equal protection under the law module...

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES COURSE Equal Protection Module

© The Bill of Rights Institute

Equal Protection Under the Law Module Introduction

The principle of equal justice under law means that every individual is equal to every other person in regards to natural rights and treatment before the law. There are no individuals or groups who are born with the right to rule over others.

Lesson One: The Foundations of American Justice

OverviewThe foundations of the principle of equal justice under the law has roots in documents like the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as from the writings of philosophers like John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu. The Founders used their understandings of these documents and writers to create the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. In this lesson, students will analyze these documents to help them understand the significance of equal justice.

Recommended Time130 minutes

ObjectivesStudents will:

Understand and exemplify the definitions of the terms equal and fair.

Understand the importance of equality and rights in a representative government and how equal treatment under the law is important for a self-governing society.

Analyze documents including the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, and

Montesquieu’s The Defense of the Spirit of Laws to understand the foundations of equal justice prior to the American Founding.

Explain how the foundational documents led the Founders to protect equal justice in the American Founding Documents.

North Carolina Clarifying ObjectivesCE.C&G.1.2: Explain how the Enlightenment and other contributing theories impacted the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to help promote liberty, justice and equality (e.g., natural rights, classical theories of government, Magna Carta, Montesquieu, Locke, English Bill of Rights, etc.).

CE.C&G.1.4: Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights –life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).

CE.C&G.3.8: Evaluate the rights of individuals in terms of how well those rights have been upheld by democratic government in the United States.



AH1.H.1.2: Use Historical Comprehension to:

1. Reconstruct the literal meaning of a historical passage.

2. Differentiate between historical facts and historical interpretations.

AH1.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to: 1. Identify issues and problems in the past. 2. Consider multiple perspectives of

various peoples in the past. 3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships

and multiple causation.4. Evaluate competing historical narratives

and debates among historians. 5. Evaluate the influence of the past on

contemporary issues.

AH1.H.1.4: Use Historical Research to: 1. Formulate historical questions. 2. Obtain historical data from a variety of

sources. 3. Support interpretations with historical

evidence. 4. Construct analytical essays using

historical evidence to support arguments.

AH1.H.2.1: Analyze key political, economic, and social turning points from colonization through Reconstruction in terms of causes and effects (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH1.H.5.1: Summarize how the philosophical, ideological and/or religious views on freedom and equality contributed to the development of American political and economic systems through Reconstruction (e.g., natural rights, First Great

Awakening, Declaration of Independence, transcendentalism, suffrage, abolition, “ slavery as a peculiar institution”, etc.).

Lesson Two: Equal Protection and the Supreme Court

OverviewThe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. In this lesson, students will learn how to analyze primary source documents from Supreme Court cases using a document based question (DBQ) model. Most document based questions require students to write essays to show understanding. This lesson will walk students through a document analysis activity for one Supreme Court case as a class. They will then be asked to write a document-based question essay individually.



Understand the significance of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.Analyze the how the American Founding Documents protect equal justice and individual rights.Analyze primary source documents relating to landmark Supreme Court cases about the Equal Protection Clause.Analyze laws and policies relating to “separate but equal,” segregation, and desegregation and explain the history behind such laws.



Evaluate Supreme Court decisions on equal protection.

Evaluate the causes and effects of Supreme Court decisions.

Apply historical understanding to evaluate Supreme Court rulings.

North Carolina Clarifying ObjectivesCE.C&G.1.4: Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights – life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).

CE.C&G.2.3: Evaluate the U.S. Constitution as a “living Constitution” in terms of how the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been interpreted and applied throughout their existence (e.g., precedents, rule of law, stare decisis, judicial review, supremacy, equal protections, “establishment clause”, symbolic speech, due process, right to privacy, etc.).

CE.C&G.3.1: Analyze how the rule of law establishes limits on both the governed and those who govern while holding true to the ideal of equal protection under the law (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendments, Americans with Disabilities Act, equal opportunity legislation).

CE.C&G.3.3: Analyze laws and policies in terms of their intended purposes, who has authority to create them and how they are enforced (e.g., laws, policies, public policy, regulatory, symbolic, procedural, etc.).

CE.C&G.3.4: Explain how individual rights are protected by varieties of law (e.g., Bill of Rights, Supreme Court Decisions, constitutional law, criminal law, civil law, Tort, Administrative law, Statutory law and International law, etc.).


CE.C&G.5.2: Analyze state and federal courts by outlining their jurisdictions and the adversarial nature of the judicial process (e.g., Appellate, Exclusive, Concurrent, Original, types of federal courts, types of state courts, oral argument, courtroom rules, Supreme Court, opinions, Court Docket, Prosecutor/Prosecution, Complaint, Defendant, Plaintiff, hearing, bail, indictment, sentencing, appeal, etc.).

AH1.H.1.2/AH2.H.1.2: Use Historical Comprehension to: 1. Reconstruct the literal meaning of a

historical passage. 2. Differentiate between historical facts and

historical interpretations. 3. Analyze data in historical maps. 4. Analyze visual, literary and musical

sources.

AH1.H.1.3/AH2.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to: 1. Identify issues and problems in the past. 2. Consider multiple perspectives of

various peoples in the past. 3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships

and multiple causation.4. Evaluate competing historical narratives

and debates among historians.



5. Evaluate the influence of the past on contemporary issues.

AH1.H.1.4/AH2.H.1.4: Use Historical Research to: 1. Formulate historical questions. 2. Obtain historical data from a variety of





AH1.H.2.2: Evaluate key turning points from colonization through Reconstruction in terms of their lasting impact (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH2.H.2.1: Analyze key political, economic, and social turning points since the end of Reconstruction in terms of causes and effects (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH2.H.2.2: Evaluate key turning points since the end of Reconstruction in terms of their lasting impact (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH2.H.4.1: Analyze the political issues and conflicts that impacted the United States

since Reconstruction and the compromises that resulted (e.g., Populism, Progressivism, working conditions and labor unrest, New Deal, Wilmington Race Riots, Eugenics, Civil Rights Movement, Anti-War protests, Watergate, etc.).

AH2.H.5.1: Summarize how the philosophical, ideological and/or religious views on freedom and equality contributed to the development of American political and economic systems since Reconstruction (e.g., “separate but equal”, Social Darwinism, social gospel, civil service system, suffrage, Harlem Renaissance, the Warren Court, Great Society programs, American Indian Movement, etc.).

Assessment

OverviewAfter completing both lessons, have students write a document based question essay analyzing Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Students may use the Documents Summary or Case Briefing Sheets from Lesson 2, but they should NOT have the Tips for Thesis Statements and Essays, the Key Question Scoring Guidelines for All Essays, or the Rubric for Evaluating DBQ Essays.


AssignmentStudents should answer the Key Question regarding Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) in a well-organized essay that incorporates their interpretations of Documents A-M, as well



as their own knowledge of history. They have 60 minutes to complete the essay.

Key Question: Appraise the claim that the University of California at Davis special admissions program resulted in unconstitutional reverse discrimination.

MaterialsRegents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Document Based Question Assessment

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Documents:

A. Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868

B. Executive Order 10925, 1961

C. “Civil Rights Legislation,” 1963

D. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

E. President Lyndon Johnson, Speech at Howard University, 1965

F. Program Demographics, 1970-1974

G. Education by Race Statistics, 1940-1980

H. Alan Bakke’s Credentials, 1973-1974

I. UC-Davis’s Reply to Bakke’s Query on Age, 1972

J. Oral Arguments, 1978

K. Justice Thurgood Marshall’s Memo, 1978

L. Plurality Decision (5-4), Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978

M. Justice Marshall’s Separate Opinion, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978

These resources were created by the Bill of Rights Institute to help North Carolina high school teachers of civics and American history meet the requirements of the founding Principles course.



Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Document Based Question Assessment

DirectionsRead the Case Background and Key Question. Then analyze Documents A-M.Finally, answer the Key Question in a well-organized essay that incorporates your interpretations of Documents A-M, as well as your own knowledge of history.

Case BackgroundThe phrase “affirmative action” first appeared in a 1961 executive order by President John F. Kennedy, barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin. President Lyndon B. Johnson echoed this phrasing in his own policies and speeches. Congress later passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring discrimination by any institutions receiving federal money.

The University of California at Davis Medical School, a public school, was founded in 1966. The first class of fifty students was made up of forty-seven white students and three of Asian descent. In order to achieve a more racially diverse student body, in 1970 the University took what it described as affirmative action by creating two separate admissions programs. The general program required a 2.5 GPA, an interview, letters of recommendation, and test scores. The special program, for which only disadvantaged members of minority groups were eligible, had no GPA cutoff.

By 1973, the class size had doubled to 100, and of those 100 spaces, sixteen were reserved for minority applicants in the special program. Applicants to the special program competed only against each other for admission, and did not compete against applicants to the general admissions program.

Allan Bakke, a Caucasian, applied twice to the medical school, and was rejected both times. His GPA and test scores, however, were higher than those of any of the students accepted into the special program. He sued the school, charging that the special admissions program amounted to a quota system that discriminated against whites.

Key QuestionAppraise the claim that the University of California at Davis special admissions program resulted in unconstitutional reverse discrimination.

Documents you will examine: A. Section of the Fourteenth Amendment,

1868 B. Executive Order 10925, 1961 C. “Civil Rights Legislation,” 1963 D. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 E. President Lyndon Johnson, Speech at

Howard University, 1965 F. Program Demographics, 1970-1974



G. Education by Race Statistics, 1940-1980 H. Alan Bakke’s Credentials, 1973-1974 I. UC-Davis’s Reply to Bakke’s Query on Age, 1972 J. Oral Arguments, 1978 K. Justice Thurgood Marshall’s Memo, 1978 L. Plurality Decision (5-4), Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978 M. Justice Marshall’s Separate Opinion, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978



DOCUMENT ASection of the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868 No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why was this amendment passed in 1868?

DOCUMENT BExecutive Order 10925, 1961 Establishing The President’s Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity [Federal government contractors] will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.

What does “affirmative action” mean? What does “without regard to” mean?

DOCUMENT C“Civil Rights Legislation,” 1963

What is the point of view of the cartoonist?



DOCUMENT DTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Does the policy stated in this document differ from that in Document B? If so, how?

DOCUMENT EPresident Lyndon Johnson, Speech at Howard University, 1965You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: “Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.” You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, “You are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe you have been completely fair. …This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. 4 Restate this excerpt from Johnson’s speech in your own words.

How does this understanding of equality differ from that expressed in Documents B and D?

DOCUMENT FUC-Davis Medical School Program Demographics, 1970-1974

Summarize the chart data in one or two sentences.



DOCUMENT GEducation by Race Statistics, 1940-1980

Summarize the chart data in one or two sentences.

DOCUMENT HAlan Bakke’s Credentials, 1973-1974

How did Bakke’s GPA and MCAT scores compare to those of students accepted from both the regular and special programs?



DOCUMENT IUC-Davis’s Reply to Bakke’s Query on Age, 1972Note: By 1971, Alan Bakke had served four years as a United States Marine, including one tour in Vietnam. He had also completed a Master’s Degree in mechanical engineering, was a father of two, and was 32 years old. When he decided to apply to medical school, he wrote to more than ten medical schools, including UC-Davis, asking about their policy on considering applicants’ ages.

[Dear Mr. Bakke:] When an applicant is over thirty, his age is a serious factor which must be considered. …The Committee believes that an older applicant must be unusually highly qualified if he is to be seriously considered.…

Does this information change your assessment of Bakke’s credentials from Document H?

DOCUMENT JOral Arguments, 1978 Colvin [representing Bakke]: Race is an improper classification in this system… we believe it to be unconstitutional. Justice Burger: Why? Because it is rigidly limited to sixteen [spots set aside in each class for minorities]?Colvin: No, because the concept of race itself as a classification becomes in our history and in our understanding an unjust and improper basis on which to judge people. Justice Marshall: Would it be constitutional if it was one [space that was set aside for minority students]? Colvin: No. Whether it is one, one hundred, two—Justice Marshall: You are talking about your client [Bakke’s] rights. Don’t these underprivileged people have rights? Colvin: They certainly have the right to compete— Marshall: To eat cake. Colvin: They have the right to compete. They have the right to equal competition. Marshall: So the numbers are just unimportant? Colvin: The numbers are unimportant. It is the principle of keeping a man out because of his race that is important. Marshall: You’re arguing about keeping someone out, and the other side is arguing about getting somebody in. Colvin: That’s right.

Contrast Bakke’s lawyer’s argument with President Johnson’s assertion in Document E.



DOCUMENT KJustice Thurgood Marshall’s Memo, 1978 Note: This memo was circulated while the Justices were considering the case.

The decision in this case depends on whether you consider the action of [UCD Medical School] as admitting certain students or excluding certain other students.

What two approaches to the Bakke case does Justice Marshall identify?

DOCUMENT LPlurality Decision (5-4), Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978

The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all persons. Its language is explicit. …The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal. …Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake…. Hence, the purpose of helping certain groups whom the faculty of the Davis Medical School perceived as victims of “societal discrimination” does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like [Bakke], who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered…. [A] diverse student body … clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education. …Ethnic diversity, however, is only one element in a range of factors a university properly may consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student body…. In summary, it is evident that the Davis special admissions program involves the use of an explicit racial classification never before countenanced by this Court. It tells applicants who are not Negro, Asian, or Chicano that they are totally excluded from a specific percentage of the seats in an entering class. No matter how strong their qualifications, quantitative and extracurricular, including their own potential for contribution to educational diversity, they are never afforded the chance to compete with applicants from the preferred groups for the special admissions seats. In enjoining petitioner [UC-Davis] from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin. For this reason, so much of the California court’s judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed.

Of the two approaches identified by Marshall in Document K, which does the Court appear to have adopted?

How does the Court define terms such as “equal” and “protection” in this ruling?



DOCUMENT MJustice Thurgood Marshall’s Separate Opinion, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978I agree with the judgment of the Court only insofar as it permits a university to consider the race of an applicant in making admissions decisions. I do not agree that petitioner’s admissions program violates the Constitution. For it must be remembered that, during most of the past 200 years, the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, did not prohibit the most ingenious and pervasive forms of discrimination against the Negro. Now, when a State acts to remedy the effects of that legacy of discrimination, I cannot believe that this same Constitution stands as a barrier…. The position of the Negro today in America is the tragic but inevitable consequence of centuries of unequal treatment. Measured by any benchmark of comfort or achievement, meaningful equality remains a distant dream for the Negro…. It is because of a legacy of unequal treatment that we now must permit the institutions of this society to give consideration to race in making decisions about who will hold the positions of influence, affluence, and prestige in America. For far too long, the doors to those positions have been shut to Negroes. If we are ever to become a fully integrated society, one in which the color of a person’s skin will not determine the opportunities available to him or her, we must be willing to take steps to open those doors….

In what way does Marshall agree with the majority decision? How does he depart from it?



