch agencies, advocacy groups, and other Members of Congress.
Legislative Director:
Managed legislative staff and operations for a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Developed and implemented legislative strategy across a range of domestic policy issues.
Abbott v.-pastides-complaint-and-exhibits
This document is a complaint filed in United States District Court by Ross Abbott, the College Libertarians at the University of South Carolina, and Young Americans for Liberty at the University of South Carolina against several administrators at the university. The plaintiffs allege that the university's speech codes and policies restricting expression outside of designated "free speech zones" violate their First Amendment rights. They held a "Free Speech Event" on campus to raise awareness of free speech issues, but Abbott was later summoned by the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs due to complaints that the event's content was offensive. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief protecting students' free speech rights at the university.
Unit 6 pp court cases-1
This document provides summaries of important Supreme Court cases. It summarizes Marbury v. Madison as establishing judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to determine if laws are constitutional. It summarizes McCulloch v. Maryland as establishing that federal laws supersede state laws. It summarizes Gibbons v. Ogden as establishing that the federal government has power over interstate commerce.
6. law presentation
The document discusses several Supreme Court cases that shaped students' First Amendment rights in schools. It summarizes the key rulings in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which established that students' free speech rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate, and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), which gave schools more authority to censor school-sponsored student media. It also briefly discusses Bethel v. Fraser (1986) and Morse v. Frederick (2007) and their impacts. The document aims to educate student journalists on their legal rights and responsibilities regarding censorship and content restrictions in student media.
Law of the student press 2 nbtb
Slide presentation for student journalists on Supreme Court case law and California protections for student free speech.
Lawpresent
Racial segregation in public schools was established by the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision that upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal". This legalized racial segregation until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision overturned it, finding that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. However, desegregation progressed slowly. Subsequent court cases dealt with how to enforce desegregation through measures such as busing students across districts, with mixed results regarding limiting desegregation orders. The 2007 Parents Involved decision placed new restrictions on considering race as a factor in student assignments.
Hynek - Communication and the Law - Final Slides
The document summarizes the legal history of censorship and prior restraint of student publications. It discusses landmark Supreme Court cases like Tinker v. Des Moines and Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier that set precedents for student speech rights. It also outlines more recent cases like Chudley v. Shawnee Mission Unified Sch. Dist. that dealt with issues like censorship of student journalists documenting school walkouts. Finally, it analyzes how different states have interpreted student press freedoms in the wake of Hazelwood and the importance of protecting student journalists under the First Amendment.
C E N S O R H S I P
This document discusses censorship of student publications and free speech rights in schools. It summarizes key Supreme Court cases like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier which found schools can censor school-sponsored student media, but not underground or off-campus student media. It also discusses how schools can regulate the time, place and manner of distributing underground publications but not the content. The document analyzes other court cases related to religious publications, internet speech, and funding of religious student groups.
Brown v. board of education
Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that ruled racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The case was brought by Linda Brown and other African American families against the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas, as their local schools were racially segregated. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that had established the "separate but equal" doctrine. The Brown ruling had major impacts by desegregating all public schools and rejecting racial segregation in other public facilities across the United States.
C E N S O R H S I P S T U D E N T P U B L I C A T I O N S
This document discusses censorship of student publications and free speech rights in schools. It summarizes key Supreme Court cases like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier which found schools can censor school-sponsored student media, but not underground or off-campus student media. It outlines the different categories of student media and the legal precedents that apply. Cases like Beussink v. Woodland upheld students' free speech rights for expression off-campus, while Rosenberger v. University of Virginia found schools cannot deny funding to religious student groups.
What's hot (18)
C E N S O R H S I P S T U D E N T P U B L I C A T I O N S
C E N S O R H S I P S T U D E N T P U B L I C A T I O N S
Similar to Affirmative Action Supreme Court Cases 1970s-Present
Expanding Civil Protections Brandon-L-Blankenship
Illustrating the expansion of civil liberties from de jure to de facto protections. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Case summaries illustrating facially neutral and constitutionally invalid holdings: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Washington v. Davis, Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, and Gratz v. Bollinger.
Expanding Civil Protections Brandon-L-Blankenship
Expanding fundamental constitutional rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. The distinction between Dejure and De facto. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Yick Wo v. Hopkins illustration of disparate impact of licensing laundries. Washington v. Davis illustration of disparate impact based on culturally biased employment application test. Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb. illustration of disparate impact based on neutral requirement to be clean shaven. Gratz v. Bollinger illustration of disparate impact in college admission practices.
