Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law

Transcription

1 s CHAPTER 21 Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 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. '' -Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Justice Harlan objected to the High Court's decision in the case that laid the foundation for some 60 years of legal race-based discrimination in this country. His dissenting view became the majority position when, in 1954, the Court finally, and unanimously, outlawed segregation in public schools. + Demonstrators protest discrimination against African Americans at Woolworth's lunch counters, 1960 &.--~ -- i#.:**592

2 Standards Preview H-SS Explain how economic rights are secured and their importance to the individual and to society (e.g., the right to acquire, use, transfer, and dispose of property; right to choose one's work; right to join or not join labor unions; copyright and patent). H-SS Explain how one becomes a citizen of the United States, including the process of naturalization (e.g., literacy, language, and other requirements). H-SS Understand the changing interpretations of the Bill of Rights over time, including interpretations of the basic freedoms (religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly) articulated in the First Amendment and the due process and equal protection-of-the-law clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. H-SS Explain the controversies that have resulted over changing interpretations of civil rights, including those in Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, and United States v. Virginia (VMI). H-SS Describe the means that citizens use to participate in the political process (e.g., voting, campaigning, lobbying, filing a legal challenge, demonstrating, petitioning, picketing, running for political office). H-SS Explain how public policy is formed, including the setting of the public agenda and implementation of it through regulations and executive orders. SECTION 1 Diversity and Discrimination in American Society (pp ) * The United States is a diverse nation made up of people from many different backgrounds and communities. * African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and other minority groups have suffered from discrimination at the hands of government and private individuals. * Women of all backgrounds experience discrimination in much the same way as members of racial and ethnic minorities. SECTION 2 Equality Before the Law (pp. 6o1-so6J * The 14th Amendment guaranteed "equal protection of the law" to all Americans in 1868, yet most States adopted laws allowing race- and gender-based discrimination. * The Supreme Court overturned many of these laws-and its own past decisions-during the 1950s and 1960s. * De facto segregation persists in public schools and housing. * Since 1971, most laws that treat women differently from men have been successfully challenged in court. SECTION 3 Federal Civil Rights Laws (pp. 6oa-s12J * Congress passed several acts in the 1960s to guarantee the civil rights of African Americans, other minorities, and women. * Affirmative action policies require the Federal Government and those who do business with the Federal Government to take positive steps to remedy past discrimination and prevent its recurrence. * Supporters and critics of affirmative action have taken their debate to the Supreme Court, Congress, State legislatures, and the voting booth. ' PHSchool.com For: Current Data Web Code: mqg-5216 For: Close Up Foundation debates Web Code: mqh-5219 SECTION American Citizenship (pp ) * The vast majority of people living in the United States are American citizens who were born in this country or born abroad to parents with citizenship. * Several million Americans have become citizens through a difficult process called naturalization. * Americans can lose their citizenship by choice or, in rare cases, through a court order. * Most immigrants to the United States have come through official channels, but many arrive illegally and face special challenges to stay in this country. 593

3 Diversity and Discrimination in American Society OBJECTIVES WHY IT MATTERS POLITICAL 1. Understand what it means to live in a heterogeneous society. 2. Summarize the history of race-based discrimination in the United States. 3. Examine discrimination against women in the past and present. The Declaration of Independence declares that "all men are created equal," but this nation still struggles to meet that ideal. Race-based and gender-based discrimination have declined in this country, but they certainly have not disappeared. DICTIONARY * heterogeneous * immigrant * reservation * refugee * assimilation ave you read George Orwell's classic, Animal Farm? Even if you have not, you may have heard its most oft-quoted line: "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You might keep Orwell's words in mind as you read the pages in this chapter. A Heterogeneous Society The term heterogeneous is a compound of two Greek words: hetero, meaning "other or different," and genos, meaning "race, family, or kind." Something that is heterogeneous is composed of a mix of ingredients. "We the People of...,.. A Diverse Nation Individuals like this attorney (right) have enjoyed great success, despite the fact that women and Native Americans have often been targets of discrimination. the United States" are a heterogeneous lot, and we are becoming more so, year to year. The population of the United States is predominantly white. It is today and, as you can see in the table on page 595, it has been historically. The first census in 1790 reported that there were 3,929,214 people living in this country. Four out of every five of them were white. African Americans made up the remaining 20 percent of the population counted in the census. As the nation's population grew over the decades, so, too, did the proportion of the American people who were white-until recently. Today, the ethnic composition of the population is strikingly different from what it was only a generation ago. Immigrants-that is, those aliens legally admitted as permanent residents-have arrived in near-record numbers every year since the mid-1960s. Over that period, the nation's African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American populations have grown at rates several times that of the white population. A look at gender balance in the population reveals that females are more numerous than males. This has been the case for more than half a century now. As a result of these changes in the American population, the United States is more heterogeneous today than ever before in its history. That fact is certain to have a profound effect on the American social, political, and economic landscape on through the twenty-first century. 594 Chapter 21 Section 1

4 ~~ ~ Ethnic Composition of the United States Ethnic Composition of the Population, * White % African Hispanic 1 American 1 % Origin1 ~o 1 Native 1 Asian American2 American3 3, ** ** ,30_6 1 ~ ** ** ~ , ** j ** ** ** , , ** ** l ~35, , ** ** , , ** ** , , ** ** 793 1, *** 180, , ,609 I 6.4 1,420 3, , ~ , ,959 7, ***1 194, , , ,476 10, * Multiracial 2.4% Native American Native American ""- 1.1% 0.9% Asian American Asian American 9.3% 3.6% African American 14.7% Hispanic Origin /' 24.3% Rate of Growth of Ethnic Populations 70,_ 60 * g ~ 50.s 0 0) 0) E 40.g Q;) ~ 30 u. : Q;) Cl.s a5 20 ~ Q;) a.. I % 26.4% -57.9%- r 1 I ~ t- 40.8% 'I i ~ \.- ~ ~ I -,_ n J ~ L, li ' 1-, u 10 c- _~ijj:i ~ I~ : I : ' : 1 ~ l...i - i ~ ~-<:::: < ' ~(J < ' ~~ 0 -~ \:),~ < ' ~(.) ~~ ~~ ~'V ~~ < ' N.~ 0 0 ~~ ~,)..~ 9-~ ~ ~,, ~ ~ ~ 1-. *Data for 2050 projected. Projections for multiracial not available. Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding **Not available 1 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 21ncludes Alaska Natives, 1960 and later. 31ncludes Pacific Islanders. and overlap among groups. In thousands unless otherwise indicated. ***White=white nonhispanic SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau ~-~ Interpreting Charts Although the population of the United States remains predominantly.._~ 0 white, minority populations are growing at a faster rate than the majority population. The 2000 census showed that more and more Americans trace their heritage to multiple groups or choose not to identify themselves by race. According to the data, which group will be the largest minority group in 2050? Race-Based Discrimination White Americans have been historically reluctant to yield to nonwhite Americans a full and equal place in the social, economic, and political life of this nation. Over time, the principal targets of that ethnic prejudice have been African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans. The white-male-dominated power structure has also been slow to recognize the claims of women to a full and equal place in American society. African Americans Much of what you will read in these pages focuses on discrimination against African Americans. There are three reasons for this focus: 1. African Americans constitute the second largest minority group in the United States. They number more than 40 million today, over 13 percent of all the American people. 2. African Americans have been the victims of consistent and deliberate unjust treatment for a longer time than perhaps any other group of Americans. 1 The ancestors of most African Americans came to this country in chains. Tens of thousands of Africans were kidnapped, crammed aboard sailing vessels, brought to America, and then sold in slave markets. As slaves, they could be bought and 1 Siavery first came to what was to become the United States in 1619; in August of that year, 20 Africans were sold to white settlers at Jamestown in colonial Virginia. Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 595

5 Before beginning the voyage to the Americas, many African men and women were imprisoned in European slave forts like San Sebastian in modern-day Ghana. Untold numbers of people died in terrible conditions in slave forts and slave ships. Critical Thinking How did the experiences of African men and women in slave forts typify the injustices of slavery? sold and forced to do their masters' bidding, however harsh the circumstances. It took a civil war to end more than 200 years of slavery in this country. The 13th Amendment finally abolished slavery in Still, the Civil War and the ratification of that amendment did not end widespread racial discrimination in the United States. 3. Most of the gains the nation has made in translating the Constitution's guarantees of equality into a reality for all persons have come out of efforts made by and on behalf of African Americans. For example, the struggles of Martin Luther King, Jr., and others resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then the Voting Rights Act of 1965; see pages America is now an inescapably multiracial society. Still, unlike whites, African Americans live with the consequences of America's history of racial discrimination every day of their lives. Of course, this is not to say that other groups of Americans have not also suffered the effects of discrimination. Clearly, many have. Native Americans White settlers first began to arrive in America in relatively large numbers in the early middle years of the 17th century. At the time, some one million Native Americans were living in territory that was to become the United States. 2 By 1900, however, their number had fallen to less than 250,000. Diseases brought by white settlers had decimated those first Americans. So, too, did the succession of military campaigns that accompanied the westward expansion of the United States. To quote one leading commentator: - llcthe only good Indian is a dead Indian' is not simply a hackneyed expression from cowboy movies. It was part of the strategy of westward expansion, as settlers and U.S. troops mercilessly drove the eastern Indians from their ancestral lands to the Great Plains and then took those lands too. 11 -Thomas E. Patterson, The American Democracy Today, more than 2.8 million Native Americans live in this country. More than a third of them live on or near reservations, which are public lands set aside by a government for use by Native American tribes. Like African Americans, Native Americans have been the victims of overwhelming discrimination. The consequences of that bias have been truly appalling, and they remain all too evident today. Poverty, joblessness, and alcoholism plague many reservations. The life expectancy of Native Americans living on reservations today is 2 An estimated 8 to 10 million Native Americans lived in all of North and South America in the mid-1600s. 596 Chapter 21 Section 1