Equal Protection Under Law: The Foundations of American Justice Lesson

OverviewThe foundations of the principle of equal justice under the law has roots in documents like the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as from the writings of philosophers like John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu. The Founders used their understandings of these documents and writers to create the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. In this lesson, students will analyze these documents to help them understand the significance of equal justice.



Understand and exemplify the definitions of the terms equal and fair.

Understand the importance of equality and rights in a representative government and how equal treatment under the law is important for a self-governing society.

Analyze documents including the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, and Montesquieu’s The Defense of the Spirit of Laws to understand the foundations of equal justice prior to the American Founding.

Explain how the foundational documents led the Founders to protect equal justice in the American Founding Documents.

North Carolina Clarifying ObjectivesCE.C&G.1.2: Explain how the Enlightenment and other contributing theories impacted the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to help promote liberty, justice and equality (e.g., natural rights, classical theories of government, Magna Carta, Montesquieu, Locke, English Bill of Rights, etc.).

CE.C&G.1.4: Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights –life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).


AH1.H.1.2: Use Historical Comprehension to:

1. Reconstruct the literal meaning of a historical passage.

2. Differentiate between historical facts and historical interpretations.

AH1.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to:

1. Identify issues and problems in the past.



2. Consider multiple perspectives of various peoples in the past.

3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships and multiple causation.

4. Evaluate competing historical narratives and debates among historians.


AH1.H.1.4: Use Historical Research to:

1. Formulate historical questions.

2. Obtain historical data from a variety of sources.

3. Support interpretations with historical evidence.

4. Construct analytical essays using historical evidence to support arguments.


AH1.H.5.1: Summarize how the philosophical, ideological and/or religious views on freedom and equality contributed to the development of American political and economic systems through Reconstruction (e.g., natural rights, First Great Awakening, Declaration of Independence, transcendentalism, suffrage, abolition, “ slavery as a peculiar institution”, etc.).

MaterialsHandout A: “Equal Protection and Affirmative Action” by Warner Winborne, Ph.D.Handout B: Attitude Inventory

Handout C: Excerpts from the Magna Carta (1215)Handout D: Excerpts from the Mayflower Compact (1620) Handout E: Excerpts from the Petition of Right Handout F: Excerpts from the English Bill of Rights (1689)Handout G: Comparing the Documents Handout H: Excerpts from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690)Handout I: Excerpts from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748)Handout J: Comparing Locke and MontesquieuHandout K: Attitude Inventory Review

Lesson Plan

Background/Homework [10 minutes the day before]A. Have students read Handout A: “Equal

Protection and Affirmative Action” by Warner Winborne, Ph.D. and complete Handout B: Attitude Inventory.

Warm-Up [15 minutes]A. After reading the essay and completing the

attitude inventory, hold a class discussion. Ask students what the terms “equal” and “fair” mean.

a. Write the students’ definitions and examples on the board.

b. Have a few students look up definitions of each terms using dictionaries.

c. By the end of the exercise, students should have an understanding of the similarities and differences between equality and fairness.



Activity I [45 minutes]A. Have students read the excerpts from the

Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights provided in Handouts C-F. They should also use copies of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights to complete Handout G: Comparing the Documents. They can do this individually or in groups.

a. The students should look for ways in which the documents promote equal justice and protect the people.

B. After students have completed the reading and Handout G, conduct a class discussion on the ways in which the documents they read are similar to or different from each other.

a. Ask the class to think about what ideas or principles from Handouts C-F were used in the American Founding Documents.

Activity II [45 minutes]A. Have students read the Handout H:

Excerpts from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690) and Handout I: Excerpts from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748) Students should concentrate on the ways in which both authors think about liberty, justice, and rights and record their findings on Handout J: Comparing Locke and Montesquieu.

a. After students have read the excerpts and completed Handout J, have them discuss this question with a partner:

i. Many of the Founders read the writings of Locke and Montesquieu. How did the Founders incorporate Locke and Montesquieu’s ideas into the Founding Documents?

Wrap-Up [15 minutes]A. Have students complete Handout K:

Attitude Inventory Review. With a partner, in groups, or as a class, discuss how their opinions have changed since the beginning of the lesson.

Homework/ExtensionsA. Have students write a response to these

questions in their journals:

a. In what ways did the Founders include the protections of equal justice in the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, Locke’s Second Treatise, and Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws when creating the American Founding Documents?

b. Why did the Founders believe that equal justice needed to be protected?

c. Does equal justice still need to be protected today? Explain your answer.



B. Rubric:Category 1 2 3 4

Protections of equal justice in historical documents used in Founding Documents

Student did not explain how the documents influenced the Founding Documents.

Student explained how two or three of the documents influenced the Founding Documents.

Student explained how four or five of the documents influenced the Founding Documents.

Student explained how each of the six documents influenced the Founding Documents.

Protection of equal justice

Student did not explain why the Founders believed equal justice should be protected.

Student explained one reason the Founders believed equal justice should be protected.

Student explained two reasons the Founders believed equal justice should be protected.

Student explained three or more reasons the Founders believed equal justice should be protected.

Does equal justice still need to be protected?

Student did not answer the question or explain why the equal justice should or should not be protected.

Student answered the question, but did not explain why the equal justice should or should not be protected.

Student answered the question and explained why the equal justice should or should not be protected.

Student answered the question and explained why the equal justice should or should not be protected with specific examples.


Handout A: “Equal Protection and Affirmative Action” by Warner Winborne, Ph.D.

That “all men are created equal” was a truth so obvious, it needed no defense, according to the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, equality itself appeared to need no defense, as the Declaration next claimed that the function of government was not to guarantee natural equality, but to protect natural rights, and in particular, the right to liberty. Thus, the purpose of government was the prevention of tyranny, and not the promotion of equality.

That focus shifted following the Civil War. The Reconstruction Congress found the oppression of an entire race abhorrent and drafted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to correct the situation. These amendments, which Southern states were required to ratify before readmission to the Union, were intended to end this unequal treatment by correcting those portions of the Constitution which could be used to support slavery or discrimination. And two Supreme Court Cases in particular, Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) and Barron v. Baltimore (1833) appear to have been especially targeted. Prigginvolved the Fugitive Slave Act and Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. Edward Prigg, who captured and returned a fugitive slave to her owner, was arrested and charged with kidnapping. The Court ruled that Article IV, Section 2, the “service or labour” clause, required states to assist in returning fugitive slaves to their owners. But several of the Justices went further, reading in the clause a positive affirmation of the property right of the slave-owner to the slave.

According to the Declaration of Independence, the function of government was not to guarantee natural equality, but to protect natural rights. That focus shifted following the Civil War.

Of similar trouble to the Reconstruction Congress was Barron v. Baltimore, which involved not issues of equality, but property (as arguably did Prigg). In Barron, Mr. Barron lost his property and his livelihood because of the actions of the City of Baltimore. He claimed that this constituted a “taking” in violation of his rights guaranteed in the 5th Amendment. The Court agreed that Baltimore’s act amounted to a “taking” but argued that the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights applied only to national action, not action by the states.

These two cases find their ultimate expression in Dred Scott (1856), the case that affirmed the property rights of slave owners, denied the claims to citizenship and equality of the Negro race, and voided the Missouri Compromise. Although it is grounded in some measure by a most curious understanding of race relations at the Founding, following on the heels of Prigg and Barron, and to some degree bound by stare decisis, the Court defends slavery and denies that the civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights extend to the citizens of the states. That is, following Prigg, slaves are property, not persons, and following Barron, the states are free to deny constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights and civil liberties. It is this which the Civil War Amendments


in general and the 14th Amendment in particular, attempted to change. The result is the requirement that the states extend to all citizens of the United States, the “equal protection of the laws.”

