Civil Rights - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Civil Rights PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Civil Rights

play fullscreen
1 / 14
Civil Rights
107 Views
Download Presentation
julie
Download Presentation

Civil Rights

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

    1. Civil Rights 14th Amendment equal protection of the laws Abolish racial discrim & allow govt to interfere Right to. Positive liberty Positive action on part of government to protect and provide = protection Civil liberties freedom from, negative liberty

    2. Question of Interpretation Similar persons to be dealt with in similar manner Govt can make classifications, but has to justify need for classification Look at purpose and means: Rational legit/reasonable age Suspect compelling/only race Intermediate important/substl - gender

    3. Court rulings Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) separate but equal Sweatt v. Painter (1950) Denied admission to U of Texas Law School 6 months to establish sep law school Substantially equal facilities Brown v. Bd of Ed, Topeka, KA (1954) Segregation itself denial of equal protection 1955 re-argument all deliberate speed

    4. Continuing Controversies Scope of equal protection De jure De facto What state actions required Negative stop discrim desegregate Positive remedy - integrate Target Individual grievance Group class based Duration when is goal achieved? Remedy past effects of state discrimination Diversity

    5. Affirmative Action or Reverse Discrimination Goal race neutral law and policy Issue Can the govt use race conscious programs to redress continuing effects of past discrimination? Metaphor of shackled runner When does fairness for one runner result in unfairness for another runner?

    6. Bakke v. DeFunis (1978) Admission to UC Davis Med School 100 places 84 for regular admissions 16 for economically &/or educationally disadvantaged persons Minorities given priority most disadvantaged Bakke applied twice and was denied borderline case

    7. Lower Court Rulings CA Trial Court Davis discriminated on basis of race Violated Bakkes equal protection Davis not have to admit Bakke data not support he would be admitted CA Supreme Court Compelling state interest = racial equality Only use racially neutral means Ordered Bakkes admission

    8. Supreme Courts Bakke Decision Bakke was entitled to admission University could take race into account as one of several factors in its admission criteria Bakke won but affirmative action was upheld Goals are OK, quotas not Six separate opinions

    9. Bakke Decision Plurality Opinion Powell + Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist and Stevens Bakke should be admitted cant set aside a certain number of seats Powell + Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun Race may be considered a plus Compelling interest in diverse student body

    10. Michigan Cases Grutter v. Bollinger (law school pres) filed Dec. 1997 in District Court Two claims: discrimination on basis of race violated both 14th Amendment equal protection Title VI of CRA of 1964 recipients of federal funds cannot discriminate on basis of race Judge Friedman ruled (March01)that Michigans use of race violated the equal protection clause Racially diverse student body NOT compelling SI Wanted 10-17% minorities NOT narrowly tailored

    11. Michigan Cases Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals May02 Reversed lower court Ruled there was a compelling state interest Narrowly tailored point system Each applicant is considered as individual

    12. Michigan Cases Gratz v. Bollinger Filed Oct. 1997 in District Court Assigned to Judge Patrick Duggan Dec. 2000 ruling Diversity is compelling interest System under which Gratz rejected is unconstl grid system added points to GPA or LSAT System Michigan implemented in 1999 is constl 150 points/ 20 for race Both parties appealed

    13. Supreme Court Grutter v. Bollinger 5-4 decision upholding Law School policy (OConnor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) Narrowly tailored use of race Compelling interest in educatl benefits from diverse student body Reaffirm Powells Bakke decision 25 years after that use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary

    14. Supreme Court Gratz v. Bollinger 6-3 decision (Rehnquist, OConnor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer) Points system violated equal protection Not narrowly tailored Says diversity can be a compelling SI - can be a plus but consider as individual