6 10 years less than the national average, and the Native American infant mortality rate is three times that for white Americans. Hispanic Americans Hispanic Americans are those in this country who have a Spanish-speaking background; many prefer to be called Latinos. Hispanics may be of any race. According to the Bilateral Commission on the Future of United States Mexican Relations, Hispanic Americans "are among the world's most complex groupings of human beings. [The largest number] are white, millions... are mestizo, nearly half a million in the United States are black or mulatto. " 3 Hispanic Americans number more than 42 million. They now constitute the largest minority group of Americans. Hispanics replaced African Americans as the largest minority group in the United States around the year Hispanic Americans can generally be divided into four main groups: 1. Mexican Americans. More than half of all Hispanics in the United States, at least 24 million persons, were either born in Mexico or trace their ancestry there. Those who were born in this country of Mexican parents are often called Chicanos. The largest part of the Mexican American population lives in the States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Large cities such as Los Angeles and San Antonio, Texas, have Hispanic pluralities or majorities, and smaller border cities such as Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, are over 90 percent Latino. 2. Puerto Ricans. Another large group of Hispanics has come to the mainland from the island of Puerto Rico. The population of the United States now includes some three million Puerto Ricans. Most of them have settled in New York, New Jersey, and in other parts of the Northeast. 3. Cuban Americans. The Hispanic population also includes some one million Cuban Americans. They are mostly people who fled the Castro dictatorship in Cuba, and their descendants. A 3 A mestizo is a person with both Spanish or Portuguese and Native American ancestry. A mulatto is a person with African and white ancestry. majority of Cuban Americans have settled in Miami and elsewhere in South Florida. 4. Central and South Americans. The fourth major subgroup of Hispanic Americans came here from Central and South America, many as refugees. A refugee is one who seeks protection (refuge) from war, persecution, or some other danger. More than three million persons have. emigrated to the United States from Central and South American countries over the past 25 years; they have come in the largest numbers from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, and Chile. Many have also come from the Dominican Republic, an island nation in the Caribbean. Asian Americans The story of white America's mistreatment of Asians is a lengthy one, too. They have faced discrimination from the first day they arrived in this country. As with all immigrant groups, assimilation into the white-dominated population has been difficult. Assimilation is the process by which people of one culture merge into and become part of another culture. Chinese laborers were the first Asians to come to the United States in large numbers. They were brought here in the 1850s to 1860s as contract laborers to work in the mines and to Many Asian Americans, like this Vietnamese storeowner in Seattle, Washington, came to the United States from Southeast Asia in the 1970s and 1980s. People fled the turmoil of the Vietnam War and the Communist conquest of South Vietnam that followed. Critical Thinking Did Vietnamese immigrants come to the United States for the same reasons as Chinese immigrants did a century earlier? Explain. H-SS Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 597

7 en Ol c:: c: ~ Cl) >. 32 Cl) Cl) ~ $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 0 Median Weekly Earnings of Men and Women* Some high school (no diploma) High school graduate Some college *Data presented for median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, age 25 and over, 2004 first quarter. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics College graduate Interpreting Graphs This graph illustrates how much money working men and women earned each week in What does the graph show about equality in the workplace today? build railroads in the West. Many white Americans, native-born and immigrants, resented the competition of "coolie labor." Their resentments were frequently expressed in violence toward Asians. Congress brought Chinese immigration nearly to a halt with the Chinese Exclusion Act of Because of this and other government actions, only a very small number of Chinese, Japanese, and other Asians were permitted to enter the United States for more than 80 years. Early in World War II, the Federal Government ordered the evacuation of all persons of Japanese descent from the Pacific Coast. Some 120,000 people, two thirds of them native-born American citizens, were forcibly removed to inland "war relocation camps." Years later, the Government conceded that that action had been both unnecessary and unjust. Congress made dramatic changes in American immigration policies in Since then, some eight million Asian immigrants have come to this country, mostly from the Philippines, China, Korea, Vietnam, and India. The term "Asian American" describes an ever more diverse population. Asian Americans represent a tremendous variety of languages, religions, and cultures, and many recent immigrants from Asia have little in common with one another. Today, the Asian American population exceeds 14 million, and it is the nation's fastest growing minority group. Asian Americans now live in every part of the United States. They are a majority of the population in Hawaii and more than 10 percent of that of California. New York City boasts the largest Chinese community outside of China itself. Discrimination Against Women Unlike the several ethnic groups described here, women are not a minority in the United States. They are, in fact, a majority group. Still, traditionally in many instances in American law and public policy, women have not enjoyed the same rights as men. Their status was even lower, in many instances, than men who were themselves the target of virulent discrimination. Women have been treated as less than equal in a great many matters-including, for example, property rights, education, and employment opportunities. Organized efforts to improve the place of women in American society date from July 19, On that date, a convention on women's rights, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York, adopted a set of resolutions that deliberately echoed the words of the Declaration of Independence. It began: IIWhen, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied.... We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal Declaration of Sentiments Those who fought and finally won the long struggle for woman suffrage believed that, with the vote, women would soon achieve other basic rights. That assumption proved to be false. Although more than 51 percent of the population is female, women have held only a fraction of one percent of the nation's top public offices since Even today, women hold little more than 15 percent of the 535 seats in Congress and little more than 20 percent of the 7,382 seats in the 50 State legislatures. Only eight of the 50 State 598 Chapter 21 Section 1

8 governors today are female. Women are also hugely underrepresented at the upper levels of corporate management and other power groups in the private sector. Fewer than 20 percent of the nation's doctors, lawyers, and college professors are women. It is illegal to pay women less than men for the same work. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires employers to pay men and women the same wages if they perform the same jobs in the same establishment under the same working conditions. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits job discrimination based on sex. Yet, more than 40 years after Congress passed those laws, working women earn, on the average, less than 80 cents for every dollar earned by working men. See the graph on page 598. Women earn less than men for a number of reasons-including the fact that the male work force is, over all, better educated and has more job experience than the female work force. (Note that these factors themselves can often be traced to discrimination.) In addition, some blame the so-called "Mommy track," in which women put their careers on hold to have children or work reduced hours to juggle child-care responsibilities. Others claim that a "glass ceiling" of discrimination in the corporate world and elsewhere, invisible but impenetrable, prevents women from rising to their full potential. Certainly it is true that until quite recently women were limited to a fairly narrow range of jobs. In many cases, women were encouraged not to work outside the home once they were ~ Women's Work Very few careers were open to women before the 1960s. Women with college degrees often took jobs as typists or secretaries, hoping for a rare opportunity to move up to better-paying jobs usually reserved for men. H-SS married. Even now, more than three fourths of all jobs held by women are in low-paying clerical and service occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 98 percent of all secretaries today are women; so too are 96 percent of all child-care workers, 93 percent of all registered nurses, 93 percent of all bookkeepers and auditing clerks, 90 percent of all hairdressers and cosmetologists, and 86 percent of all dieticians. Efforts on behalf of equal rights for women have gained significant ground in recent years. But, recall, that ground has not included an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Key Tenns and Main Ideas 1. What defines a heterogeneous nation? 2. Name one factor that can lead a refugee to leave his or her country. 3. Who are immigrants? 4. What is the purpose of a reservation? Critical Thinking 5. Understanding Point of View In what sense are women a unique group among those who have suffered discrimination? 6. Drawing Inferences Assimilation is a controversial issue for members of minority groups. List two reasons why a Standards Monitoring Online For: Self -quiz with vocabulary practice Web Code: mqa-5211 recent immigrant to the United States might try to assimilate. Then, list two reasons why an immigrant might choose to retain as much of his or her native land's culture as possible. nline ' PHSchool.com For: An activity on diversity and discrimination Web Code: mqd-5211 Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 599