The affirmative action 7
The document discusses the history and purpose of affirmative action policies in education. It begins with definitions of affirmative action and its origins in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. It then outlines key Supreme Court cases that shaped affirmative action's focus on improving access to education for minority groups. While controversy remains around affirmative action, the document argues it can help compensate for historical disadvantages and result in greater opportunities for minorities through higher education.
DEBATE 22 EDUCATION POLICYASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BA.docx
DEBATE
22
EDUCATION POLICY
ASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BASED ON RACE:
Justified or Unacceptable? ADVOCATE: National Education Association, et al.
JUSTIFIED
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) UNACCEPTABLE
ADVOCATE: Asian American Legal Foundation
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
The intersection between education and race has long sparked emotional debate. Prior to the Civil War it was uncommon and in some places illegal to educate children who were not white. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) requiring equal protection of the law for all citizens made it illegal to overtly deny children of color an education or to give them an expressly inferior one. However, the changes were more cosmetic that substantive. In many places, Jim Crow laws legalized accommo- dations that were supposedly “separate but equal,” but in reality were highly unequal. Blacks were the most numerous victims, but Asian Americans, Hispanics, and others also were relegated to second-class facilities and services. The Supreme Court upheld this fictitious equality in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that involved railroad car accommodations but also applied to schools and many other points of segregation. That decision stood until the Supreme Court overturned it in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice Earl Warren opined that in “public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Over the years, the application Brown v. Board of Education slowly eliminated the overtly intentional school segregation, but, like the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a large gap between theoretical importance and practical impact. Two factors lim- ited Brown. One was that some school districts build schools or drew district lines in ways that maintained or created schools that were de facto racially segregated. The second factor involved living patterns. Whites fled cities to the suburbs or sent their children to private schools to avoid racially integrated schools, and urban schools became more and more minority dominated. These population shifts also left cities with diminished tax bases, and the schools declined for want of adequate funding.
In response, the courts moved to a more proactive stance. In a case involving the region centered on Charlotte, North Carolina, where schools remained very segre- gated and the school board resisted moving to desegregate, a federal judge in 1965 found that the segregation was intentional, ordered that all 105 schools integrate, and specified that children be bussed between schools in necessary. The Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) unanimously backed
2
John T. Rourke, You Decide! 2012 Copy.
Title ix in class presentation
The document discusses the evolution of Title IX in American higher education from its origins in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 to modern implementations and interpretations. It established protections against sex-based discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. Over time, the scope of Title IX expanded through court cases and guidance documents. It now addresses issues like sexual harassment, assault, and equal treatment and opportunities across university programs and services. Continuing discussion focuses on ensuring Title IX supports gender equity while recognizing complex issues around sex, gender, and institutional policies.
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action aims to promote equal opportunity and representation for groups that have faced discrimination by providing preferential treatment in areas like education and employment. While proponents argue it has helped increase opportunities and representation, critics believe it can lead to reverse discrimination by prioritizing factors like race and gender over merit. The Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke established that while universities cannot use quotas, they can consider race as one of many factors in admissions.
University and Community College System of Nevada v. FarmerRe-read.docx
University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer
Re-read the University case, "University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer in your textbook.
Note the data under the case title: 113 Nev. 90, 930 P.2d 730 (Nev. Sup. Ct. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1004 (March 9, 1998). What do these details signify?
Study the case questions in the text at the end of the case. In addition, look through other material provided in
Lecture Notes
and in the Preface.
Outline and submit the case, using the standard legal outline headings. (See "Sample Outline for Legal Cases" in Course Materials.)
Background
Between 1989 and 1991, only one percent of the University
of Nevada’s full-time faculty were black, while eighty-seven
to eighty-nine percent of the full-time faculty were
white; twenty-five to twenty-seven percent of the full-time
faculty
were
women. In order to remedy this racial imbalance,
the University instituted the “minority bonus
policy,” an unwritten amendment to its affirmative action
policy
that allowed a department to hire an additional faculty
member following the initial placement of a minority
candidate.
In 1990, the University advertised for an impending
vacancy in the sociology department. The announcement
of the
position
vacancy emphasized a need for proficiency
in social psychology and mentioned a salary range between
$28,000.00 and $34,000.00, dependent upon experience
and qualifications. The University’s hiring guidelines
require departments to conduct more than one interview;
however, this procedure may be waived in certain cases.