But this is perhaps easier said than done. The Founders either took human equality for granted, or believed that government need not enforce equality. But with the adoption of the 14th Amendment which requires the equal protection of the laws, it was the task of government, especially the Court, to determine just what “equal protection of the laws” required. Unsurprisingly, the Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as a group of lawyers might; what was protected, they said, was legal and political equality, not social or economic equality.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court determined that separate accommodations for the races are constitutionally permissible. The Equal Protection Clause does not require the intermingling of the races, merely their equal treatment under the law. Indeed, the Court suggested that legislation requiring integration was likely to fail, and that racism could only be eradicated by the slow and informal process of voluntary social interaction. The Court found the claim that segregation imposes a stigma on the excluded race without merit, as such a stigma is the result of that race’s assumptions regarding the purpose of the segregation.

Although the Court defended the notion of “separate but equal” regarding social or economic conditions, it protected the legal and political equality of the races. In 1880, the Court defended the rights of blacks to serve on juries (Strauder v. West Virginia, 1880). Six years

later, the Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause applied with equal force to Asians (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886). And in 1927, the Court defended the rights of minorities to participate in political primaries (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927).

But it was not until 1954 that the Equal Protection Clause was extended beyond the legal and political realms to social and economic activity. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court found persuasive the claim raised in Plessy that segregation necessarily stigmatized the excluded race, and that therefore, separate conditions could never be equal. A unanimous Court ordered the end of de jure segregation in education, finding, “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court developed a doctrine of “suspect classifications” which, if involved in the policy at issue, would trigger “strict scrutiny.” In University of California Regents v. Bakke, Justice Powell, writing for a divided Court, employed the doctrine of suspect classifications to find a policy setting aside seats for minority students violated the Equal Protection Clause. He noted that suspect classifications had not been reserved only for those in minority positions. “Nor has this Court held that discreteness and insularity constitute necessary preconditions to a holding that a particular classification is invidious.


…These characteristics may be relevant in deciding whether or not to add new types of classifications to the list of “suspect” categories or whether a particular classification survives close examination. Racial and ethnic classifications, however, are subject to stringent examination without regard to these additional characteristics.” Thus, the Equal Protection Clause protects against reverse discrimination as well as discrimination against minorities. Nevertheless, Justice Powell also concluded that although racial quotas could not be established, race could be considered as a factor in admissions since a diverse student body was a compelling interest.

The Equal Protection Clause protects against reverse discrimination as well as discrimination against minorities.

The Court’s reasoning in Bakke was recently confirmed in Gratzv. Bollinger and Grutterv. Bollinger, two cases testing admissions policies at the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School respectively. In both cases, the admission of traditionally under-represented minorities constituted a compelling state interest, but the law school considered the applicants as individuals, thus meeting the requirement that the procedure be “narrowly tailored.” On the other hand, the University of Michigan treated all minorities equally, automatically awarding them twenty percent of the score needed for admission, and was thus not sufficiently narrowly-tailored to survive strict scrutiny.

Dr. Warner Winborne is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Hampden-SydneyCollege in Virginia.


Handout B: Attitude Inventory

Directions: Rate your agreement with each statement.

1. I understand the principle of “equal justice/protection under the law.” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Completely Disagree Completely Agree

2. When judging how well a country exemplifies the principle of equality under law, it should be judged against an ideal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


3. When judging how well a country exemplifies the principle of equality under law, it should be judged against how well other countries do so. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


4. Since all people are created equal, all people should have equal outcomes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


5. “Equal protection of the law” means treating everyone the same. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


6. “Equal protection of the law” means treating everyone differently based on their unique circumstances. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



Handout C: Excerpts from the Magna Carta (1215)

1. … the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate…

13. [T]he city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs… further more…all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs…

20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense…

28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone without immediately tendering money therefore, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the seller…

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or diseased or exiled or in any way destroyed…except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land…

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice…

42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom…) to leave our kingdom and to return…


Handout D: The Mayflower Compact (1620)

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc. having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends

aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Codd the 11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our sovereigne lord, King James, of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.

John Carver Edward Tilley Degory Priest

William Bradford John Tilley Thomas Williams

Edward Winslow Francis Cooke Gilbert Winslow

William Brewster Thomas Rogers Edmund Margeson

Issac Allerton Thomas Tinker Peter Browne

Myles Standish John Rigdale Richard Britteridge

John Alden Edward Fuller George Soule

Samuel Fuller John Turner Richard Clarke

Christopher Martin Francis Eaton Richard Gardiner

William Mullins James Chilton John Allerton

William White John Crackston Thomas English

Richard Warren John Billington Edward Dotey

John Howland Moses Fletcher Edward Leister

Stephen Hopkins John Goodman


Handout E: Excerpts from The Petition of Right (1628)

III. And where also by the Statute called The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, it is declared and enacted, That no Freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold or Liberties, or his Free Customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.

IV. And in the Eight and twentieth Year of the Reign of King Edward the Third, it was declared and enacted by Authority of Parliament, That no Man of what Estate or Condition that he be, should be put out of his Land or Tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to Death, without being brought to answer by due Process of Law.

VI. And whereas of late great Companies of Soldiers and Mariners have been dispersed into divers Counties of the Realm, and the Inhabitants against their Wills have been compelled to receive them into their Houses, and there to suffer them to sojourn, against the Laws and Customs of this Realm, and to the great Grievance and Vexation of the People.

IX. And also sundry grievous Offenders, by colour thereof claiming an Exemption, have escaped the Punishments due to them by

the Laws and Statutes of this Your Realm, by reason that divers of your Officers and Ministers of Justice have unjustly refused or for born to proceed against such Offenders according to the same Laws and Statutes, upon Pretence that the said Offenders were punishable only by Martial Law, and by Authority of such Commissions as aforesaid: Which Commissions, and all other of like Nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said Laws and Statutes of this Your Realm:

XI. All which they most humbly pray of Your most excellent Majesty as their Rights and Liberties according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; and that Your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare, that the Awards, Doings and Proceedings, to the Prejudice of Your People in any of the Premises shall not be drawn hereafter into Consequence or Example; and that Your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further Comfort and Safety of Your People, to declare Your Royal Will and Pleasure, that in the Things aforesaid all your Officers and Ministers shall serve You according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, as they tender the Honour of Your Majesty, and the Prosperity of this Kingdom.


Handout F: Excerpts from the English Bill of Rights (1689)

The pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

It is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

The raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

The subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

Excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

Jurors ought to be duly impaneled and returned…

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently….


Handout G: Comparing the Documents

Document Name Summarize

How does this document promote justice?

How is this document similar to the other

documents?

How is this document different from the

other documents?

Magna Carta (1215)

The Mayflower Compact (1620)

The Petition of Right (1628)

The English Bill of Rights (1689)

Declaration of Independence (1776)

Articles of Confederation (1781)

United States Constitution (1788)

United States Bill of Rights (1791)


Handout H: Excerpts from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690)

The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures…

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law…

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution…

But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society… to preserve [themselves, their] liberty and property…

The power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure everyone’s property …. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.


Handout I: Excerpts from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748)

In every government there are three sorts of power; the legislative; the executive… [and] the latter we shall call the judiciary power…

There would be an end of every thing were the same man, or the same body…to exercise those three powers that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of judging crimes….

The executive power ought to be in the hands of a monarch; because this branch of government, which has always need of expedition, is better administered by one than by many: Whereas, whatever depends on the legislative power, is oftentimes better regulated by many than by a single person.