9 Equality in Sports Analysis Skill CS1 Background The law known as Title IX, enacted in I972, ensures women equal treatment in all aspects of education. Since then, Title IX has left its greatest mark on college sports, dramatically expanding opportunities for female athletes by requiring equal opportunity and funding. Critics say the law has unfairly forced cuts to men's teams to accommodate women. Read the arguments. What do you think? Women's basketball: a beneficiary of Title IX Renew Title IX Some of the best arguments for Title IX could be seen at the 2004 Summer Olympics-in the medalwinning performances of the U.S. women's teams. "Title IX got me where I am today," said Siri Millinix, goalkeeper for the soccer team. Of course, an even better argument for Title IX is the legion of women playing college varsity sports-an estimated 157,000, compared with 30,000 in If not for Title IX, most women would never have had this chance. In the past, officials downplayed women's sports. Women did not get the money or opportunity to compete, so few women athletes were visible. People assumed that women didn't want to play sports, so schools did not budget money. Title IX broke this cycle. Given equal opportunities, girls and women joined sports teams by the millions. Consider: girls and women who play sports are more likely to get better grades. They have more confidence, greater self-esteem, and better body images. Thanks to Title IX, women gain skills to compete and succeed in the workplace and on the field. Equal Access for Athletes Title IX provided the right medicine for schools in the early 1970s. But the United States has come a long way since then, and we no longer need Title IX to encourage girls and women to compete in sports. Instead, Title IX has become a clumsy tool that penalizes men more than it helps women. The tragic flaw of Title IX is that it requires that both sexes take part in sports at roughly equal rates. If women make up, say, 50 percent of the general student population, they get half the slots in the school's sports programs and half the budget for athletic scholarships. To meet this test, colleges have had to eliminate 300 men's teams since Men's sports that don't draw a huge audience, like gymnastics, are unfairly targeted for elimination. The fact is that money for athletics is limited. Funding should go to the most dedicated athletes of both sexes. If more men than women want to play sports, it is unfair and artificial to divide funding fiftyfifty by sex. Athletes should be judged by their performance and hard work above all else. Exploring the Issues 1. Do you think women's sports would be popular today if Title IX had never required equal funding? Explain. 2. How might participation in team sports prepare young people for the workplace? For more information about Title IX funding, view "Equality in Sports.",.. Issues Victco Collection Face the ~ 1 _. Chapter 21

10 Equality Before the Law OBJECTIVES WHY IT MATTERS POLITICAL 1. Explain the importance of the Equal Protection Clause. 2. Describe the history of segregation in America. 3. Examine how classification by sex relates to discrimination. The law includes safeguards to protect Americans from unfair discrimination on the basis of race or sex. The most important protections lie in the 5th and 14th amendments and the Civil Rights Act of DICTIONARY * segregation * Jim Crow law * separate-but-equal doctrine integration de jure segregation * de facto segregation ecords recently unearthed by the Architect of the Capitol show that at least 400 slaves worked on the building's construction from 1792 through 1800, and they likely did for several years thereafter. Those records also indicate payments to a number of local slave owners-for example, "To Joseph Forest, for the hire of the Negro Charles." The slave owners were paid $5 a month for each laborer. Slaves even cast the bronze statue of Freedom and hoisted it atop the Capitol in Equal Protection Clause Nothing, not even a constitutional command, can make people equal in a literal sense. Individuals differ in strength, intelligence, height, and countless other ways. Still, the democratic ideal demands that government must treat all persons alike. The equality of all persons, so boldly set out in the Declaration of Independence, is not proclaimed in so many words in the Constitution. Still, that concept pervades the document. The closest approach to a literal statement of equality is to be found in the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. It declares: IINo State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.!1!1 -United States Constitution Those words were originally meant to benefit newly freed slaves. Over time, they have come to mean that the States and their local governments cannot draw unreasonable distinctions between any classes of persons. The Supreme Court has often held that the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause puts the same restriction on the Federal Government. Reasonable Classification Government must have the power to classify, to draw distinctions between persons and groups. Otherwise, it could not possibly regulate human behavior. That is to say, government must be able to discriminate-and it does. Thus, those who rob banks fall into a special class, and they receive special treatment by the law. That sort of discrimination is clearly reasonable. Government may not discriminate unreasonably~ however. Every State taxes the sale of cigarettes, and so taxes smokers but not nonsmokers. No State can tax only blonde smokers, however, or only male smokers. Over time, the Supreme Court has rejected many equal protection challenges to the actions of government. More often than not, the Supreme...,.. Freedom atop the Capitol

11 Voices on Government In 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to a white man on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, and was subsequently arrested. That simple act led to a bus boycott by African Americans and helped the civil rights movement grow into a national cause. Parks, who had long worked for civil rights, later explained her brave action: IIFor half of my life there were laws and customs in the South that kept African Americans segregated from Caucasians and allowed white people to treat black people without any respect. I never thought this was fai~ and from the time I was a child, I tried to protest against disrespectful treatment. But it was very hard to do anything about segregation and racism when white people had the power of the law behind them. Somehow we had to change the laws. II Evaluating the Quotation From what you have read, how did court decisions combine with changes in the law to move the nation toward protecting civil rights? Court has found that what those governments have done is, in fact, constitutional. 4 The Rational Basis Test The Supreme Court most often decides equal protection cases by applying a standard known as the rational basis test. This test asks: Does the classification in question bear a reasonable relationship to the achievement of some proper governmental purpose? A California case, Michael M. v. Superior Court, 1981, illustrates that test. California law says that a man who has sexual relations with a girl under 18 to whom he is not married can be prosecuted for statutory rape. However, the girl 4 The Court has voided a number of those actions on equal protection grounds, however. You will consider several of those cases in a moment, and you have encountered many others previously-for example, with regard to lengthy residence requirements for voting purposes and gerrymandering on the basis of race. cannot d3 e~eharged with that crime, even if she is a willing partner. The Court found the law to bear a reasonable relationship to a proper public policy goal: preventing teenage pregnancies. The Strict Scrutiny Test The Court imposes a higher standard in some equal protection cases, however. This is especially true when a case deals with ( 1) such "fundamental rights" as the right to vote, the right to travel between the States, or 1st Amendment rights; or (2) such "suspect classifications" as those based on race, sex, or national origin. In these instances, the Court has said that a law must meet a higher standard than the rational basis test: the strict scrutiny test. The State must be able to show that some "compelling governmental interest" justifies the distinctions it has drawn between classes of people. An alimony case, Orr v. Or~ 1979, involved the use of -that stricter test. An Alabama law that made women but not men eligible for alimony was held unconstitutional, as a denial of equal protection-because the law's distinction between men and women did not serve a compelling governmental interest. Segregation in America Beginning in the late 1800s, nearly half of the States passed racial segregation laws. Segregation means the separation of one group from another. Most of those Jim Crow laws-laws that separate people on the basis of race-were aimed at African Americans. Some were also drawn to affect Mexican Americans, Asians, and Native Americans. These laws required segregation by race in the use of both public and private facilities: schools, parks and playgrounds, hotels and restaurants, streetcars, even public restrooms and drinking fountains. Separate-but-Equal Doctrine In 1896, the Supreme Court provided a constitutional basis for Jim Crow laws by creating the separate-but-equal doctrine. In Plessy v. Ferguson, it upheld a Louisiana law requiring segregation in rail coaches. The Court held that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the separate facilities provided for African Americans were equal to those provided for whites. 602 Chapter 21 Section 2

12 The separate-but-equal doctrine was soon applied in several other fields, and it stood for nearly 60 years. Indeed, until the late 1930s, little effort was made by any arm of government even to see that the separate accommodations for African Americans were, in fact, equal to those reserved to whites. More often than not, they were not. Brown v. Board of Education The Supreme Court first began to chip away at the separate-but-equal doctrine in Missouri ex ref. Gaines v. Canada in Lloyd Gaines, an African American, was denied admission to the law school at the all-white University of Missouri. Gaines was fully qualified for admission-except for his race. The State did not have a separate law school for African Americans. However, it did offer to pay his tuition at a public law school in any of the four neighboring States which did not discriminate by race. But Gaines insisted on a legal education in his home State. The Court held that the separate-but-equal doctrine left Missouri with only two choices: It could either admit Gaines to the State's law school or establish a separate-but-equal school for him. The State gave in and admitted Gaines. Over the next several years, the Court took an increasingly rigorous attitude toward the requirement of equal facilities. It began to insist on equality in fact between separate facilities. Thus, in 1950 the Court decided two major cases in line with its holding in Gaines, Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma. G.W. McLaurin was admitted to the University of Oklahoma's graduate school, but "on a segregated basis." Both cases involved African American university students for whom the State had provided separate educational facilities. The Court held that, in both cases, the separate facilities were far from equal. Still, in neither case did the Court go so far as to reexamine the validity of the separate-but-equal doctrine. Finally, in an historic decision in 1954, the Court reversed Plessy v. Ferguson. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, it struck down the laws of four States requiring or allowing separate public schools for white and Mrican American students. 5 Unanimously, the Court held segregation by race in public education is invalid: _. The Migrants Beginning early in the last century, many African Americans left the South for jobs in northern cities. Artist Jacob Lawrence captured the lives of African Americans in works such as The Migrants Cast Their Ballots. H-SS II Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.... To separate them 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 ever to be undone.... Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. II -Chief Justice Earl Warren, Opinion of the Court The Court in 1955 directed the States to make "a prompt and reasonable start" and to end segregation "with all deliberate speed." A "reasonable start" was made in Baltimore, Louisville, St. Louis, and elsewhere. In most of the Deep South, however, "massive resistance" soon developed. State legislatures passed laws and school boards worked to block integration -the process of bringing a group into the mainstream of society. Most of these steps were dearly 5 Kansas, Delaware, South Carolina, and Virginia. On the same day, it also struck down racially segregated public schools in the District of Columbia, under the 5th Amendment, Bolling v. Sharpe, Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 603