Yvette Farmer was one of the three finalists chosen by the
search committee for the position but the University
obtained a waiver to interview only one candidate, Johnson
Makoba, a black African male. The department chair
recalled that the search committee ranked
Makoba
first
among the three finalists. Because of a perceived shortage
of black Ph.D. candidates, coupled with
Makoba’s
strong
academic achievements, the search committee sought
approval to make a job offer to Makoba at a salary of
$35,000.00, with an increase to $40,000.00 upon completing
his Ph.D. This initial offer exceeded the advertised salary
range
for the position; even though
Makoba
had not
accepted any competing offers, the University justified its
offer as a method of preempting any other institutions from
hiring Makoba. Makoba accepted the job offer. Farmer was
subsequently hired by the University the following year;
the position for which she was hired was created under
the “minority bonus policy.” Her salary was set at
$31,000.00 and a $2,000.00 raise after completion of her
dissertation.
Farmer sued the University and Community College
System of Nevada (“the University”) claiming violations
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act
and for breach of an employment contract. Farmer alleged
that despite the fact that she was more qualified, the University
hired a black male (
Makoba
) as ...
ap gov chap 6
Civil rights protect certain groups from discrimination and are violated when groups are denied access to facilities or opportunities available to others. The NAACP strategy to end segregation progressed from addressing obvious inequalities to arguing that separation inherently creates inequality, culminating in Brown v. Board of Education which declared segregation unconstitutional. Desegregation and integration have been ongoing issues, with debates around policies like busing to integrate schools. The civil rights movement utilized strategies like sit-ins, freedom rides, and Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership to campaign for rights, facing violence in response. The Supreme Court has ruled on various discrimination and privacy issues related to gender, sexuality, and affirmative action.
Running Head Is Affirmative action policy required in current tim.docx
Running Head: Is Affirmative action policy required in current times?
2 | Page Is Affirmative action policy required in current times?
Is Affirmative action policy required in current times?
Name:
Course:
Tutor:
Institution:
Thesis statement
Is Affirmative action policy required in current times?
Purpose:
Affirmatory actions is a coverage to back up equivalent chance and also to stage the actual digital camera playing field pertaining to groups of people who have been and so are separated versus. Positive activity is surely an behave used by a connection to settle on the foot of gender, competition, or perhaps ethnic culture giving to be paid inclinations in order to minorities similar along with backgrounds binges non enough delineated to a lower place the previous usage. In the common law decade positive legal action provides window dressing a great deal of arguments. Yes, definitely action mechanism has been very suspect ever since the beginning. Females in addition to Minorities possess from the time that already been receiving higher-ranking didactics degrees as well as special offers in the place of work. Even though several as well as small section people sense they're tendered peer chances coming from positive motion other folks mother wit they're presented your possibilities considering that in their slipstream or maybe sexual category rather than since they will be skilled or have received their particular sites. Affirmative activity has advantaged many persons even though frustrating other folks. Hence the topic Let me consider in this particular attempt is actually Probative action at law insurance policy is needed throughout present times
At present, the wants for affirmative action have reduced. Minorities and women in America are increasing superior educations and advanced employment positions than ever previous to. A minority woman is embracing the uppermost position for a individual in her field of employment, Americans have choose a President from a minority group, and minority members and women are being identified for their fairness founded on their skills and not since affirmative action’s states they have to be. Devoid of affirmative action it is probable for American women and minority members to carry on to work their way up to complete equality.
In the United States Affirmative action began in the 1960s as a tool to deal with the persevering inequalities for African Americans. This precise term was first employed in 1961 to portray US government policy. Administered to all government contracting agency, President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 commanded "affirmative action to make certain that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated for the period of employment, devoid of regard to their race, color, creed,or national origin. In 1972, affirmative action becomes a provocative public issue. True adequate, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 previously had made somewhat called “affirmat.
HLED 221 revised
The document provides an overview of Title IX, the Clery Act, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as they relate to sexual assault reporting and prevention on college campuses. It discusses the scope of sexual assault issues, key laws and cases, investigation procedures, training requirements, and high-profile examples. Specifically, it outlines what the three laws cover, important court cases, how institutions handle investigations, what is required for training and reporting, and recent cases at schools like Baylor, Penn State, and Florida State.
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docx
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surprise that it’s been at the center of many landmark controversies over the years. Here are 10 Supreme Court cases related to education that impacted both constitutional law and the public school experience.
10. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Arguably the most well-known ruling of the 20th century, Brown overturned Plessy v. Fergusonand established that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The Warren Court’s unanimous decision explained that the separate-but-equal doctrine violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and ordered an end to legally mandated race-segregated schools. While the Brown decision marked only the beginning of a prolonged struggle to achieve actual integration, its impact cannot be understated.
9. Engel v. Vitale(1962) and 8. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
This pair of cases shaped the modern understanding of how the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment constrains prayer in public schools. In Engel, the Court struck down a New York State rule that allowed public schools to hold a short, nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day. The Court decided that these prayers amounted to an “official stamp of approval” upon one particular kind of prayer and religious service, and said that, since teachers are agents of the federal government, the scheme violated the Establishment Clause.