When once an army is established, it ought not to depend immediately on the legislative, but on the executive power, and this from the very nature of the thing; its business consisting more in action than in deliberation.

From a manner of thinking that prevails amongst mankind, [armies] set a higher value upon courage than timorousness, on activity than prudence, on strength than counsel. Hence, the army will ever despise a senate, and respect their own officers…


Handout J: Compare and Contrast Locke and Montesquieu

Directions: After reading the excerpts from Locke and Montesquieu, complete the table below. Think about the ways in which each author hopes to promote and protect liberty, justice, and rights.

Locke Montesquieu

Liberty

Justice

Rights

How are Locke’s and Montesquieu’s understandings of liberty, justice, and rights similar? How are they different?


Handout K: Attitude Inventory Review

Directions: Rate your agreement with each statement. How have your opinions changed since the beginning of the lesson?

1. I understand the principle of “equal justice/protection under the law.” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


2. When judging how well a country exemplifies the principle of equality under law, it should be judged against an ideal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


3. When judging how well a country exemplifies the principle of equality under law, it should be judged against how well other countries do so. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


4. Since all people are created equal, all people should have equal outcomes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


5. “Equal protection of the law” means treating everyone the same.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


6. “Equal protection of the law” means treating everyone differently based on their unique circumstances.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




Equal Protection Under the Law Module: Equal Protection and the Supreme Court Lesson

OverviewThe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” In this lesson, students will learn how to analyze primary source documents from Supreme Court cases using a document based question (DBQ) model. Most document based questions require students to write essays to show understanding. This lesson will walk students through a document analysis activity for one Supreme Court case as a class. They will then be asked to write a document-based question essay individually.



Understand the significance of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Analyze the how the American Founding Documents protect equal justice and individual rights.

Analyze primary source documents relating to landmark Supreme Court cases about the Equal Protection Clause.

Analyze laws and policies relating to “separate but equal,” segregation, and desegregation and explain the history behind such laws.

Evaluate Supreme Court decisions on equal protection.

Evaluate the causes and effects of Supreme Court decisions.

Apply historical understanding to evaluate Supreme Court rulings.

North Carolina Clarifying ObjectivesCE.C&G.1.4: Analyze the principles and ideals underlying American democracy in terms of how they promote freedom (e.g., separation of powers, rule of law, limited government, democracy, consent of the governed, individual rights –life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, self-government, representative democracy, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law, diversity, patriotism, etc.).

CE.C&G.2.3: Evaluate the U.S. Constitution as a “living Constitution” in terms of how the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been interpreted and applied throughout their existence (e.g., precedents, rule of law, stare decisis, judicial review, supremacy, equal protections, “establishment clause”, symbolic speech, due process, right to privacy, etc.).

CE.C&G.3.1: Analyze how the rule of law establishes limits on both the governed and those who govern while holding true to the ideal of equal protection under the law (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendments, Americans with Disabilities Act, equal opportunity legislation).



CE.C&G.3.3: Analyze laws and policies in terms of their intended purposes, who has authority to create them and how they are enforced (e.g., laws, policies, public policy, regulatory, symbolic, procedural, etc.).

CE.C&G.3.4: Explain how individual rights are protected by varieties of law (e.g., Bill of Rights, Supreme Court Decisions, constitutional law, criminal law, civil law, Tort, Administrative law, Statutory law and International law, etc.).


CE.C&G.5.2: Analyze state and federal courts by outlining their jurisdictions and the adversarial nature of the judicial process (e.g., Appellate, Exclusive, Concurrent, Original, types of federal courts, types of state courts, oral argument, courtroom rules, Supreme Court, opinions, Court Docket, Prosecutor/Prosecution, Complaint, Defendant, Plaintiff, hearing, bail, indictment, sentencing, appeal, etc.).

AH1.H.1.2/AH2.H.1.2: Use Historical Comprehension to:

Reconstruct the literal meaning of a historical passage.

Differentiate between historical facts and historical interpretations.

Analyze data in historical maps.

Analyze visual, literary and musical sources.

AH1.H.1.3/AH2.H.1.3: Use Historical Analysis and Interpretation to: 1. Identify issues and problems in the past. 2. Consider multiple perspectives of

various peoples in the past.

3. Analyze cause-and-effect relationships and multiple causation.

4. Evaluate competing historical narratives and debates among historians.


AH1.H.1.4/AH2.H.1.4: Use Historical Research to: 1. Formulate historical questions. 2. Obtain historical data from a variety of





AH1.H.2.2: Evaluate key turning points from colonization through Reconstruction in terms of their lasting impact (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH2.H.2.1: Analyze key political, economic, and social turning points since the end of Reconstruction in terms of causes and effects (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations, leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH2.H.2.2: Evaluate key turning points since the end of Reconstruction in terms of their lasting impact (e.g., conflicts, legislation, elections, innovations,



leadership, movements, Supreme Court decisions, etc.).

AH2.H.4.1: Analyze the political issues and conflicts that impacted the United States since Reconstruction and the compromises that resulted (e.g., Populism, Progressivism, working conditions and labor unrest, New Deal, Wilmington Race Riots, Eugenics, Civil Rights Movement, Anti-War protests, Watergate, etc.).

AH2.H.5.1: Summarize how the philosophical, ideological and/or religious views on freedom and equality contributed to the development of American political and economic systems since Reconstruction (e.g., “separate but equal”, Social Darwinism, social gospel, civil service system, suffrage, Harlem Renaissance, the Warren Court, Great Society programs, American Indian Movement, etc.).

MaterialsPlessy v. Ferguson (1896) Case Background and Key QuestionDocuments SummaryPlessy v. Ferguson (1896) Documents A-MCase Briefing SheetTips for Thesis Statements and EssaysBrown v. Board of Education (1954) Case Background and Key QuestionBrown v. Board of Education (1954) Documents A-KKey Question Scoring Guidelines for All EssaysRubric for Evaluating DBQ Essays (for teacher)

Lesson PlanBackground [15 minutes]

A. Distribute Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Case Backgroundand Key Question to each student.

Explain that they will be participating in a document based question (DBQ) lesson where they will analyze sources relating to the topic to answer the key question. Also tell them that students would usually write an essay to answer the key question in DBQs, but that today you will start by learning how to analyze the documents as a class.

Activity [45 minutes]A. Divide students into thirteen groups.

Each group should be given one of the documents from the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) document based question resources (Documents A-M).

a. Have students look at or read the documents they are assigned and answer the scaffolding questions.

b. After the groups are finished, go over each document as a class. Students should complete Documents Summary about each of the documents.

c. When all of the documents have been discussed, ask students to think about the case and answer these questions:

i. What is the constitutional question in this case?

ii. What are the strongest arguments on each side of the case?

iii. How did the Court rule?

iv. Do you agree or disagree with this ruling based on your understanding of the Constitution? Explain your answer.

HomeworkA. Now that students understand how to

analyze documents, have them write



an essay using the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Case Background and Key Question and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Documents A-K. In order to develop their argument, they may also use the Documents Summary, the Case Briefing Sheet, and the Key Question Scoring Guidelines for All Essays.

a. Remind students to answer the key question in their essay using evidence from the documents and by thinking through these questions:

i. What is the constitutional question in this case?

ii. What are the strongest arguments on each side of the case?

iii. How did the Court rule?

iv. Do you agree or disagree with this ruling based on your understanding of the Constitution? Explain your answer.