13 unconstitutional, but challenging them in court was both costly and slow. The pace of desegregation quickened after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of That act forbids the use of federal funds to aid any State or local activity in which racial segregation is practiced. It directed the Justice Department to file suits to prompt desegregation actions. The Supreme Court quickened the pace in In a case from Mississippi, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education~ it ruled that, after 15 years, the time for "all deliberate speed" had ended. Said a unanimous Court: "The continued operation of segregated schools under a standard allowing for 'all deliberate speed'... is no longer constitutionally permissible." De Jure, De Facto Segregation By fall 1970, school systems characterized by de jure segregation had been abolished. De jure segregation is segregation by law, with legal sanction. That is not to say that desegregation had been fully accomplished-far from it. 6 Many recent integration controversies have come in places where the schools have never been segregated by law. They have occurred, instead, in communities in which de facto segregation has long been present, and continues. De facto segregation is segregation in fact, even if no law requires it. Housing patterns have most often been its major cause. The concentration of African Americans in certain sections of cities inevitably led to local school systems in which some schools are largely African American. That condition is apparent in many northern as well as southern communities. Efforts to desegregate those school systems have taken several forms. School district lines have been redrawn and the busing of students out of racially segregated neighborhoods has been tried. These efforts have brought strong protests in many places and violence in some. The Supreme Court first sanctioned busing in a North Carolina case, Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education~ There it held that "desegregation plans cannot be limited to walk-in schools." Since then, busing has been used to increase the racial mix in many school districts across the country-in some by court order, in others, voluntarily. Segregation in Other Fields This nation has not yet achieved a complete integration of the public schools, but legally enforced racial segregation in all other areas of life has 6 Some States, several school districts, and many parents and private groups have sought to avoid integrated schools through established or, often, newly created private schools. On the point, see the Court's rulings in Runyon v. McCrary, 1976, page 570. The Enduring (}onstitution sdpreme Court and Equal Rights ;~:J/:r. The Constitution describes equal rights only in general terms. As the time line entries show, some Court decisions have supported and broadened equal rights, while other decisions have restricted them. ego nline PHSchool.com Use Web Code mqp-5217 for an interactive time line. Analysis Skills CS1, CS2, Hl In the Civil Rights Cases, the Court rules that the 14th Amendment does not ban racial discrimination by private individuals or businesses In Plessyv. Ferguson, the Court rules that "separate but equal" facilities for different races are acceptable. 604 Chapter 21 Section 2

14 been eliminated. Many State and local laws have been repealed or struck down by the courts. The Supreme Court has found segregation by race to be as unconstitutional in other areas as it is in public education. It has held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids segregation in: public swimming pools or other recreational facilities, Baltimore v. Dawson, 1955; local transportation, Gayle v. Browder, 1956; and State prisons and local jails, Lee v. Washington, The High Court struck down all State miscegenation laws (laws that forbid interracial marriages) in Loving v. Virginia, And it has held that race cannot be the basis for a child custody decision, Palmore v. Sidoti, Classification by Sex The Constitution speaks of the civil rights of "the people," "persons," and "citizens." Nowhere does it make its guarantees only to "men" or separately to "women." The only reference to sex is in the 19th Amendment, which forbids denial of the right to vote "on account of sex." Gender has long been used as a basis of classification in the law, however. By and large, that practice reflected society's historic view of the "proper" role of women. Most often, laws that treated men and women differently were intended to protect "the weaker sex." Over the years, the Supreme Court read that view into the 14th Amendment. It did not find any sex-based classification to be unconstitutional until In the first case to challenge sex discrimination, Bradwell v. Illinois, 1873, the Court upheld a State law barring women from the practice of law. In that case, Justice Joseph P. Bradley wrote that: II The civil law, as well as nature itself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy of the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.!1!1 -Concurring Opinion Even as late as 1961, in Hoyt v. Florida, the Court could find no constitutional fault with a law that required men to serve on juries, but gave women the choice of serving or not. Matters are far different today. The Court now takes a very close look at cases involving claims of sex discrimination. It first did so in Reed v. Reed, 1971; there, the Court struck down an Idaho law that gave fathers preference over mothers in the administration of their children's estates. Since then, the Supreme Court has found a number of sex-based distinctions to be unconsti- v. United States, the Court upholds the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court overrules Plessy; it holds that "separate but equal" public schools are unconstitutional In New York State Club Association v. City of New York, the Court upholds a law that stops most private clubs from denying membership to women ;,;f.r I, ~. ~~ ) " -.::}. 1. When did the Supreme Court first sanction the separate-but-equal doctrine? When did it overturn that doctrine? 2. Why did the Court decide only a handful of cases involving race prior to the 1950s? 1978 In Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the Court rules that affirmative action is acceptable but strict quotas are not. sity may take race into account in admitting students, Gruffer v. Bollinger; but it may not blindly give extra weight to race in that process, Gratz v. Bollinger. Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under law 605

15 ~ I tutional. In Taylor v. Louisiana, 1975, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids the States to exclude women from jury service. Among other examples, it has also struck down an Oklahoma law that prohibited the sale of beer to males under 21 and to females under 18, Craig v. Boren, Also unconstitutional is the practice of refusing to admit women to the rigorous citizen-soldier program offered by a public institution, Virginia Military Institute, United States v. Virginia, In the same vein, the Supreme Court has upheld a California law that prohibits community service clubs from excluding women from membership, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, It also upheld a New York City ordinance that forbids sex discrimination in any place of public accommodation, including large private-membership clubs used by their members for business purposes, New York State Club Association, Inc. v. City of New York, The Court's present attitude was put this way in Frontiero v. Richardson, 1973: llthere can be no doubt that our nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of 'romantic paternalism' which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Opinion of the Court Not all sex-based distinctions are unconstitutional, however. The Supreme Court has upheld some of them in several cases. You saw one example of this in Michael M. v. Superior Court, Similarly, the Court has upheld a Florida law that gives an extra property tax exemption to widows, but not to widowers, Kahn v. Shevin, 1974; an Alabama law forbidding women to serve as prison guards in all-male penitentiaries, Dothard v. Rawlinson, 1977; and the federal selective service law that requires only men to register for the draft and excludes women from any future draft, Rostker v. Goldberg, In effect, these cases say this: Classification by sex is not in and of itself unconstitutional. However, laws that treat men and women differently will be overturned by the courts unless ( 1) they are intended to serve an "important governmental objective" and (2) they are "substantially related" to achieving that goal. In upholding the all-male draft, the Court found that Congress did in fact have an important governmental objective: to raise and support armies and, if necessary, to do so by "a draft of combat troops." "Since women are excluded from combat," said the Supreme Court, they may properly be excluded from the draft. 7 1n this case the Court, for the first time, struck down a federal law providing for sex-based discrimination, as a violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause. That law gave various housing, medical, and other allowances to a serviceman for his wife and other dependents, but it made those same allowances available to a servicewoman only if her husband was dependent on her for more than half of his support. edonl'-2 J Ass sment Key Tenns and Main Ideas 1. What was the purpose of Jim Crow laws? 2. Which important Supreme Court case led to school integration? 3. Explain the difference between de jure segregation and de facto segregation. 4. Who put the separate-but-equal doctrine in place? What did that doctrine uphold? Critical Thinking 5. Making Decisions In your opinion, which would be harder to combat, de facto or de jure segregation? Why? Standards Monitoring Online For: Self-quiz with vocabulary practice Web Code: mqa Recognizing Bias Reread Justice Bradley's comment on page 605. (a) Which part of that comment is fact, not opinion? (b) List three opinions set out in the comment. nline '------PHSchool.com For: An activity on equality before the law Web Code: mqd Chapter 21 Section 2