The reasoning in Engel was also applied in Schempp, in which the Court struck down a Pennsylvania policy that required all students to read 10 Bible verses and say the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each day. While a student could get an exemption with a parent’s note, the Warren Court decided that this still amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religious tradition.
7. Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)
This case adjudicated a different sort of Establishment Clause challenge, where the controversy dealt with a statute providing financial support for teacher salaries and textbooks in parochial schools. The Burger Court unanimously decided that this financial aid scheme violated the Establishment Clause and delineated the governing precedent for Establishment Clause cases known as the Lemon test. Under Lemon, statutes (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) must have primary effects that neither inhibit nor advance religion; and (3) cannot foster an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court held that this scheme violated the third prong of the Lemon test.
6. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Among the litany of public school cases from the Warren and Burger eras is the landmark Free Exercise Clause decision in Yoder. Wisconsin mandated that all children attend public school until age 16, but Jonas Yoder, a devoutly religious Amish man, refused to send his children to school past eighth grade. He argued that his children didn’t need to be in school that long t ...
HR 210 Bennett9e ppt ch06
This document discusses race and color discrimination in the workplace. It provides an overview of the history of racial discrimination and civil rights in the United States. It also summarizes recent studies that found evidence of racial inequalities and discrimination. The document outlines the EEOC's guidance on race and national origin discrimination claims and provides management tips for employers to avoid potential race discrimination issues.
ASSIGNMENT - Legal Case 2University and Community College Sy.docx
ASSIGNMENT -
Legal Case 2
University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer
Re-read the University case, "University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer in your textbook.
Note the data under the case title: 113 Nev. 90, 930 P.2d 730 (Nev. Sup. Ct. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1004 (March 9, 1998). What do these details signify?
Study the case questions in the text at the end of the case. In addition, look through other material provided in Lecture Notes and in the Preface.
Outline and submit the case, using the standard legal outline headings. (See "Sample Outline for Legal Cases" in Course Materials.)
OUTLINE THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED FOR ASSIGNMENT:
Case Name and Citation
Include the
court or agency
deciding the case
Include the
citation
, which tells where to find the reported decision.
Key Facts (in brief)
Why
- are parties before the court or agency?
What
- are the parties seeking?
Stage in the legal process (Trial Court, NLRB,Appeals Court, etc.)
What happened at
prior stages
(if any) in the legal process?
Legal Issue (s)
Include legal
problem(s)
raised by the facts of the dispute.
Reasoning of the Decision-Maker
Why
was dispute resolved the way it was?
How
did the decision-maker apply or reconcile the legal principles involved?
READING ARTICLE FOR OUTLINE:
Between 1989 and 1991, only one percent of the University
of Nevada
’
s full-time faculty were black, while eightyseven
to eighty-nine percent of the full-time faculty were
white; twenty-five to twenty-seven percent of the full-time
faculty were women. In order to remedy this racial imbalance,
the University instituted the
“
minority bonus
policy,
”
an unwritten amendment to its affirmative action
policy that allowed a department to hire an additional faculty
member following the initial placement of a minority
candidate.
In 1990, the University advertised for an impending
vacancy in the sociology department. The announcement
of the position vacancy emphasized a need for proficiency
in social psychology and mentioned a salary range between
$28,000.00 and $34,000.00, dependent upon experience
and qualifications. The University
’
s hiring guidelines
require departments to conduct more than one interview;
however, this procedure may be waived in certain cases.
Yvette Farmer was one of the three finalists chosen by the
search committee for the position but the University
obtained a waiver to interview only one candidate, Johnson
Makoba, a black African male. The department chair
recalled that the search committee ranked Makoba first
among the three finalists. Because of a perceived shortage
of black Ph.D. candidates, coupled with Makoba
’
s strong
academic achievements, the search committee sought
approval to make a job offer to Makoba at a salary of
$35,000.00, with an increase to $40,000.00 upon completing
his Ph.D. This initial offer exceeded the advertised salary
range for the position; even though Makoba had not
a.
