equality of results vs equality of opportunity andrew adair x michael dotson

16
Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Upload: alfred-pope

Post on 02-Jan-2016

225 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Equality of Results vs

Equality of Opportunity

Andrew Adair x

Michael Dotson

Page 2: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Equality of opportunity means that every person is afforded the same access to a benefit as every other person. Equality of results means that every person actually receives the same benefit as everyone else.

Page 3: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Amendment XIVEqual Protection Clause

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.

• Summary: Everyone has equal protection under national and state law

Civil Rights Act of 1964• Since the Equal protection clause only grants

equal protection not equal rights this type of legislation was passed in the 1960s

Page 4: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Video

Affirmative action was implemented to ensure equal opportunity under the law

Page 5: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Supreme Court Cases

Page 6: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke

• Petitioner:  Regents of the University of California

• Respondent: Bakke • Decided By:  Burger Court• Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative

Action

• Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

• Decision:Decision: There was no single majority opinion. One justice argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria

Page 7: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

United Steelworkers vs. Weber

• Petitioner: United Steelworkers of America

• Respondent: Weber • Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action

• Question: Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?

• Decision: No. The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement

the goals of Title VII.

Page 8: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Richmond vs. Croson

• Appellate: J.A. Croson Co. • Appellant: Richmond • Decided By: Rehnquist Court (1988-

1990)

• Question: Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

• Decision: Yes. the Court held that "generalized assertions" of past racial discrimination could not justify "rigid" racial quotas for the awarding of public contracts.

Page 9: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Grutter vs. Bollinger

• Petitioner: Grutter • Respondent: Bollinger • Decided By: Rehnquist Court• Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action

• Question: Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

• Decision: No. the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions. The Court stated that since a review of the applicants was thorough, it was not based on race.

Page 10: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Gratz vs. Bollinger

• Petitioner: Gratz • Respondent: Bollinger

• Decided By: Rehnquist Court • Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action

• Question: Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

• Decision: Yes. the Court held that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.

Page 11: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Texas vs. Lesage

• Petitioner: Texas • Respondent: Lesage

• Decided By: Rehnquist Court • Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative

Action

• Question: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the University of Texas was not entitled to summary judgment for its rejection of an African immigrant Ph.D. applicant of Caucasian descent even if he would have been rejected under a race-neutral policy?

• Decision: Yes. the Court held that the Court of Appeals held that University of Texas was not entitled to summary judgment on Lesage's section 1983 claim for damages relating to the rejection of his application for the 1996-1997 academic year even if he would have been denied admission under a race-neutral policy, its decision contradicts our holding in Mt. Healthy

Page 12: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Political Cartoons

Page 13: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson
Page 14: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson
Page 15: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Interpretation Timeline1868: XIVth Amendment proposed- Everyone has

equal protection under law

1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964- Established the Civil rights equality

1978: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke-1979: United Steelworkers of America v. Weber 1988:Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.2003: Grutter v. Bollinger

2003:Gratz v. Bollinger

The Specific interpretation of the liberties given is up to the discretion of the court due to the various circumstances of the cases

Page 16: Equality of Results vs Equality of Opportunity Andrew Adair x Michael Dotson

Bibliography

• http://www.oyez.org/cases/

• Http://www.cartoonstock.com

• http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3037271/affirmative_action/