16 FOUNDAT I ON Breaking Down Barriers Ernest Green was the first black student to graduate from Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Green recalls the historic days in 1957 when, as one of the "Little Rock Nine," he helped bring an end to school segregation in the United States. Analysis Skills HR4, Hl3 en the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its historic Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision in 1954, I was a student in Little Rock, Arkansas, finishing the eighth grade. Little Rock had one high school for blacks... and one for whites, Little Rock Central High School.... The Brown decision made me feel that the U.S. Constitution was finally working for me.... I could believe I was a full citizen, not a secondclass citizen as segregation had made me feel. In the spring of 1957, I was asked, along with other black students in Little Rock, to consider attending Central High School the following fall. Initially, a number of students signed up to enroll, but when fall came, only nine of us had survived the pressure to quit... During the summer, rumors began to circulate that there might be violence if the "Little Rock Nine," as we became known, tried to attend school in the fall. I didn't pay much attention to what was going on... But when we tried to attend school, we were met by an angry white mob and armed soldiers. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had called out the National Guard to prevent us from enrolling, defying a federal court order to integrate Little Rock schools. Governor Faubus said he was doing this to protect the peace and tranquility of the community; obviously, my rights were secondary... Finally, President Dwight Eisenhower called out the U.S. Army's famous 101st Airborne Division to protect us and enforce the federal court's integration order... When we tried to attend school again, about 1,000 paratroopers were there to protect us. We rode to school in an army station wagon, surrounded by army jeeps that were loaded with soldiers holding machine guns and drawn bayonets. It was an exciting ride to school! Once we got inside, it was like being in a war zone. We were harassed, our. books were destroyed, and our lockers were broken into several times a day.... Ernest Green s~ows his. textbooks to children I was a senior that in Little Rock. year. As graduation neared, I was surprised at the number of students who signed my yearbook, saying they admired my courage in sticking it out. But on the night of graduation, there was an eerie silence when my name was called. I didn't care that no one clapped for me. I knew that not only had I achieved something for myself, but I had broken a barrier as well. Analyzing Primary Sources 1. Why did Ernest Green decide to enroll in Central High School? 2. What resistance did the "Little Rock Nine" encounter when they tried to attend the school? 3. How was Mr. Green finally able to attend? 4. Why did attending Central High School make Mr. Green feel that he was no longer a "secondclass citizen"? Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law - 607

17 Federal Civil Rights Laws OBJECTIVES WHY IT MATTERS POLITICAL 1. Outline the history of civil rights legislation from Reconstruction to today. 2. Explore the issues surrounding affirmative action. Little more than a generation ago, racebased discrimination was not only widespread in this country, much of it was legal-and evidences of that fact are with us yet today. DICTIONARY * affirmative action * quota * reverse discrimination ou may have heard this oft-made argument: "You can't legislate morality." That is, racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination cannot be eliminated merely with laws. Martin Luther King, Jr., replied to that contention this way: "Laws," he said, "may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." Congress has agreed with Dr. King-as it has enacted a number of civil rights laws over the past 40 years. Civil Rights: Reconstruction to Today From the 1870s to the late 1950s, Congress did not pass a single piece of meaningful civil rights legislation. Several factors contributed to that sorry fact. Among the major ones: Through that period the nation's predominantly white population was generally unaware of or little concerned with the plight of African Americans, Native Americans, or other nonwhites in this country. And, southern white Democrats, bolstered by such devices as the seniority system and the filibuster, held many of the most strategic posts in Congress. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr. That historic logjam was broken in 1957, very largely as a result of the pressures brought to bear by the civil rights movement led by Dr. King (see Chapter 6, pages ). Beginning in that year, Congress passed a number of civil rights laws-notably, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968 and the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, 1970, 1975, and The Civil Rights Act of 1964 The 1964 law is the most far-reaching of these statutes. It passed after the longest debate in the Senate's history (83 days), and only after the Senate had invoked cloture to kill a filibuster. Beyond its voting rights provisions, the 1964 law outlaws discrimination in a number of areas. With its several later amendments, the law's major sections now: (1) provide that no person may be denied access to or refused service in various "public accommodations" because of race, color, religion, national origin, or physical disability (Title II). 9 8 The 1957 and 1960 laws set up modest safeguards for the right to vote. You considered the voting rights provision in these statutes in Chapter 6. See pages The 1957 law created the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. The commission is an independent eight-member agency that is supposed to monitor the enforcement of the various civil rights laws, investigate cases of alleged discrimination, and report its findings to the President, Congress, and the public. 9 Congress based this section of the law on its commerce power; see Chapter 11, pages Title II covers those places in which lodgings are offered to transient guests and those where a significant portion of the items sold have moved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court upheld Title II and the use of the Commerce Clause as a basis for civil rights legislation in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, Chapter 21 Section 3

18 (2) prohibit discrimination against any person on grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or physical disability in any program that receives any federal funding; require the cut-off of federal funds to any program that practices such discrimination (Title VI). ( 3) forbid employers and labor unions to discriminate against any person on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, physical disability, or age in job-related matters (Title VII). 1 0 The Civil Rights Act of 1968 The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is often called the Open Housing Act. With minor exceptions, it forbids anyone to refuse to sell or rent a dwelling to any person on grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability. It also forbids refusal to sell or rent to a family with children. At first, the burden of enforcing the law fell on those persons who claimed to be victims of housing discrimination; they could seek damages from alleged offenders. Congress finally strengthened the law in 1988, to allow the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against those who violate its terms. Still, housing remains among the most segregated areas of American life today. Affirmative Action These several civil rights statutes all come down to this: Discriminatory practices based on such factors as race, color, national origin, sex, or disability are illegal. But what about the effects of past discrimination? Consider an African American who, for no reason of his or her own making, did not get a decent education and so today cannot get a decent job. Of what real help to that person are all of those laws that make illegal today what was done years ago? So far, the Federal Government's chief answer to this troubling question has been a policy of affirmative action. That policy requires that most employers take positive steps (affirmative action) to remedy the effects of past discriminations. The policy applies to all the agencies of the Federal Government, to all the States and their local 1 0"fhe five-member Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is responsible for the enforcement of Title VII. requently Asked Questions Civil Rights What was the Equal Rights Amendment? The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was approved by Congress in 1972, with a seven-year deadline set for its ratification. ERA would have added these words to the Constitution: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex." ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923, but it found little public support until the mid-1960s. By 1972, however, ERA was widely supported. Twentytwo States approved it almost immediately and its ratification seemed a near certainty. Stout opposition soon surfaced, however, and as its seven-year deadline approached, ERA had been approved by only 35 States-three short of the required 38. Congress attempted to save the measure by extending that deadline to June 30, 1982, but to no avail. ERA remained three States shy of ratification as its time ran out. Subsequent efforts to revive the measure proved unsuccessful. Any Questions? What would you like to know about civil rights? Brainstorm two new questions and exchange them with a classmate. What did you learn? governments, and to all those private employ- ~ ers who sell goods or services to any agency of the Federal Government. The Federal Government began to demand the adoption of affirmative action programs in Some programs are simply plans that call for the wide advertisement of job openings. Most, however, establish guidelines and timetables to overcome past discriminations and/or prevent their recurrence. To illustrate the policy, take the case of a company that does business with the Federal Government. That private business must adopt an affirmative action plan designed to make its work force reflect the general makeup of the population in its locale. The company's program must also include steps to correct or prevent inequalities in such matters as pay, promotions, and fringe benefits. For many employers this has meant that they must hire and/or promote more workers with Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 609

19 minority backgrounds and more females. Such rules requiring certain numbers of jobs or promotions for members of certain groups are called quotas. Reverse Discrimination? Affirmative action programs necessarily involve race-based and/or sex-based classifications. Are such programs constitutional? Critics of the policy say that affirmative action amounts to reverse discrimination, or discrimination against the majority group. Affirmative action demands that preference be given to females and/or nonwhites solely on the basis of sex or race. Critics insist that the Constitution requires that all public policies be "color blind." The Bakke Case The Supreme Court has been wrestling with affirmative action cases for over two decades now. The Court's first major case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, was decided in Allan Bakke, a white male, had been denied admission to that university's medical school at Davis. The school had set aside 16 of the 100 seats in each year's entering class for nonwhite students. He sued, charging the university with reverse discrimination and, so, a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal A Allan Bakke (left) successfully challenged the admissions policies of the University of California. Critical Thinking How did the Bakke case leave the legal status of affirmative action unsettled? H-SS Protection Clause. By a 5-4 majority, the Court held that Bakke had been denied equal protection and should be admitted to the medical school. A differently composed 5-4 majority made the more far-reaching ruling in the case, however. Although the Constitution does not allow race to be used as the only factor in the making of affirmative action decisions, both the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act do allow its use as one among several factors in such situations. Later Cases The Supreme Court has decided several affirmative action cases since Bakke. In some of them it has upheld quotas, especially when longstanding, flagrant discrimination was involved. In United Steelworkers v. Weber, 1979, the Kaiser Aluminum Company had created training programs intended to increase the number of skilled African Americans in its work force. Trainees were chosen on the basis of race and seniority. Brian Weber, a white worker, was rejected for training three times. Each time, however, a number of African Americans with less seniority were picked. Weber went to court. The Court found that the training programs, although built on quotas, did not violate the 1964 law. That law, it said, Congress had purposely designed to "overcome manifest racial imbalances." Fullilove v. Klutznick, 1980, was another case in which the Court upheld quotas. That case centered on a law Congress had passed that provided $4 billion in grants to State and local governments for public works projects. It also contained a "minority set-aside" provision. The provision required that at least 10 percent of each grant had to be set aside for minority-owned businesses. A white contractor challenged the set-asides. He argued that they were quotas and therefore unconstitutional-because they did not give white contractors an equal chance to compete for all of the available funds. The Court held the law to be a permissible attempt to overcome the effects of blatant and longstanding bias in the construction industry. Note, however, that quotas can be used in only the most extreme situations. Thus, the Court rejected a city's minority set-aside 610 Chapter 21 Section 3