Similar to Affirmative Action Supreme Court Cases 1970s-Present (13)
DEBATE 22 EDUCATION POLICYASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BA.docx
DEBATE 22 EDUCATION POLICYASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BA.docx
University and Community College System of Nevada v. FarmerRe-read.docx
University and Community College System of Nevada v. FarmerRe-read.docx
Running Head Is Affirmative action policy required in current tim.docx
Running Head Is Affirmative action policy required in current tim.docx
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docx
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docx
ASSIGNMENT - Legal Case 2University and Community College Sy.docx
ASSIGNMENT - Legal Case 2University and Community College Sy.docx
Recently uploaded
体育博彩论坛-十大体育博彩论坛-体育博彩论坛|【网址🎉ac55.net🎉】
在体育博彩论坛，你会发现数之不尽的在线博彩机会，包括世界各地的精彩体育赛事以及绝佳的赔率。此外，体育博彩论坛还会为你提供诸如赌场、宾果和扑克等在线游戏以及各种各样的奖金优惠，包括体育博彩论坛的免费投注。无论你是忠实的足球迷，或者是二十一点的专业玩家，在这里都可以找到你最感兴趣的投注市场或游戏。
在线办理(UOIT毕业证书)安大略省理工大学毕业证在读证明一模一样
原件一模一样【微信：bwp0011】《(UOIT毕业证书)安大略省理工大学毕业证》【微信：bwp0011】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问微bwp0011
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【微bwp0011】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【微bwp0011】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
在线制作加拿大萨省大学毕业证文凭证书实拍图原版一模一样
原版一模一样【微信：741003700 】【加拿大萨省大学毕业证文凭证书】【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原海外各大学 Bachelor Diploma degree, Master Degree Diploma
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Leadership Ambassador club Adventist module
Aims to equip people who aspire to become leaders with good qualities,and with Christian values and morals as per Biblical teachings.The you who aspire to be leaders should first read and understand what the ambassador module for leadership says about leadership and marry that to what the bible says.Christians sh
按照学校原版(UofT文凭证书)多伦多大学毕业证快速办理
快速办理【(UofT毕业证书)多伦多大学毕业证】【176555708微信号】硕士毕业证成绩单、外壳、offer、留信学历认证（永久存档真实可查）采用学校原版纸张、特殊工艺完全按照原版一比一制作（包括：隐形水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠，文字图案浮雕，激光镭射，紫外荧光，温感，复印防伪）行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备，十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，业务范围有加拿大、英国、澳洲、韩国、美国、新加坡，新西兰等学历材料，包您满意。
【我们承诺采用的是学校原版纸张（纸质、底色、纹路），我们拥有全套进口原装设备，特殊工艺都是采用不同机器制作，仿真度基本可以达到100%，所有工艺效果都可提前给客户展示，不满意可以根据客户要求进行调整，直到满意为止！】
【业务选择办理准则】
一、工作未确定，回国需先给父母、亲戚朋友看下文凭的情况，办理一份就读学校的毕业证【微信176555708】文凭即可
二、回国进私企、外企、自己做生意的情况，这些单位是不查询毕业证真伪的，而且国内没有渠道去查询国外文凭的真假，也不需要提供真实教育部认证。鉴于此，办理一份毕业证【微信176555708】即可
三、进国企，银行，事业单位，考公务员等等，这些单位是必需要提供真实教育部认证的，办理教育部认证所需资料众多且烦琐，所有材料您都必须提供原件，我们凭借丰富的经验，快捷的绿色通道帮您快速整合材料，让您少走弯路。
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
留信网服务项目：
1、留学生专业人才库服务（留信分析）
2、国（境）学习人员提供就业推荐信服务
3、留学人员区块链存储服务
→ 【关于价格问题（保证一手价格）】
我们所定的价格是非常合理的，而且我们现在做得单子大多数都是代理和回头客户介绍的所以一般现在有新的单子 我给客户的都是第一手的代理价格，因为我想坦诚对待大家 不想跟大家在价格方面浪费时间
对于老客户或者被老客户介绍过来的朋友，我们都会适当给一些优惠。
选择实体注册公司办理，更放心，更安全！我们的承诺：客户在留信官方认证查询网站查询到认证通过结果后付款，不成功不收费！
Connect to Grow: The power of building networks
In the intricate tapestry of life, connections serve as the vibrant threads that weave together opportunities, experiences, and growth. Whether in personal or professional spheres, the ability to forge meaningful connections opens doors to a multitude of possibilities, propelling individuals toward success and fulfillment.
Eirini is an HR professional with strong passion for technology and semiconductors industry in particular. She started her career as a software recruiter in 2012, and developed an interest for business development, talent enablement and innovation which later got her setting up the concept of Software Community Management in ASML, and to Developer Relations today. She holds a bachelor degree in Lifelong Learning and an MBA specialised in Strategic Human Resources Management. She is a world citizen, having grown up in Greece, she studied and kickstarted her career in The Netherlands and can currently be found in Santa Clara, CA.
