VII. Minorities and Equal VII. Minorities and Equal

RightsRights

Jason Koncsol and Chris Jason Koncsol and Chris StokesStokes

1783 Massachusetts outlaws slavery within its borders.1820 The Missouri Compromise to maintain a balance of 12 slave and 12 free states.

1857 The Supreme Court rules in the Dred Scott case that slaves do not become free when taken into a free state, that Congress cannot bar slavery from a territory and that blacks cannot become

citizens.1863 President Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation freeing "all slaves in areas still in

rebellion."1865 The Civil War ends.

The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, is ratified.1868 The 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection under the law to all persons, is ratified.

1896 Plessy v. Ferguson1948 Shelley v. Kraemer

1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.1957 Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus uses the National Guard to block nine black students from

attending Little Rock High School. Following a court order, President Eisenhower sends in federal troops to allow the black students to enter the school.

1963 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivers his "I Have a Dream" speech to hundreds of thousands at the March on Washington, D.C.

1964 Congress passes the Civil Rights Act, declaring discrimination based on race illegal.1967 Thurgood Marshall becomes the first black to be named to the Supreme Court.

1967 Loving v. Virginia1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

2003 Gratz v. Bollinger

Civil Rights Timeline

Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Section 1.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 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 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 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 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 property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. protection of the laws. Section 2.Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

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

SummarySummary - Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states - Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debtspunishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson Case-Case- In June 1892, Homer Plessy, a fair-skinned black man, boarded the In June 1892, Homer Plessy, a fair-skinned black man, boarded the

East Louisiana Railroad No. 8 train in New Orleans bound for Covington, East Louisiana Railroad No. 8 train in New Orleans bound for Covington, Louisiana and took a seat in the first-class compartment of a whites-only Louisiana and took a seat in the first-class compartment of a whites-only car. His intention was to test a Louisiana law that provided separate car. His intention was to test a Louisiana law that provided separate railroad cars for blacks and whites.  Plessy was arrested.  Little did he know railroad cars for blacks and whites.  Plessy was arrested.  Little did he know that the outcome would be one of the pivotal civil rights cases in American that the outcome would be one of the pivotal civil rights cases in American history, decided four years later by the United States Supreme Court. history, decided four years later by the United States Supreme Court.

Outcome-Outcome- In the case of In the case of Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court , the Supreme Court sanctioned the doctrine of "separate but equal," legalizing segregation in sanctioned the doctrine of "separate but equal," legalizing segregation in the United States for the next fifty-eight years — until the decision was the United States for the next fifty-eight years — until the decision was overturned in overturned in Brown v. Topeka Board of EducationBrown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954. in 1954.

Amendments-Amendments- 14th 14th

Shelley v. KraemerShelley v. Kraemer Case-Case- The Kraemers were a white couple who owned a residence in a The Kraemers were a white couple who owned a residence in a

Missouri neighborhood governed by a restrictive covenant. This was a Missouri neighborhood governed by a restrictive covenant. This was a private agreement that prevented blacks from owning property in the private agreement that prevented blacks from owning property in the Kraemers' subdivision. The Shelleys were a black couple who moved into Kraemers' subdivision. The Shelleys were a black couple who moved into the Kraemers neighborhood. The Kraemers went to court to enforce the the Kraemers neighborhood. The Kraemers went to court to enforce the restrictive covenant against the Shelleys.restrictive covenant against the Shelleys.

Outcome-Outcome- State courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real State courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitute state However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitute state action in violation of the 14th Amendment.action in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Amendment-Amendment- 14th 14th

Shelley v. KraemerShelley v. Kraemer

Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education Case-Case- Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by

white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.Prince Edward County.

Outcome-Outcome- Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.maintained racial separation.

Amendment-Amendment- 14th 14th

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of EducationBoard of Education

Case-Case- After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court.the Supreme Court.

Outcome-Outcome- In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools. established concerning busing of students to particular schools.

Amendment-Amendment- 14th 14th

Loving v. VirginiaLoving v. Virginia Case-Case- In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and

Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).

Outcome-Outcome- In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment."rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Amendment- Amendment- 14th14th

Loving v. VirginiaLoving v. Virginia

Loving v. VirginiaLoving v. Virginia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhV000HBELA

Loving v. Virginia: 40Loving v. Virginia: 40thth Anniversary of Anniversary of Interracial MarriageInterracial Marriage

Gratz v. BollingerGratz v. Bollinger Case-Case- The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions

decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all student body." In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus. Concluding that diversity was a compelling "underrepresented" on the campus. Concluding that diversity was a compelling interest, the District Court held that the admissions policies for years 1995-1998 interest, the District Court held that the admissions policies for years 1995-1998 were not narrowly tailored, but that the policies in effect in 1999 and 2000 were were not narrowly tailored, but that the policies in effect in 1999 and 2000 were narrowly tailored. After the decision in Grutter, Gratz and Hamacher (students narrowly tailored. After the decision in Grutter, Gratz and Hamacher (students denied interest) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11 for a writ denied interest) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11 for a writ of certiorari before judgment, which was granted.of certiorari before judgment, which was granted.

Opinion-Opinion- In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in Court held that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. While rejecting the argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state While rejecting the argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state interest, the Court reasoned that the automatic distribution of 20 points, or one-interest, the Court reasoned that the automatic distribution of 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race was not narrowly "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race was not narrowly tailored and did not provide the individualized consideration Justice Powell tailored and did not provide the individualized consideration Justice Powell contemplated in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 contemplated in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "because the University's use of race in its (1978). Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "because the University's use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents' asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy respondents' asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.“violates the Equal Protection Clause.“

Amendment-Amendment- 14th 14th

Works CitedWorks Cited

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/plessy_box.htm

http://www.oyez.org/caseshttp://www.stus.com/stus-category.php?cat=CAS&sub=CON