20 policy in Richmond v. Croson, There the Court held, 6-3, that the city of Richmond, Virginia, had not shown that its ordinance was justified by past discrimination. Therefore, it had denied white contractors their right to equal protection. Johnson v. Transportation Agency of Santa Clara County, 1987, marked the first time the Court decided a case of preferential treatment on the basis of sex. By a 6-3 vote, the justices held that neither the Equal Protection Clause nor Title VII of the 1964 law forbids the promotion of a woman rather than a man, even though he had scored higher on a qualifying interview than she did. The case arose in California, when a woman was promoted to a job that until then had always been held by a man. The current Supreme Court's conservative bent can be seen in its most recent affirmative action decisions. Thus, the Court's decision in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 1995, marked a major departure from its previous rulings in such cases. Until Adarand, the Court had regularly upheld affirmative action laws, regulations, and programs as "benign" instances of "raceconscious policymaking." By this, the Court meant that it considered them to be mild but necessary restraints on behavior. In Adarand, however, the Court held that henceforth all affirmative action cases will be reviewed under strict scrutiny-that is, affirmative action programs will be upheld only if it can be shown that they serve some "compelling government interest"; see page 602. "The Constitution protects persons, not groups," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "Whenever the government treats any person unequally because of his or her race, that person has suffered an injury" covered by "the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment." Government can conduct affirmative action programs, said the Court, but only when those programs are "narrowly tailored" to overcome specific cases of discrimination. Adarand arose when a white-owned Colorado company, Adarand Constructors, Inc., challenged an affirmative action policy of the.a. Title IX Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 requires near-equal funding for men's and women's athletic teams at public schools and universities. This decision dramatically increased opportunities for women to participate in sports. H-SS Federal Highway Administration (FHA). Under that policy, the FHA gave bonuses to highway contractors if 10 percent or more of their construction work was subcontracted to "socially and economically disadvantaged" businesses, including those owned by racial minorities. The Michigan Cases Two cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, both involving the admissions policies of the University of Michigan, were combined for decision by the Supreme Court in The resolution of those two cases marked the High Court's most important statement on affirmative action since its decision in Bakke in In deciding the two cases, a majority of the Court found-definitely and unambiguouslythat the State of Michigan (and so all of the States) has a compelling interest in the diversity of the student bodies of its public educational institutions. That compelling interest justifies the narrowly tailored use of race as one factor in the student admissions policies of those institutions. Jennifer Gratz applied for admission to the University as a freshman in 1997, and Barbara Grutter sought to enter the University's law school that same year. Both women are white, and both were rejected in favor of minority applicants with lower grade point averages and lower entry test scores. Both women sued the University and its chief admissions officer, Lee Civil Rights: EqiJ~I Justice Under Law 6t 1

21 school. The means to this end was the individualized review of each applicant's file and did not include the automatic award of any credit for any characteristic an applicant might possess. A Students at the University of California marched to defend affirmative action at their school. Critical Thinking Did high school and college students have much say in the decision to end state-sponsored affirmative action in California? Bollinger, seeking court orders to prevent the University from using race as a factor in the making of admissions decisions. They lost in the lower courts and both appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held, 6-3, that Gratz' rejection was the result of a race-based quota policy prohibited by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority found that policy fatally flawed because it included the automatic award of twenty points (out of 100 needed for admission) to any applicant from a minority group underrepresented in the University's undergraduate student body. Grutter's rejection was upheld, however, 5-4, because the law school employed a much more flexible process in making its admissions decisions. That process was carefully designed to achieve a "critical mass" of otherwise underrepresented minority students in the law Affirmative Action on the Ballot The controversy surrounding affirmative action continues. In 1996, California's voters gave overwhelming approval to an initiative measure that eliminated nearly all of the affirmative action programs conducted by public agencies in that State. The measure, Proposition 209, amended the State's constitution. It forbids all State and local agencies (including public schools, colleges, and universities) to discriminate against or give preferential treatment to any person or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The measure covers matters of employment, education, or contracting. It only allows exceptions where necessary to satisfy some federal requirement. A federal district court found Proposition 209 unconstitutional in late It held that the measure violated both the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. That decision was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling. In 1998, Washington's voters adopted an initiative measure almost identical to California's Proposition 209. Encouraged by their successes in California and Washington, opponents of affirmative action have launched campaigns to put similar measures on the ballot in other States. nt Key Tenns and Main Ideas 1. What is the purpose of affirmative action? 2. Under what circumstances has the Supreme Court allowed quotas? 3. Who, in a general sense, is disadvantaged by reverse discrimination? Critical Thinking 4. Expressing Problems Clearly In your opinion, is it society's responsibility to rectify the harm suffered by a group of people as a result of discrimination in the past? Standards Monitoring Online For: Self-quiz with vocabulary practice Web Code: mqa Making Decisions Universities often extend preferences to "legacies"-students whose parents attended that school. How do these policies support or weaken the case for affirmative action? nline '----IPHSchool.com For: An activity on federal civil rights laws Web Code: mqd Chapter 21 Section 3

22 American Citizenship review OBJECTIVES WHY IT MATTERS POLITICAL 1. Identify the questions surrounding American citizenship. 2. Describe how people become American citizens by birth and by naturalization. 3. Explain how an American can lose his or her citizenship. 4. Illustrate how the United States is a nation of immigrants. 5. Compare and contrast the status of undocumented aliens and legal immigrants. A person can become an American citizen either at birth or through the process of naturalization. As immigration to the United States has surged over the past few decades, record numbers of immigrants have become American citizens. DICTIONARY * citizen jus soli jus sanguinis naturalization alien expatriation denaturalization * deportation re you an American citizen-one who owes allegiance to the United States and is entitled to its protection? Very likely you are; more than 90 percent of all the people who live in this country are citizens of the United States. And many of those who are not citizens are actively seeking that distinction. The Question of Citizenship As it was originally written, the Constitution mentioned both "citizens of the United States" and "citizens of the States." It did not define either of those phrases, however. Through much of America's early history, it was generally agreed that national citizenship followed that of the States. The coming of the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865 raised the need for a constitutional definition. 11 That need was finally met in 1868 by the 14th Amendment, which begins with these words: FRoM THe J II All persons born or natural- Constitution tze. d m. t h e U mte. d S tates an d 11 1n the Dred Scott case (Scott v. Sandford) in 1857, the Supreme Court had ruled that neither the States nor the National Government had the power to confer citizenship on African Americans-slave or free. The dispute over that issue was one of the several causes of the Civil War. subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 11 -United States Constitution Thus, the 14th Amendment declares that a person can become an American citizen either by birth or by naturalization. The chart on page 615 summarizes the means by which American citizenship can be acquired. Citizenship by Birth Some 260 million Americans-nearly 90 percent of us-are American citizens because we were born in the United States. Another several million are also citizens by birth, even though they were born abroad. Citizenship by birth is determined by either jus soli or jus sanguinis. Jus soli is the law of the soil, or where one is born. The 14th Amendment confers citizenship according to the location of a person's birth: "All persons born... in the United States... " Congress has defined the United States to include, for purposes of citizenship, the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. It also includes American embassies and American public vessels anywhere in the world. Until 1924, Native Americans born to tribal members living on reservations were not citizens, Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 613