B. Teachers may use the Rubric for Evaluating DBQ Essays when grading these essays.


Handout A: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Case Background and Key Question

Case BackgroundAlthough the Declaration of Independence affirmed that “all men are created equal” and had inalienable rights including liberty, African Americans were systematically denied their liberty with the institution of slavery. Even after the Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, segregation was a fact of life in the United States. Throughout the country, the races remained separated by both custom and law.

With the end of Reconstruction, every southern state, as well as some northern ones, passed what came to be termed Jim Crow laws. These policies required segregation in public places. African Americans were denied equal access to public facilities like transportation, education, and the voting booth. In 1878, the Supreme Court held that states could not require integration on interstate common carriers. In 1890, the Court held that Mississippi could require segregation on modes of interstate transportation.

Five years later, Homer Plessy, a resident of Louisiana, decided to challenge a Louisiana law requiring segregation on railcars by purchasing a train ticket and sitting in a “whites only” car. Because Plessy was an “octoroon” (1/8th black), he was subject to the black codes of Louisiana. When he was questioned as to his status, he admitted to being an octoroon, and was arrested when he refused to leave the car.

He appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Louisiana and eventually the United States Supreme Court, claiming that the Louisiana law violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Key Question: Evaluate the degree to which each of the following informed the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson: custom, precedent, and understanding of federalism.

Documents you will examine:A. The Declaration of Independence, 1776 B. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of

Virginia, 1787 C. The Constitution of the United States, 1789 D. The Tenth Amendment, 1791 E. Thomas Jefferson to Henri Gregoire, 1809 F. Argument of John Quincy Adams, Amistad

Case, 1841 G. “The American Declaration of

Independence Illustrated,” 1861 H. Section of The Fourteenth Amendment,

1868 I. Civil Rights Cases, 1883 J. Final Judgment, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 K. Majority Opinion (6-1), Plessy v. Ferguson,

1896 L. Dissenting Opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson,

1896 M. “At the Bus Station,” 1940


Handout B: Documents Summary

Document Name and Date

Author Answers to Scaffolding Questions

What is the main idea of this document? How might each side use this document to answer the key question?


DOCUMENT AThe Declaration of Independence, 1776 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….

In what manner does the Declaration of Independence understand all people to be equal?

DOCUMENT BThomas Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia”, 1787 Comparing [Negros] by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous…. This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.

Contrast Jefferson’s views on racial equality with the assertion of the Declaration of Independence (Document A).

DOCUMENT CThe Constitution of the United States, 1789 Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Who are the “all other Persons” referred to in this document?

How were these “all other persons” counted for the purpose of apportioning a state’s representatives and direct taxes?

DOCUMENT DThe Tenth Amendment, 1791The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What does the Tenth Amendment protect?


DOCUMENT EThomas Jefferson to Henri Gregoire, 1809Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them [Negroes] by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family.

How does Jefferson clarify his beliefs on the racial inferiority of blacks (Document B)?

DOCUMENT FArgument of John Quincy Adams, Amistad Case, 1841 Note: In 1839, Africans aboard the schooner Amistad revolted and demanded to be returned home. The captain instead brought them to New York, and the captives were to be sold as slaves. A legal battle followed over the question of the status of the captive Africans.

The Constitution of the United States recognizes the slaves, held within some of the States of the Union, only in their capacity of persons. …The Constitution nowhere recognizes them as property. The words slave and slavery are studiously excluded from the Constitution. Circumlocutions are the fig-leaves under which these parts of the body politic are decently concealed. Slaves, therefore, in the Constitution of the United States are recognized only as persons, enjoying rights and held to the performance of duties. That Declaration [of Independence] says that every man is “endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and that “among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” …The moment you come, to the Declaration of Independence, that every man has a right to life and liberty, an inalienable right, this case is decided. I ask nothing more in behalf of these unfortunate men, than this Declaration.

What does Adams argue about the Constitution’s recognition of slaves?

Why does Adams reference the Declaration of Independence?


DOCUMENT G“The American Declaration of Independence Illustrated,” 1861

What does the artist believe is the promise of the Declaration of Independence?


DOCUMENT HSection of the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws….

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to residents of every state?

Does Section 5 of this document change the meaning of the Tenth Amendment (Document D)?

DOCUMENT ICivil Rights Cases, 1883 [Federal civil rights] legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty, and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would … make congress take the place of the state legislatures and to supersede them. It is absurd to affirm that, because the rights of life, liberty, and property … are by the [Fourteenth] Amendment sought to be protected against invasion on the part of the state without due process of law, Congress may, therefore, provide due process of law for their vindication in every case; and that, because the denial by a state to any persons of the equal protection of the laws is prohibited by the amendment, therefore congress may establish laws for their equal protection.

Which level of government does this opinion imply has the power to correct state violations of rights to life, liberty and property?


DOCUMENT JFinal Judgment, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

Did the United States Supreme Court affirm or overturn the decision of the Louisiana court?


DOCUMENT KMajority Opinion (6-1), Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

The object of the [Fourteenth] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation, in places where they are liable to be brought into contact, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power.… We consider the underlying fallacy of [Plessy’s] argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.… The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals.… Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

What kinds of laws does the Court say that state legislatures have the rightful power to pass?

What does the Court say is the basic flaw in Plessy’s argument?

What does the Court argue about laws that try to abolish racial prejudices?

Why is this decision said to have affirmed the doctrine of “separate but equal”?


DOCUMENT LDissenting Opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful…. Sixty millions of whites are in no danger from the presence here of eight millions of blacks. The destinies of the two races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana.

What does the dissenting opinion mean by “Our constitution is colorblind”?

What does the dissenting opinion claim is the “real meaning” of the Louisiana segregation law?


DOCUMENT M“At the Bus Station,” 1940

How does this photograph from 1940 reveal the legacy of the Plessy decision?


Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Document Based Question

DirectionsRead the Case Background and Key Question. Then analyze Documents A-K. Finally, answer the Key Question in a well-organized essay that incorporates your interpretations of Documents A-K, as well as your own knowledge of history.

Case BackgroundAfter the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves and protect them from civil rights violations in their home states. Public schools were relatively rare throughout the United States, but were often segregated by race where they existed. The same Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment created racially segregated schools for the District of Columbia. Beginning in 1877, many states passed “Jim Crow” laws requiring segregation in public places. Jim Crow laws were adopted in every southern state as well as some in the North. Louisiana’s policy requiring that blacks sit in separate railcars from whites was challenged and upheld in the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The Court held that there was nothing inherently unequal—nor anything unconstitutional—about separate accommodations for races. In the twentieth century, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) began a litigation campaign designed to bring an end to state mandated segregation, calling attention to the shabby accommodations provided for blacks, as well as arguing the damaging psychological effects that segregation

had on black school children. One case was brought on behalf of Linda Brown, a third-grader from Topeka, Kansas. Several additional school segregation cases were combined into one, known as Brown v. Board of Education. This case reached the Supreme Court in 1953.

Key QuestionAssess the role played by the Court as the protector of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority in Brown v. Board of Education.

Documents you will examine:A. Virginia Criminal Code, 1847 B. Section of the Fourteenth Amendment,

1868 C. Majority Opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 D. Dissenting Opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson,

1896 E. “Washington, D.C. Public Schools, 1st

Div-Class Making Geometric Forms with Paper,” 1899

F. “African American Schoolgirls in Classroom, Learning to Sew,” 1899

G. “Crowded Segregated Classroom,” ca. 1940s

H. Segregation Laws Map, 1953 I. Unanimous Majority Opinion, Brown v.

Board of Education, 1954 J. Majority Opinion, Brown II, 1955 K. “Supreme Court Decision,” 1954


DOCUMENT AVirginia Criminal Code, 1847 Any white person who shall assemble with slaves, [or] free Negros … for the purpose of instructing them to read or write … shall be punished by confinement in the jail … and by fine…

What does this law reveal about African Americans’ access to education in mid-nineteenth century Virginia?

