POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 19 Current LectureSymbolic Speech: mixture of action and speech, if government is regulating activity to express speech that is unconstitutional. If the government is doing something but incidentally limits freespeech but protecting, than it is okay. This is the O’Brien speechPanhandlingDoes the first amendment include the right to beg? Helen Hershkoff and Adam Cohen (1991) Zoning PoliciesWarth v. Seldin (1975) – issue of standing and whether people have standing to bring a lawsuit; New York was going to build low income housing and the Supreme Court ruled these people couldn’t challenge the policy because even if New York let low income housing be built, it wasn’t certain someone would actually build it. If the court’s judgment couldn’t address the problem, its not allowedSpallone v. US (1990)- there was a court order to build low cost housing but the city kept delaying and saying they couldn’t do it. Eventually, the District Court that ordered this imposed fines on the city and the city council for not building low cost housing that would be multiracial. It went to the Supreme Court and should have had the city pay up before they had individuals pay up. Starett City- affirmative action for whites, the whites would move out of complex therefore theylimited the number of minorities who could live in a housing project. “Tipping” phenomenon- way to achieve social justice and low cost housing; some would argueFuture PoliciesWhat public policies should be adopted to address economic justice?Which economic rights should be afforded protection?The Politics of CultureWhat rights do ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples possess? What public policies should protect their rights? Competing ModelsModel of (forced) Assimilation (melting pot)- should everyone conform?Model of Accommodation (salad bowl)- can everyone be different? Illustration of Culture Conflict: Kirpan casesPeople v. Singh (1987): Sikh priest in subway, someone who had taken ahmat was on a subway and police approached him and told him he was in violation of a city ordinance. You aren’t allowed to have a blade unexposed or exposed in public. He was arrested and when he was arrested, he argued that his right to religious freedom allows him to wear the Kirpan. Matter of law made him lost; right to religious freedom does not give the right to wear the Kirpan. The judge understand that he was wearing a religious symbol and dismissed the case. It would be against justice to go on with the prosecution, even though technically he could have convicted him. If Mr. Singh were to come in the court again, he won’t be so lenient. Having a knife out isn’tokay. Cheema v. Thompson (1996): Sikh children wearing kirpan; school board had a no weapon policy. Families said they were required by their religion to wear it. It went to the 9th Circuit, but the kids had to go to school. Therefore, the kirpan had to be glued or sewed inside the sheets soit couldn’t be removed. People who had religious symbols had to be allowed to go to school. Multani v. Commission scolaireMarguerite-Bourgeoys (2006): Supreme Court of CanadaDress Codes and Grooming PoliciesDomino’s Pizza Inc v. Prabhjot S. Kohli (1997): Sikh, Kesh- beard, Snood- he said he was willing to wear a hairnet and a snood to cover the facial hair, Dominos pizza said that they did research that people don’t like to buy pizza from people with beards. They tried to accommodate for this and gave him another position, but not the manager. It was a civil rights case and he won. Yet, the money he got was less than what he owed the lawyers. Customer service shouldn’t be allowed to decide how companies treat people. After the litigation, Dominos changed their policy so that they had a beard policy that allowed people to have beards. Yet, they said it wasn’t in response of the case. Definition of CultureHigh culture: elitist forms of culture, museums, playsMass/ popular culture: things on the internet, magazinesTraditional culture: “way of life”. “value system”. “worldview”. Passover, April Fool’s DayCulture as a contested conceptProblem of “essentializing”- always people in a group who deviate from the custom; not everyone should be characterized the same way. the problem is one might start to treat everyone the same way, though people are differentStatic or dynamic? : treats cultural activity as if it stays the same and is static. But in reality, it is dynamicWho defines it? : Who says what is part of the culture? Is it the men or women or professors or what?Implications of “hegemony”: the notion that people in power have the ability to define certain ways of doing things for the rest of us. there is a concern for concentrated power and that the elites will manipulate cultural forms to control and oppress people. Scholarship on cultureMurdock’s Outline of Cultural Materials- part of the Human Relation Area FilesFolklore- Child’s Ballad Index, Aarne- Thompson Tale-Type Index, Thompson Motif Index of Folk Literature, dance, art, Wolfgang Mieder- proverb scholarship filed of paremiology. The concept of enculturationEnculturation versus acculturationLaw should take account for culture; everyone is socialized and born into a culture; socialization affects perception and behaviorEnculturation is something everyone is subject toAcculturation is a different term and refers to when people move between cultures and must learn a different culture; that person might become assimilated but not necessarily Examples: numbers, colors, gesturesLegal treatment of cultureCriminal lawShould culture be influenced in the court or is it irrelevant? Phases: pre-trial, guilt, sentencing; could be used in those stages for cultureMotive/intent; cultural argument goes to motive but not intent. Intent means that you intend togive an act that the law defines as a crime but the motive isn’t relevant to the analysis. You haveto have the intent and commit the act; it is hard to get cultural evidence in court. Complete or partial excuse; mitigate the events and reduce the punishment or excuse because of cultureHomocideTrujillo Garcia v. Rowland (1992): men playing poker, man lost and gave the other man the money; the man went home but then got mad and wanted his money back. The man said something to the other man about his mother and something very offensive. Garcia kills him by shooting him. Garcia said he was provoked and he argued that