Community Skills Building Workshop | PMI Silver Spring Chapter | June 12, 2024
Community Skills Building Workshop | PMI Silver Spring Chapter | June 12, 2024Hector Del Castillo, CPM, CPMM
We recently hosted the much-anticipated Community Skill Builders Workshop during our June online meeting. This event was a culmination of six months of listening to your feedback and crafting solutions to better support your PMI journey. Here’s a look back at what happened and the exciting developments that emerged from our collaborative efforts.
A Gathering of Minds
We were thrilled to see a diverse group of attendees, including local certified PMI trainers and both new and experienced members eager to contribute their perspectives. The workshop was structured into three dynamic discussion sessions, each led by our dedicated membership advocates.
Key Takeaways and Future Directions
The insights and feedback gathered from these discussions were invaluable. Here are some of the key takeaways and the steps we are taking to address them:
• Enhanced Resource Accessibility: We are working on a new, user-friendly resource page that will make it easier for members to access training materials and real-world application guides.
• Structured Mentorship Program: Plans are underway to launch a mentorship program that will connect members with experienced professionals for guidance and support.
• Increased Networking Opportunities: Expect to see more frequent and varied networking events, both virtual and in-person, to help you build connections and foster a sense of community.
Moving Forward
We are committed to turning your feedback into actionable solutions that enhance your PMI journey. This workshop was just the beginning. By actively participating and sharing your experiences, you have helped shape the future of our Chapter’s offerings.
Thank you to everyone who attended and contributed to the success of the Community Skill Builders Workshop. Your engagement and enthusiasm are what make our Chapter strong and vibrant. Stay tuned for updates on the new initiatives and opportunities to get involved. Together, we are building a community that supports and empowers each other on our PMI journeys.
Stay connected, stay engaged, and let’s continue to grow together!
About PMI Silver Spring Chapter
We are a branch of the Project Management Institute. We offer a platform for project management professionals in Silver Spring, MD, and the DC/Baltimore metro area. Monthly meetings facilitate networking, knowledge sharing, and professional development. For more, visit pmissc.org.Switching Careers Slides - JoyceMSullivan SocMediaFin - 2024Jun11.pdf
Joyce M Sullivan, Founder & CEO of SocMediaFin, Inc. shares her "Five Questions - The Story of You", "Reflections - What Matters to You?" and "The Three Circle Exercise" to guide those evaluating what their next move may be in their careers.
官方认证美国旧金山州立大学毕业证学位证书案例原版一模一样
原版一模一样【微信：741003700 】【美国旧金山州立大学毕业证学位证书】【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原海外各大学 Bachelor Diploma degree, Master Degree Diploma
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
A Guide to a Winning Interview June 2024
This webinar is an in-depth review of the interview process. Preparation is a key element to acing an interview. Learn the best approaches from the initial phone screen to the face-to-face meeting with the hiring manager. You will hear great answers to several standard questions, including the dreaded “Tell Me About Yourself”.
办理阿卡迪亚大学毕业证（uvic毕业证）本科文凭证书原版一模一样
原版一模一样【微信：741003700 】【阿卡迪亚大学毕业证（uvic毕业证）本科文凭证书】【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原海外各大学 Bachelor Diploma degree, Master Degree Diploma
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
一比一原版美国西北大学毕业证(NWU毕业证书)学历如何办理
原版办理【微信号:BYZS866】【美国西北大学毕业证(NWU毕业证书)】【微信号:BYZS866】《成绩单、外壳、雅思、offer、真实留信官方学历认证（永久存档/真实可查）》采用学校原版纸张、特殊工艺完全按照原版一比一制作（包括：隐形水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠，文字图案浮雕，激光镭射，紫外荧光，温感，复印防伪）行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备，十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，业务范围有加拿大、英国、澳洲、韩国、美国、新加坡，新西兰等学历材料，包您满意。
【我们承诺采用的是学校原版纸张（纸质、底色、纹路）我们拥有全套进口原装设备，特殊工艺都是采用不同机器制作，仿真度基本可以达到100%，所有工艺效果都可提前给客户展示，不满意可以根据客户要求进行调整，直到满意为止！】