DOCUMENT BSection of the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What was the historical context of the passage of this amendment?

What level of government does this amendment limit?

What prohibitions did it create?

DOCUMENT CMajority Opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a co-mingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.… Laws permitting, and even requiring, the separation [of races] in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power…

What is the majority’s opinion in this case?

DOCUMENT DDissenting Opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 [I]n the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law….The destinies of the two races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law.

How does the dissent disagree with the majority opinion?


DOCUMENT E“Washington, D.C. Public Schools, 1st Div-Class Making Geometric Forms with Paper,” 1899

What are the conditions in this classroom?


DOCUMENT F“African American Schoolgirls in Classroom, Learning to Sew,” 1899

What are the conditions in this classroom? How are they similar or different from those in Document E?


DOCUMENT G“Crowded Segregated Classroom,” ca. 1940s

What are the conditions in this classroom? How are they similar or different from those in Documents E and F?


DOCUMENT HSegregation Laws Map, 1953

How does this map reflect the legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson?


Document IUnanimous Majority Opinion, Brown v. Board of Education, 1954In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the [Fourteenth] Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. …In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms…. To separate [students] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone. …Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.… We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated … are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

How did the Brown decision overturn Plessy v. Ferguson in Document B?

On what grounds did the Court base its decision?

Document JMajority Opinion in Brown II, 1955

Note: After the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education declared state-mandated segregation in public schools unconstitutional, the case was reargued to determine how to correct the violations.

[T]he cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases.

What did the Supreme Court order District Courts to do? How does this document reveal the Court’s dependence on other branches and levels of government for enforcement of its decisions?


Document K“Supreme Court Decision,” 1954

Identify the hands in the cartoon and their symbolic relationship to Brown v. Board of Education (1954).


Case Briefing Sheet

Case Name and Year:_____________________________________________________

Facts of the Case:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is the constitutional question that the Supreme Court must answer?(This is a yes/no question and spells out the specific part of the Constitution at issue.)_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

What constitutional principles are indicated in the case?_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Summary of one side’s arguments:_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Summary of the other side’s arguments:_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

How would you decide the case and why? _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

How did the Supreme Court majority decide the case and why? _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

What were the main points raised in any dissenting opinions? _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

What other Supreme Court cases are related in important ways? _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________


Tips for Thesis Statements and Essays

The thesis statement condenses your arguments to a nutshell and appears in the opening paragraph, but it is not written until AFTER you have planned your overall response. (Planning process shown in table below. A good thesis statement:

Fully addresses all parts of the prompt, while acknowledging the complexity of the issue.

Clearly takes a side—makes a declarative statement that one thing was more important, more persuasive, etc. than another. Since the verb in the prompt is often something like “assess” or “evaluate,” the thesis statement should show which side the writer takes.

Suggests a “table of contents” or road map for the essay—shows what elements enter into consideration.

Begins an essay that is proven by abundant and persuasive facts and evidence.

In a DBQ essay, the student writes a well-organized response to target a specific prompt, analyzing pertinent documents in order to support his/her thesis. The steps described here will guide the process of handling the documents. (For Advanced Placement U.S. History the response must include BOTH outside information AND information from the documents. On U.S. History AP exams, one of the essays that must be written under timed conditions is the DBQ.)

DBQ Do and Don’t Step Do Don’t

1. Analyze the prompt and divide it into its components. A graphic organizer helps with this step.

Fully address the prompt. It is better to address all parts of the prompt, even if you must do some in a way that is less complete, than to spend all your time on just one of two parts or 3 of 4 parts.

Neglect part of the prompt because you spent too much time on the part you know more about.

2. Plan to prove your point. It is best to begin by planning the overall structure BEFORE even looking at the documents.

Organize your thoughts before writing the thesis statement. What are the logical points your essay needs to include?

Write a “laundry list” that simply summarizes each document.

3. Check the documents to see how you can use them as tools.

Strive to use all the documents; but be sure you accurately understand their main ideas.

Take quotes or ideas out of context to use them in a manner other than the author intended.

4. Ask yourself when writing every paragraph: “How does this help to prove my thesis?”

Analyze to prove the position asserted in the thesis statement. Analysis is not the same thing as description or narrative. Merely making a series of true statements is not analysis. Key to analysis - is the essay answering the “So what?” question?

Use 1st or 2nd person pronouns: “I think the Supreme Court has the authority to use judicial review because…” or “Have you ever wondered how the Supreme Court got the authority to overturn federal laws?”

5. Manage time wisely; writing long quotes will eat up thinking time.

Use relevant facts, evidence, and proof. A well-chosen brief phrase in quotations and worked into your own sentence is powerful.

Use lengthy quotes. Pad the paper in an attempt to conceal a lack of analysis.

6. Give credit to sources. Cite sources using the author’s name and/or document title.

Write “According to Document B…”

7. Think as you write! Let logic and analysis drive the essay. Let documents drive the essay.


Key Question Scoring Guidelines for All Essays

The Good-Excellent EssayAsserts a strong, clear, and well-developed thesis in response to the key question. Supports the thesis with outstanding analysis of Founding documents, custom, legal precedent and contemporary views.Intelligently applies and/or critiques the Court’s opinion(s). Effectively uses many documents and incorporates prior knowledge. Contains only minor errors; is clearly organized and exceptionally well-written.

The Average-Good EssayAsserts a thesis in response to the key question. Supports the thesis with some analysis of Founding documents, custom, legal precedent and/or contemporary views. Analysis of some aspects may be cursory or absent. Critiques and/or applies the Court’s opinion(s), but may demonstrate less command of nuance than the Good-Excellent Essay. Effectively uses many documents and incorporates prior knowledge. Contains few significant errors; is acceptably organized and written.

The Below Average-Average EssayAsserts a limited thesis or does not fully address the key question. Analysis is largely incomplete, superficial, or incorrect; may merely paraphrase or quote documents. Contains simplistic or incorrect application/critique of the Court’s opinion(s). Uses few documents and incorporates little prior knowledge. Contains some significant errors and is poorly organized and written.

The Poor-Below Average EssayLacks a thesis. Exhibits inadequate understanding of the question and the documents. Offers no application/critique of the Court’s opinion(s). Uses very few documents and incorporates no prior knowledge. Contains numerous significant errors and is poorly organized and written.


Rubric for Evaluating DBQ Essays

Score/Grade Thesis Analysis Entire

Prompt DocumentsOutside Info (Required for AP courses)

Organization and Writing Skill Errors

8-9(95-100)

Contains a well-developed Thesis which clearly addresses all aspects of the prompt and shows organizational roadmap.

Effective analysis which shows & proves relationships; fully answers the “so what?” questions; more analytical than narrative.

Addresses all aspects of the prompt, though coverage may be slightly uneven.

Effectively and appropriatelyUses all (or almost all)Documents.

Supports thesis with substantial and relevant outside information.

Clearly organized& well-written evident on first reading, but we’ll read it again just for pleasure.

May contain minor errors.

5-6-7(80-85-

90)

Contains a thesis which addresses the prompt.

Limited analysis; mostly descriptive; knowledge & comprehension level in use of facts.

Slights or neglects some parts of thePrompt.

Uses some documentsEffectively.

Supports thesis with some outside information.

Acceptable organization;Language errors do not interfere with comprehension and do not indicate misunderstanding of the topic.