23 Rules of Naturalization To become a naturalized citizen, a person must: * be, In most cases, at least 18 years old ) ' ' -., * iiave entered the country)~gally, lived in the United States for,at least five year~ (for huspand~ or wives of/citizens, three years) * file a petition for naturalization with the clerk of P Federal district _court or a State court of record I '. ; * be literate in the English language. * be "of good moral character; U-''attached to Jhe principles of the Constitution," and "well disposed to the good order and ~appiness of the United States",., *h~we "a knowledge and 'understanding of the'.fundamentajs of the history, and the principles ari'd form of government, of the United States" * take an oath or affirmation in which he o( she absolutely renoun~es any allegiance :to any foreigr{ power ano promises to "_support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign anf domestic".- Interpreting Charts Which of these requirements do you think is the most difficult to evaluate? H-SS but wards, persons under the legal guardianship, of the government. In that year, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans who did not already possess it. Jus sanguinis is the law of the blood, or to whom one is born. A child born abroad can become an American citizen at birth under certain circumstances described in the chart on page 615. The child must be born to at least one parent who is a citizen, and who has at some time lived in the United States. The 14th Amendment does not provide for jus sanguinis, but Congress has included it as a part of American citizenship law since The constitutionality of the rule has never been challenged. Citizenship by Naturalization Naturalization is the legal process by which a person becomes a citizen of another country at some time after birth. Congress has the exclusive power to provide for naturalization. No State may do so. 12 Individual Naturalization Naturalization is most often an individual process, conducted by a court. More than 800,000 aliens now become naturalized American citizens each year. An alien is a citizen or national of a foreign state living in this country. Generally, any person who has come to the United States as an immigrant can be naturalized. The chart on page 615 describes the different ways that people can become American citizens. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security investigates each applicant, and then reports to the judge of the federal or State court overseeing the petition for naturalization. If the judge is satisfied, the oath or affirmation is administered in open court, and the new citizen receives a certificate of naturalization. Collective Naturalization At various times entire groups have been naturalized en masse. This has most often happened when the United States has acquired new territory. As the chart on the next page indicates, those living in the areas involved were naturalized by a treaty or by an act or a joint resolution passed by Congress. The largest single instance of collective naturalization came with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, however. The most recent instance occurred in 1977, when Congress gave citizenship to the more than 16,000 native-born residents of the Northern Mariana Islands. Loss of Citizenship Although it rarely happens, every American citizen, whether native-born or naturalized, has the right to renounce-voluntarily abandon-his or her citizenship. Expatriation is the legal process by which a loss of citizenship occurs. The Supreme Court has several times held that the Constitution prohibits automatic expatriation. That is, Congress cannot take away a person's citizenship for something he or she has done. Thus, actions such as committing a crime, voting in a foreign election, or serving in the armed forces of another country are not grounds for automatic expatriation Article I, Section 8, Clause A person convicted of a federal or a State crime may lose some of the privileges of citizenship, however, either temporarily or permanently-for example, the right to travel freely or to vote or hold public office. 614 Chapter 21 Section 4

24 Acquiring Citizenship Naturalization Individually * Naturalization of both parents (one parent if divorced or the other is dead) automatically naturalizes children under 16 who reside in the United States. Adopted children born abroad are automatically naturalized if under 18 when adoption becomes final. * Federal Courts: Any United States district court * State and Territorial Courts: Any general trial court Collectively Treaties: * Louisiana (1803) * Florida (1819) * Alaska (1867) Joint Resolution of Congress: * Texas (1845) Acts of Congress: * Hawaii (1898), Puerto Rico (1917), Native Americans (1924), Virgin Islands (1927), Guam (1950), Northern Mariana Islands (1977) Constitutional Amendment: * African Americans and others by 14th Amendment (1868) Birth Jus Sanguinis A child born to an American citizen on foreign soil becomes a citizen if: * both parents are American citizens, and at least one has lived in the United States or an American territory at some time * one parent is an American citizen who has lived in the United States for at least 10 years, 5 of them after age 14, and the child has lived in the United States continuously for at least 5 years between the ages of 14 and 28 Jus Soli A child becomes an American citizen if born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, any United States embassy, or aboard a United States public vessel anywhere in the world Interpreting Charts Most Americans acquire citizenship at birth. Name two additional ways that people can acquire American citizenship. H-SS Naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship involuntarily. However, this process--denaturalization-can occur only by court order and only after it has been shown that the person became a citizen by fraud or deception. A person can neither gain nor lose American citizenship by marriage. The only significant effect that marriage has is to shorten the time required for the naturalization of an alien who marries an American citizen. A Nation of Immigrants We are a nation of immigrants. Except for Native Americans-and even they may be the descendants of earlier immigrants-all of us have come here from abroad or are descended from those who did. There were only some 2.5 million persons in the United States in Since then the population has grown more than a hundredfold, to more than 290 million people today. That extraordinary population growth has come from two sources: births and immigration. Some 70 million immigrants have come here since 1820, when figures were first recorded. Regulation of Immigration Congress has the exclusive power to regulate immigration. It alone has the power to decide who may be admitted to the United States and under what conditions. The power to control the nation's borders is an inherent power (see page 91). In an early leading case on the point, the Court ruled that the power of the United States to "exclude aliens from its territory... is not open to controversy," Chae Chan Ping v. United States;, The States have no power in the field, The Passenger Cases;, Congress made no serious attempt to regulate immigration for more than a century after independence. As long as land was plentiful and expanding industry demanded more and still more workers, immigration was encouraged. By 1890, however, the open frontier was a thing of the past, and labor was no longer in short supply. Then, too, the major source of immigration had shifted. Until the 1880s, most immigrants had come from the countries of northern and western Europe. The "new immigration" from the 1880s onward came mostly from southern and eastern Europe. All these factors combined to bring major changes in the traditional policy of encouraging immigration. Congress placed the first major restrictions on immigration with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in At the same time, it barred the entry of convicts, "lunatics," paupers, and others likely to become public charges. Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 615

25 Legal Immigration to the United States, * ;I I ~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Total (1820 to 2000) = 66,089,431 Australia and Oceania 0.4% Africa 0.9% South America 3% *Figures less than 18,000 not included. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. ** Includes Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America SOURCE: 2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Interpreting Graphs Until the 1970s, Europeans dominated United States immigration figures. Where do the two largest groups of immigrants come from now? Over the next several years a long list of "undesirables" was added to the law. Thus, contract laborers were excluded in 1885, immoral persons and anarchists in 1903, and illiterates in By 1920 more than 30 groups were denied admission on the basis of personal traits. The tide of newcomers continued to mount, however. In the 10 years from 1905 through 1914, an average of more than a million persons, most of them from southern and eastern Europe, came to this country each year. Congress responded to pressure for tighter regulation by adding quantitative limits (numerical ceilings) to the qualitative restrictions (personal characteristics) already in place. The Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 and the National Origins Act of 1929 assigned each country in Europe a quota-a limit on the number of immigrants who could enter the United States from that country each year. Altogether, only 150,000 quota immigrants could be admitted in any one year. The quotas were purposely drawn to favor northern and western Europe. The quota system was not applied to the Western Hemisphere, but immigration from Asia, Africa, and elsewhere was generally prohibited. In 1952, Congress passed yet another basic law, the Immigration and Nationality Act. That statute modified the quota system to cover every country outside the Western Hemisphere. Congress finally eliminated the countrybased quota system in the Immigration Act of That law allowed as many as 270,000 immigrants to enter the United States each year, without regard to race, nationality, or country of origin. The 1965 law gave special preference to immediate relatives of American citizens or of aliens legally residing in this country. Present Immigration Policies Today, the Immigration Act of 1990 governs the admission of aliens to the United States. Like its predecessors, it was adopted only after years of intense debate, and many of its provisions are the subject of continuing controversy. The 1990 law provided for a substantial increase in the number of immigrants who may enter the United States each year. The annual ceiling is now set at 675,000. It also continues the family-preference policy first put in place in 1965; at least one third of those persons admitted under its terms must be the close relatives of American citizens or resident aliens. Those immigrants who have occupational talents in short supply in the United States (notably, highly skilled researchers, engineers, and scientists) also receive special preference. Only those aliens who can qualify for citizenship can be admitted as immigrants. The law's list of "excl ucla ble aliens" -those barred because of some personal characteristic-is extensive. Among those excluded are: criminals (including suspected terrorists), persons with communicable diseases, drug abusers and addicts, illiterates, and mentally disturbed persons who might pose a threat to the safety of others. 616 Chapter 21 Section 4

26 Some 20 million nonimmigrants also come here each year for temporary stays. They are mostly tourists, students, and people traveling for business reasons. Deportation Most of the civil rights set out in the Constitution are guaranteed to "persons." That term covers aliens as well as citizens. In one important respect, however, the status of aliens is altogether unlike that of citizens: Aliens may be subject to deportation, a legal process in which aliens are legally required to leave the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that the United States has the same almost-unlimited power to deport aliens as it has to exclude them. In an early major case, the Court ruled that ( 1) deportation is an inherent power, arising out of the sovereignty of the United States, and (2) deportation is not criminal punishment, and so does not require a criminal trial, Pong Yue Ting v. United States, An alien may be deported on any one of several grounds. The most common today is illegal entry. Thousands of aliens who enter with false papers, sneak in by ship or plane, or slip across the border at night are caught each year and are deported. Many of those who are turned away are repeat offenders who will soon make yet another attempt to cross the border. Conviction of any serious crime, federal or State, usually leads to a deportation order. In recent years, several thousand aliens have been expelled on the basis of their criminal records, especially narcotics violators. The war on terrorism has also quickened the pace of deportations. Because deportation is a civil, not a criminal, matter, several constitutional safeguards do not apply-for example, bail and ex post facto laws. Thus, in Delmore v. Kim, 2003, the Court held that a legal immigrant who faces deportation because of a criminal conviction can be jailed and held without bail, and even without a court hearing to determine whether he or she is either dangerous or a flight risk. Undocumented Aliens No one knows how many undocumented aliens reside in the United States today. The Census Bureau now puts their number at about nine million-more than double the Bureau's estimate of a decade ago. The number of undocumented aliens is increasing by at least half a million a year. Most of these "undocumented persons" enter the country by slipping across the Mexican or Canadian borders, usually at night. Some come with forged papers. Many are aliens who entered legally, as nonimmigrants, but overstayed their legal welcomes. Well over half of all undocumented aliens have come from Mexico; most of the others come from other Latin American countries and from Asia. A majority of the Mexicans stay here only four to six months a year, working on farms or in other seasonal jobs. Most other illegal aliens hope to remain permanently. A Troublesome Situation Once here, most undocumented aliens find it easy to become "invisible," especially in larger cities, and law-enforcement agencies find it very difficult to locate them. Even so, immigration officials have apprehended more than a million undocumented aliens in each of the last several years. Nearly all are sent home. Most go voluntarily, but some leave only as the result of formal deportation proceedings. The presence of so many undocumented persons has raised a number of difficult problems. Those problems have grown worse over the past several years and, until recently, not much had been done to meet them. _. This sign near the California-Mexican border warns drivers that undocumented aliens may try to cross the busy highway. Prohibido-prohibitedwarns would-be illegal immigrants not to take that risk. Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 617,

