Slide 1The Quest for Equality Under the LawWhat is Charity and what are Civil RightsThe Quest for Equality Under the LawSlavery and its AftermathThe Struggle for EqualityThe Struggle for Equality Status as a “protected class”?The Struggle for EqualityEquality Under the LawSection Five JurisdictionsEquality of Opportunity and of ResultNext: Political ParticipationCivil RightsThe Right to…“Civil Rights are those protections necessary for the exercise of full citizenship.”The Quest for Equality Under the LawQuestion One: What is necessary for the individual to exercise his/her full rights as a citizen?The Question of “opportunity” – What constitutes real opportunity?To do what? Compete – in the economyParticipate – in the life of the communityThe concept of basic human needsFood, clothing?, housing?, education?, health care?Simply access or results?What is Charity and what are Civil RightsWelfare payments?Food Stamps?Public Housing?Health care?Public education?Voting?And What’s the Difference?The Quest for Equality Under the LawQuestion Two: What groups are being systematically denied those rights?Fair and Unfair Discrimination – What is Fair and Unfair discrimination?Is it fair that children do not have full rights as citizens?Is it fair that 18 years can vote but can’t buy a drink in a bar?Is it fair that woman has never become president and that women are underrepresented in Congress?Is it fair to deny access to the polls to someone on the basis of their religion, gender or ethnicity?What's the difference?The “Principle of Process”Slavery and its AftermathReconstruction EraCivil Rights Acts13th, 14th, & 15th amendmentsJim Crow lawsWhite primary – Primaries regarded as private affairsLiteracy testPoll taxGrandfather clause – exempted descendents of voters from conditions on votingPlessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".The Struggle for Equality African AmericansThe Brown DecisionBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. The Black Civil Rights MovementThe Aftermath of the Civil Rights MovementThe issue of Affirmative ActionReparationsThe Struggle for Equality Status as a “protected class”?WomenWomen's Legal and Political GainsNineteenth AmendmentJob-Related Issues: Family Leave, Comparable Worth, and Sexual HarassmentNative AmericansOriginally regarded as foreigners (citizens of their own nation)Granted full citizenship in 1924Hispanic AmericansLegal and Political ActionGrowing Political PowerAsian AmericansThe Struggle for Equality Older AmericansDisabled AmericansThe Americans with Disabilities ActGays and LesbiansThe Defense of Marriage ActEquality Under the Law Equal Protection: The Fourteenth AmendmentEqual Access: The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968The Civil Rights Act of 1964(a) Equal access All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Accommodations and JobsHousingEqual Ballots: The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as AmendedStill in effect todayThe Section Five designation was ruled unconstitutional this summer (2013)Section Five JurisdictionsEquality of Opportunity and of ResultAffirmative ActionBakke - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on affirmative action. It bars quota systems in college admissions but affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)O'Connor wrote the opinion of the court in Grutter and joined the majority in Gratz. In this pair of cases, the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program was held to have engaged in unconstitutional reverse discrimination, but the more-limited type of affirmative action in the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program was held to have been constitutional.Busing: School IntegrationNext: Political