【业务选择办理准则】
一、工作未确定，回国需先给父母、亲戚朋友看下文凭的情况，办理一份就读学校的毕业证【微信号BYZS866】文凭即可
二、回国进私企、外企、自己做生意的情况，这些单位是不查询毕业证真伪的，而且国内没有渠道去查询国外文凭的真假，也不需要提供真实教育部认证。鉴于此，办理一份毕业证【微信号BYZS866】即可
三、进国企，银行，事业单位，考公务员等等，这些单位是必需要提供真实教育部认证的，办理教育部认证所需资料众多且烦琐，所有材料您都必须提供原件，我们凭借丰富的经验，快捷的绿色通道帮您快速整合材料，让您少走弯路。
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
留信网服务项目：
1、留学生专业人才库服务（留信分析）
2、国（境）学习人员提供就业推荐信服务
3、留学人员区块链存储服务
【关于价格问题（保证一手价格）】
我们所定的价格是非常合理的，而且我们现在做得单子大多数都是代理和回头客户介绍的所以一般现在有新的单子 我给客户的都是第一手的代理价格，因为我想坦诚对待大家 不想跟大家在价格方面浪费时间
对于老客户或者被老客户介绍过来的朋友，我们都会适当给一些优惠。
选择实体注册公司办理，更放心，更安全！我们的承诺：客户在留信官方认证查询网站查询到认证通过结果后付款，不成功不收费！
一比一原版布拉德福德大学毕业证（bradford毕业证）如何办理
一模一样【微信：A575476】【布拉德福德大学毕业证（bradford毕业证）成绩单Offer】【微信：A575476】（留信学历认证永久存档查询）采用学校原版纸张、特殊工艺完全按照原版一比一制作（包括：隐形水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠，文字图案浮雕，激光镭射，紫外荧光，温感，复印防伪）行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备，十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，业务范围有加拿大、英国、澳洲、韩国、美国、新加坡，新西兰等学历材料，包您满意。
【业务选择办理准则】
一、工作未确定，回国需先给父母、亲戚朋友看下文凭的情况，办理一份就读学校的毕业证【微信：A575476】文凭即可
二、回国进私企、外企、自己做生意的情况，这些单位是不查询毕业证真伪的，而且国内没有渠道去查询国外文凭的真假，也不需要提供真实教育部认证。鉴于此，办理一份毕业证【微信：A575476】即可
三、进国企，银行，事业单位，考公务员等等，这些单位是必需要提供真实教育部认证的，办理教育部认证所需资料众多且烦琐，所有材料您都必须提供原件，我们凭借丰富的经验，快捷的绿色通道帮您快速整合材料，让您少走弯路。
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
→ 【关于价格问题（保证一手价格）
我们所定的价格是非常合理的，而且我们现在做得单子大多数都是代理和回头客户介绍的所以一般现在有新的单子 我给客户的都是第一手的代理价格，因为我想坦诚对待大家 不想跟大家在价格方面浪费时间
对于老客户或者被老客户介绍过来的朋友，我们都会适当给一些优惠。
选择实体注册公司办理，更放心，更安全！我们的承诺：可来公司面谈，可签订合同，会陪同客户一起到教育部认证窗口递交认证材料，客户在教育部官方认证查询网站查询到认证通过结果后付款，不成功不收费！
Gabrielle M. A. Sinaga Portfolio, Film Student (2024)
My portfolio as a highly motivated film student pursuing a career in Yogyakarta.
How to overcome obstacles in the way of success.pdf
Success is often not achievable without facing and overcoming obstacles along the way. To reach our goals and achieve success, it is important to understand and resolve the obstacles that come in our way.
In this article, we will discuss the various obstacles that hinder success, strategies to overcome them, and examples of individuals who have successfully surmounted their obstacles.
Learnings from Successful Jobs Searchers
Are you interested to know what actions help in a job search? This webinar is the summary of several individuals who discussed their job search journey for others to follow. You will learn there are common actions that helped them succeed in their quest for gainful employment.
Recently uploaded (20)
thyroid case presentation.pptx Kamala's Lakshaman palatial
thyroid case presentation.pptx Kamala's Lakshaman palatial
Community Skills Building Workshop | PMI Silver Spring Chapter | June 12, 2024
Community Skills Building Workshop | PMI Silver Spring Chapter | June 12, 2024
Switching Careers Slides - JoyceMSullivan SocMediaFin - 2024Jun11.pdf
Switching Careers Slides - JoyceMSullivan SocMediaFin - 2024Jun11.pdf
Leave-rules.ppt CCS leave rules 1972 for central govt employees
Leave-rules.ppt CCS leave rules 1972 for central govt employees
Gabrielle M. A. Sinaga Portfolio, Film Student (2024)
Gabrielle M. A. Sinaga Portfolio, Film Student (2024)
How to overcome obstacles in the way of success.pdf
How to overcome obstacles in the way of success.pdf
Affirmative Action Supreme Court Cases 1970s-Present
- 1. Affirmative Action: Supreme Court Cases 1970s-Present By: Gabby Putnam
- 2. 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke • Facts: Allan Bakke applied to the University of California, Davis School of Medicine in 1973 and 1974. He was rejected both times; whereas, special applicants from distinct minority groups were successful and had significantly lower academic qualifications. The University of California, Davis School of Medicine reserved 16 out of the 100 spots in their program for disadvantaged minorities. Bakke argued that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under the United States Constitution. • Issue: Should race be a deciding factor in admission processes? • Decision : The Supreme Court ruled that race may be a factor in determining admission to public educational institutions; however, it may not be a sole determining factor (“Regents of the University of California v. Bakke”).
