Case studies - Civil Rights

Question 1

Equal Rights Amendment - arguments for

Answer 1

• For - it would guarantee the rights and responsibilities of each sex in a codified way - people can be judged individually and not on a trait that they cannot control
• For - All people regardless of gender are treated equally under law (combines 14th and 19th) such as property rights in divorce, economic rights are helped
• For - They would have to adhere to the same standards as men in situations such as Selective Service (military)
• For - Judicial standard for individuals facing sex discrimination - legal defense on the rollback of women’s rights as a constitutional amendment cannot be undermined by future legislation

Question 2

Equal Rights Amendment - Arguments against

Answer 2

• Against - US already has a 14th amendment and as a woman is a citizen, she falls under the category of protection as much as anyone, and subsequent acts such as the Equal Pay Act help to individualise protections
• Against - prevents the passing of laws that would help men and women differently / emphasise the different protections they need - no focus on social issues, only economic
• Against - has the potential of backfiring on the women’s rights movement as laws that recognise the needs that women require which men do not cannot be passed e.g. maternity leave law; as long as they are equal in their needs being met, the 14th amendment does its job without the need for a new one and could create a false sense of security for women’s rights, as it cultural changes would still need to happen and the legislation needs to be applied and used to make change
• I think the arguments against are more convincing, because logically there are differences between men and women that need to be recognised in individual acts, not just through a be all and end all amendment that does not cater to needs; a new approach that regards the needs of men and women and gives them equality would be better

Question 3

Affirmative Action before 2000

Answer 3

• 1954 - Brown v Board of education; separate but equal doctrine violates the Constitution
• 1961 - Kennedy creates the Council on Equal Opportunity in an executive order - ensures federal contractors hire people regardless of race, creed, colour or national origin
• 1964 - Civil Rights Act renders discrimination illegal in the workplace
• 1978 - Regents of the University of California v Bakke - notabl reverse discrimination case, SC rules that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violates the Equal Protection Clause, race can be used as a factor for admission
• 1995 - University of Michigan rejects the college application of Gratz, a top high school student in Detroit who is white
• 1997 - Gratz v Bollinger is filed in federal courts in Michigan; UoM is sued by white students, including Gratz who claim the undergraduate and law school affirmative action policies using race and or gender as a factor in admissions is a violation of Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
• 1997 - Grutter v Bollinger case rules UoM undergraduate admissions policy is unconstitutional

Question 4

Affirmative Action since 2000

Answer 4

• 2001 - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears about the Michigan cases
• 2002 - review of Grutter v Bollinger
• 2003 - Bush administrations files a friend-of-the-court brief with the SC opposing the UoM affirmative action programme
• 2003 - SCOTUS hears arguments on the cases and they rule on Grutter v Bollinger that the UoM law school may give preferential treatment to minorities during admissions
• 2003 - Gratz v Bollinger - undergraduate policy in which a point system gave specific weight to minority applicants is overturned
• 2003 - SC rules that race can be a factor in universities’ admission programs but it cannot be an overriding factor
• 2006 - MIchigan electorate strikes down AA in public education, employment or contracting
• 2008 - Fisher, a white woman, sues the UNiversity of Texas, arguing race shouldn’t be a factor in admissions
• 2011 - appeal overturns Michigan’s 2006 ban on the use of race or gender in admissions or hiring processes
• 2012 - Court of Appeals throws out the 2006 Michigan ban on affirmative action as unconstitutional
• 2013 - SC sends the UoT case back to the lower courts
• 2014 - SC holds up the Michigan ban on using racial criteria
• 2014 - Court of Appeals upholds the use of race by the UoT as a factor in admissions to promote diversity
• 2016 - Affirmative Action is upheld by the SC and allows its limited use in schools
• 2019 - Texas University enters an agreement with the Department of Education to stop considering race as a factor in its admissions process
• 2022 - SC announces it will reconsider race based affirmative action in college admissions and the justices will hear challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that use students’ race among many criteria to decide who should gain a coveted place in an entering class

Question 5

Felony Disenfranchisement

Answer 5

• Those who break the law have broken the social contract and have thereby given up their right to participate in civil society - some argue that felons have shown poor judgement and that they should therefore not have a voice in political decision-making
  29 states disenfranchise those on probation, 32 on felons on parole, 46 and District of Columbia denies the vote to all prisoners
  3.9 million are disenfranchised, including over 1 million who have done their time - unintended consequence of harsh criminal justice policies that have increased the number of people sent to prison
• Racial impact - particularly egregious; 13% of African-American men (1.4 million) are disenfranchised representing 36% of the total number disenfranchised
• In two states, 1 in 3 black men are disenfranchised