May contain errors that do not seriously detract from quality of the essay.

2-3-4(65-70-

75)

Presents a limited, confused and/or poorly developed thesis.

Simplistic explanations that do not indicate mastery of the content; may list facts without analysis.

Deals with one aspect of the prompt in a general way or with additional parts in a superficial way.

Quotes or brief lycites some documents, but does not use them as tools to support thesis.

Contains little out side information.

Demonstrates weak organization a land/or writing skills which interfere with comprehension.

May contain major errors.

0-1(60 & below)

Contains no thesis or a thesis which does not address the prompt.

Shows in adequateor inaccurate un derstanding of the prompt.

Ignores part of the question.

Contains little or no understanding of the documents or ignores them completely.

Includes inappropriate, off-target, or no outside information.

Is so poorly organized or written that it is difficult to understand.

Contains numerous errors, both major and minor.

-- Response is completely off-target.


Equal Protection Under the Law Module Answer Keys

Lesson One:The Foundations of American Justice

Handout G: Comparing the Documents

Document Name Summarize How does this document

promote justice?

How is this document similar to the other

documents?

How is this document different

from the other documents?

Magna Carta (1215)

Protects property, requires no excessive punishments, protects jury trials by peers, and protects customs.

It protects customs of cities throughout England, punishments should fit crimes, government officials cannot take property without paying for it, judgment by peers for crimes, justice is protected, anyone can leave and return unless imprisoned or outlawed.

Protects jury trials and property rights like the Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights.

It mentions customs of the English people whereas the others only mention rights.

The Mayflower Compact (1620)

Creates a compact to preserve order and preservation, and pass laws to protect the common good.

It creates equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices for the general good.

Allows for the passage of laws to protect the rights of citizens.

Creates a new agreement to protect liberties whereas the other documents are reiterating the protection of rights.

The Petition of Right (1628)

Protects due process and rule of law in England and prevents the government from overstepping its role in protecting citizens’ rights.

It protects English citizens from being imprisoned or exiled and removal of property without due process of law. Protects against the quartering of soldiers in private homes against the will of citizens, government officers not being punished for breaking the law, and promises to have government officials protect the people.

Protects property rights and due process rights like the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights.

Discusses issues with government officials overstepping their power and infringing upon the rights of citizens.

The English Bill of Rights

(1689)

Enumerates the rights of citizens regarding suspension of laws, petitioning the government, standing armies, elections, and punishments for crimes.

Protects against suspending of laws, allows for petitioning the king, protects against having a standing army during times of peace, bearing arms, maintaining free elections, maintaining free speech in Parliament, no excessive fines, bail, or cruel or unusual punishments, juries retained, and meeting of Parliament should be frequent enough to amend, strengthen, and preserve laws.

Protects jury trials and doesn’t allow cruel or unusual punishment or excessive bail or fines like the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right.

Unlike the other documents, it discusses the right to petition the king, free elections, and the right to bear arms.


Handout J: Comparing Locke and Montesquieu

Locke Montesquieu

- Uniting under government to protect rights

- Common consent for government

- Put power in hands of society to preserve those liberties

- Preserving property of citizens

- Right to preserve liberty through government

- Known and indifferent judge to determine all cases

- Standard of right and wrong

- Common measure to decide controversies

- Exercise powers to enact laws

- Executive power in hands of one person

- Legislative power in hands of many people

- Executive business in action, legislative in deliberation

Both Locke and Montesquieu believed that a government is created to protect the liberties of its citizens. Based on these excerpts, Montesquieu believed that government should be separated into three branches with different roles to protect liberty, but Locke was more concerned with protecting the individual liberties of people like property, peace, and safety than about the structure of the government itself.


Lesson Two: Equal Protection and the Supreme Court

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Document A: All people are born with an equality of rights.

Document B: Blacks may be inferior tow hites in their faculties. Jefferson does not say blacks do not have equal rights.

Document C: 1. Slaves. 2. Three-fifths of the total slave population was added to the total free population to determine the

state population for purposes of representation and taxation.

Document D: Powers not given to the federal government remain with the states and the people.

Document E: Jefferson is open to being proved wrong. Nevertheless, even if blacks are inferior in understanding, they still have equal rights.

Document F: 1. They are recognized as persons, not property.

2. Slaves are people and have inalienable rights.

Document G: It would lift slaves from the chains of slavery.

Document H: 1. National citizenship, along with the privileges and immunities there unto, due process, and

equal protection of the laws. 2. Yes, as the federal government now had a check on state power.

Document I: State governments.

Document J: 1. Judge of Section “A” Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

2. Affirmed.

Document K: 1. Laws permitting or requiring separation of races. 2. Separate does not mean inferior. 3. They will not work. 4. Because it asserted that separate accommodations were not necessarily unequal.


Document L: 1. It does not reference race or class; it applies to all. 2. To keep blacks inferior in both feeling and fact.

Document M: Segregation was institutionalized for decades to come.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Document A: It was against the law in some states to educate African Americans.

Document B: 1. It was passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of newly-freedslaves. 2. The states cannot deny citizens the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process of

law, and equal protection of the laws.

Document C: Separate was not inherently unequal. Segregation, therefore, did not violate the Constitution.

Document D: Both the opinions agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to guarantee legal equality of the races. However, the majority asserted that segregation did not necessarily lead to inequality while the dissenter argued that it does.

Document E: Neat, orderly, full.

Document F: It looks very similar.

Document G: Crowded, cramped, full.

Document H: Many former slave states allowed or required segregation, which was declared to be constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Document I:1. Segregation was declared unconstitutional. 2. Separation of the races was inherently unequal and violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Segregation creates a feeling of inferiority in black children that would impede their future success.

Document J:1. To integrate schools with all deliberate speed.

2. The Court cannot write or enforce laws. It must rely on state and local executive and legislative bodies for enforcement of its decisions.


Document K: The white hands represent the Supreme Court. The black hands represent African Americans shackled by segregation. The Supreme Court, which in 1954 was comprised entirely of white justices, was the force demanding the shackles binding black Americans be broken. The Court was acting as the final force ending the social and legal bindings and effects of slavery on black Americans.

Module Assessment: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Document A: To protect the rights offormer slaves.

Document B: 1. Positive steps. 2. Paying no attention to.

Document C: Congress is being forced by the demands of African Americans top ass civil rights legislation.

Document D: Yes. Executive Order 10925 applied only to federal government contractors. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied to “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Document E:1. Historic disadvantages are not rectified by mere equality of opportunity. True equality is equality

of results. 2. The first document implies that equality of opportunity is sufficient for true equality. Johnson

asserts that equality is measured by results.

Document F: Under the “special program” a significantly higher number of minorities (particularly blacks and Mexican-Americans) were accepted to medical school than were accepted under the “general program.” Nationally, most minority medical students went to “traditionally African American colleges.”

Document G: While the percentages of education achieved for both races increased, blacks lagged significantly behind whites in all categories.

Document H: His scores for both years were comparable to those accepted into the general program, but far exceeded the scores of students admitted to the special program.

Document I: Answers will vary.

Document J: Equality is in opportunity, not in results, as asserted by President Johnson.


Document K: As admitting certain students on the basis of race, or excluding certain students on the basis of race.

Document L: 1. The case is about excluding certain applicants on the basis of race.

2 “Equal” means treating everyone the same; “protection” means security from discrimination.

Document M: Marshall agreed that the race of an applicant can be taken into consideration when determining admission. Marshall disagreed that the Equal Protection Clause prevents a university from providing additional opportunities to particular races in its admissions policy.