- 3. 1987 Johnson v. Transportation Agency of Santa Clara County • Facts: The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California used gender as a deciding factor in a promotion position where they appointed Dian Joyce over Paul Johnson. • Issue: Did the agency take into account the gender of each employer in the promotion process and ultimately violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? • Decision: The Supreme Court ruled six votes for the Transportation Agency and three votes against. Justice Brennan stated that using sex as one factor among many is not unreasonable. Ultimately, the Agency’s actions did not create a direct obstacle to the advancement of men (Johnson v. Transportation Agency).
- 4. 1989 Wards Cove Packing Co v. Antonio • Facts: A group of nonwhite workers filed a law suit against Wards Cove Packing Company for exhibiting discrimination in employment violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. • Issue: Does the statistical evidence of increased numbers of white workers compared to nonwhite workers prove that discrimination is evident in the workplace? • Decision: The Supreme Court had five votes for Wards Cove Packing Co. and four votes against. Ultimately, Justice Byron argued that comparisons of race percentages in different job classes poses a false accusation towards the employer “the proper comparison is generally between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant labor market” (Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio). • As a result of this court ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was passed circumventing 12 Supreme Court Cases and made it easier for employees to sue in job discrimination cases and increased employer penalties (Mangum).
- 5. 1996 Piscataway v. Taxman • Facts: This case began in 1989 when, Sharon Taxman, a teacher at Piscataway High School was fired on the basis of her race. The Board of Education of Piscataway decided to cut an employee in the business education department. Both Sharon Taxman (white) and Debra Williams (African American) were employed on the same day. The state law of New Jersey states that the school board has to cut the newest hires first. As a result, of the affirmative action policy the in 1975 that promoted diversity within the school, Taxman lost her job. Taxman took the issue to court stating that it was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Piscataway v. Taxman (1996)”). • Issue: Should the school board base their executive decisions off of race? • Decision: The federal district court ruled that Piscataway High School’s affirmative action policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; subsequently, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision.
- 6. 2003 Gratz v. Bollinger • Facts: In 1995 Jennifer Gratz with the average GPA of 3.8 and an ACT score of 25 applied to the University’s of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science and the Arts but was denied application. The University’s policy on using race as a factor in admissions is they admit the majority of all qualified applicants who are either African American, Hispanic, or Native American and considered to be underrepresented on campus. • Issue: Does the University of Michigan’s admissions policy violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • Decision: The Supreme Court ruled a six to three opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that their policy did violate the Equal Protection Clause (Gratz v. Bollinger).
- 7. 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger • Facts: In 1997 Barbara Grutter a white female with a average GPA of 3.8 and an LSAT score of 161 applied to the University of Michigan’s Law school but was denied admittance. The Law School admits they use race as a determining factor since they believe it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.” • Issue: Does this racial preference violate the Equal Protection Clause? • Decision: The Court ruled in a five to four opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s use of race in admissions to obtain the benefits of a diverse community (Grutter v. Bollinger).
- 8. 2007 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 • Facts: The Seattle School District gave students the right to apply to any high school in the District; however, certain schools were favored in the community forcing the District to use a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would gain admission. The District used race as the second most important determining factor to maintain racial diversity. The tiebreaker was put into effect if any school’s student body deviated from 40% white students and 60% non-white students. The District was sued by a non-profit group called Parents Involved in Community Schools for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. • Issue: Does a school district that normally permits a student to attend the high school of their choice violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying the student admission to their chosen school because of their race in an effort to meet desired racial quotas? • Decision: The Court ruled by a five to four vote that the racial tiebreaker is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1).
- 9. 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano • Facts: This court case began when a group of white firefighters as well as Hispanic firefighters from the New Haven Connecticut Fire Department filed a law suit claiming that they experienced racial discrimination when the city refused to certify the results of two exams needed for the plaintiffs’ promotion to Lieutenant and Captain. The Civil Service Board did not certify the exams since the results would have promoted a disproportionate number of white candidates in comparison to minority candidates. • Issue: Can the results of a valid civil service exam be expended when they unintentionally prevent the promotion of minority candidates? • Decision: The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that by discarding the exams the City of New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Ricci v. DeStefano).