CIVIL RIGHTS Overview Civil Rights seek to correct

CIVIL RIGHTS

Overview • Civil Rights seek to correct for unequal rights for minorities in the original constitution. • Despite 1964 Civil Rights Act, unequal treatment remains a challenge. • Affirmative Action, which goes beyond equal opportunity, faces resistance

What Are Civil Rights? • Laws and policies intended to redress historical inequalities – Efforts under the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment

Civil Rights Distinguished From Civil Liberties • • • Civil Liberties: individual rights CR: group rights Civil Liberties: emphasize liberty Civil Rights: emphasize equality Civil Liberties: limit government action Civil Rights: demand government action

Early Constitutional History • 3/5 compromise • Fugitive slave law • Slave trade provisions of Constitution – Framers hoped slavery would just wither away. – By 1850, monetary value of slaves exceeded monetary combined value of bank accounts, businesses, and real estate.

1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford

Civil War and Lincoln • Southern states said it was to protect states’ rights and called it “the war of northern aggression” • But Confederate state constitutions affirmed slavery • Lincoln made war about emancipation

Reconstruction • Constitutional amendments 13, 14, 15 • Reconstruction: Freedman’s Bureau versus Black Codes • 1875 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations

Post Reconstruction • Civil Rights Cases 1883—ruled 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional; 14 th Amendment only applies to state laws • Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 “Separate but equal” was constitutional • “Jim Crow” segregation until 1964

1895 -1945 4000+ Lynchings

1945 Truman Desegregated Military

Brown v. Board of Education 1954

1964 Civil Rights Act • Discrimination by “public accommodations” against federal law – State and local government agencies will lose federal funding if they discriminate • Authorized attorney general to sue school districts that discriminate • Title VII – employment discrimination against the law (women as well)

Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Created further protections for voting rights – Justice Department registered voters and reviewed any changes in voter procedures – Outlawed “racial gerrymandering” • A federal crime to interfere with voting rights

Shelby v. Holder 2013 • Overturned key provision of Voting Rights Act – Voting Rights Act required preclearance by Justice Department for state changes in voting laws

Shelby v. Holder (cont) • Court declared formula for determining which jurisdiction require pre-clearance to be outdated – Voter ID laws now in 35 states and discriminatory impact

Limits of Civil Rights • White flight and de facto segregation – impact on educational opportunity – Higher poverty rates— 27% vs 10% • Economic inequality – average net worth of blacks $17, 000 vs. Whites $170, 000 • Unemployment rates – 6. 1% vs. 3. 2% (pre covid) • Incarceration rates – 6 X whites

Greater Exposure to Police Violence

Institutional Racism • Racial inequalities that are not rooted in individual attitudes but in our social institutions. – Ex: Schools

Example: Job Networks • Whites in general have better connections

Is Equal Opportunity Enough? • Equal opportunity is widely supported • The reality as President Johnson saw it—”You can’t remove the chains of oppression and simply expect a fair race. ”

Affirmative Action • Federal employment practices and federal contracts that seek to increase employment of disadvantaged minorities – series of government regulations, court decisions, employer and university admissions policies • Applies mainly to employment and higher education

Is Affirmative Action Unfair? • It depends. – The ideal is being racially neutral—being judged by “the content of one’s character” • Studies reveal hidden racial biases in most of us

“Strict Scrutiny” Standard • Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny standard to affirmative action. • Any law that classifies citizens based on race or national origins must be for a compelling government interest and must be narrowly drawn. • Some affirmative action policies overturned, others affirmed by this standard.

Bakke v. University of California 1978 • 16 slots in UC-Davis medical school admissions class reserved for blacks, with a separate process for selection • David Bakke, white applicant, denied admission despite higher scores and grades than some blacks • Supreme Court ruled that quotas are not legal, but affirmative action is permitted as a plus factor. • Current case at Harvard claims affirmative action harms Asian applicants

2003 University of Michigan Cases • Gratz v. Bollinger (undergrads); Grutter v. Bollinger (law school) • Undergraduate admissions policy offered bonus points (20 out of 150) for race • Law school admissions isn’t a rigid formula, but rather a case -by-case review that allows for consideration of applicant’s race.

Supreme Court Decision • Affirmative Action is constitutional: a diverse student body qualifies as a compelling state interest • Undergraduate admissions process (point system) was not narrowly tailored, was an implicit quota hence not acceptable • Law school process was narrowly tailored. • But would it be practical for undergraduate admissions?

Alternatives to Race-Based Affirmative Action • Racially blind admissions—merit based. • University of California looks for “relative achievement” rather than just high SATs • Texas—top 10% of all graduating high school classes are automatically accepted.