27 By Don Wright. 1980: Miami News. New York Times Syndicate. Interpreting Political Cartoons Newcomers are greeted with suspicion by most cultures. Why is this cartoon particularly effective? One example: Until 1987, it was legal to hire undocumented aliens. As a result, approximately 3.5 million persons who now hold jobs in this country came here illegally. Some employers have been more than willing to hire undocumented aliens, many of whom will work for substandard wages and under substandard conditions. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens have taken jobs on farms, often as laborers; thousands more have become janitors and dishwashers, or seamstresses in sweatshops, or found other menial work. The increase in population has also placed added stress on the public schools -and welfare services of several States, notably California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. Current Law Many groups have been troubled and divided by the problem of undocumented aliens. Those concerned include labor, farm, business, religious, ethnic, civil rights, and other groups. After wrestling with the issue for years, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of Then, after another decade of debate and struggle, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Restrictions Act of The 1986 law did two major things. First, it established a one-year amnesty program under which many undocumented aliens could become legal residents. More than two million aliens used it to legalize their status here. Secondly, that law made it a crime to hire any person who is in this country illegally. An employer who knowingly hires an undocumented alien can be fined from $250 to $10,000. A repeat offender can be jailed for up to six months. The 1996 law made it easier to deport illegal aliens by streamlining the deportation process. It also toughened the penalties for smuggling aliens into this country, prevented undocumented aliens from claiming Social Security benefits or public housing, and allowed State welfare workers to check the legal status of any alien who applies for any welfare benefit. The new law also doubled the size of the Border Patrol; it now has more than 10,000 uniformed officers on duty. " Key Tenns and Main Ideas 1. How does a person become a citizen through jus sanguinis? 2. What is the main difference between a citizen and an alien? 3. What is the purpose of the naturalization process? 4. Members of which group can be threatened by deportation? Critical Thinking 5. Understanding Point of View Should employers be punished for hiring undocumented aliens? Why or why not? 6. Drawing Conclusions Why do you think the current immigration law gives special preference to immigrants who have certain occupational skills? l Standards Monitoring Online For: Self-quiz with vocabulary practice Web Code: mqa Decision Making Review the chart on page 614. In your opinion, should citizens "by birth" be required to meet the same requirements as naturalized citizens? Why or why not? ego nline PHSchool.com For: An activity on American citizenship Web Code: mqd Chapter 21 Section 4

28 FOUNDATION May Public Universities Consider Race in Admissions? When selecting students for admission, colleges and universities consider a number of factors, such as test scores and participation in extracurricular activities. Should they also be allowed to consider the race or ethnicity of the applicant? Analysis Skills HR4, Hl3, Hl4 Grutter v. Bollinger, Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's law school. After placing her on the waiting list, the law school rejected her application. Jennifer Gratz, a white student, applied to the University of Michigan for undergraduate studies. The University denied her application, even though it considered her "well qualified." The law school's admissions policy emphasized admitting not only applicants with strong academic credentials, but also students with diverse life experiences and backgrounds. The policy gave special consideration to racial and ethnic diversity to ensure that minorities would have a meaningful presence in the student body. Race was given no specific weight, but was to be considered along with the applicants' other unique qualities and achievements. The undergraduate school simply gave twenty points (out of 100 needed for admission) to "underrepresented minorities." Both Grutter and Gratz sued the University and chief admissions officier, Lee Bollinger. They sought court orders to force the University to stop considering race in its admissions decisions. The Supreme Court took the two cases together. Arguments for GruHer and Gratz 1. The 14th Amendment forbids the States, including public universities, from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." Giving preferential consideration to minorities amounts to unequal treatment of applicants not included in the favored groups. 2. Affirmative action policies favoring minority students actually harm them by suggesting that they are unable to gain admission based on their own accomplishments. 3. Minorities can rely on the law to prevent discrimination against them, but the law should not give them special advantages. Arguments for Bollinger 1. Having a significant minority presence in universities and law schools is important to enable minorities to assume leadership positions in society. 2. Diversity is essential to the mission of higher education, because students learn as much from each other as they do from their classes. 3. Equal protection should prevent any person from being harmed or burdened because of their race, but it should not prohibit policies intended to create equality for disadvantaged minorities. Decide for Yourself 1. Review the constitutional grounds on which each side based its arguments and the specific arguments each side presented. 2. Debate the opposing viewpoints presented in this case. Which viewpoint do you favor? 3. How will the Court's decision affect college and graduate school admissions and the job market for graduates? (To read a summary of the Court's decision, turn to pages ) Use Web Code mqp-5218 to register your vote on this issue and to see how other students voted. Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under the Law 619

29 Political Dictionary heterogeneous (p. 594), immigrant (p. 594), reservation (p. 596), refugee (p. 597), assimilation (p. 597), segregation (p. 602), Jim Crow law (p. 602), separate-but-equal doctrine (p. 602), integration (p. 603), de jure segregation (p. 604), de facto segregation (p. 604), affinnative action (p. 609), quota (p. 610), reverse discrimination (p. 610), citizen (p. 613), jus soli (p. 613), jus sanguinis (p. 613), naturalization (p. 614), alien (p. 614), expatriation (p. 614), denaturalization (p. 615), deportation (p. 617) Standards Review H-SS Explain how economic rights are secured and their importance to the individual and to society (e.g., the right to acquire, use, transfer, and dispose of property; right to choose one's work; right to join or not join labor unions; copyright and patent). H-SS Explain how one becomes a citizen of the United States, including the process of naturalization (e.g., literacy, language, and other requirements). H-SS Understand the changing interpretations of the Bill of Rights over time, including interpretations of the basic freedoms (religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly) articulated in the First Amendment and the due process and equal protection-of-the-law clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. H-SS Explain the controversies that have resulted over changing interpretations of civil rights, including those in Plessyv. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, and United States v. Virginia (VMI). H-SS Describe the means that citizens use to participate in the political process (e.g., voting, campaigning, lobbying, filing a legal challenge, demonstrating, petitioning, picketing, running for political office). H-SS Explain how public policy is formed, including the setting of the public agenda and implementation of it through regulations and executive orders. Practicing the Vocabulary Matching Choose a term from the list above that best matches each description. 1. A person who leaves his or her home in order to escape the dangers of war, political persecution, or other causes 2. The law of the soil; a means by which one acquires citizenship 3. Type of law that required separate facilities for African Americans and whites 4. An act by which one voluntarily forfeits citizenship 5. Segregation as a result of laws 6. Rule that sets a minimum or maximum number of promotions, hires, or acceptances for members of a specific group Reviewing Main Ideas Section Briefly describe the trends in the composition of the population over the course of American history. 12. Briefly describe the historical treatment of minority groups in the United States. 13. List two ways that Latin American communities in the United States differ from one another. 14. Do women as a group resemble minority groups? Section What kind of equality does the Constitution guarantee? 16. According to the Supreme Court, what standards must laws that discriminate between groups meet? 17. Briefly describe the history of racial segregation from the late 1800s to today. 18. On what grounds will the present-day Supreme Court uphold a law that treats women differently from men? Word Recognition Replace the underlined definition with the correct term from the list above. 7. Some immigrants and members of minority groups try 1Q merge into and become part of the dominant culture of a country. 8. A person who gains citizenship through fraud or deception can suffer the loss of citizenship through a court order. 9. Brown v. Board of Education brought an end to separation of one group from another in public schools. 10. The United States can be described as including a mix of different people. Section Briefly describe the history of civil rights legislation between the 1870s and today. 20. (a) What was the major piece of civil rights legislation enacted during the 1960s? (b) What are its major features? 21. Summarize the reasoning behind affirmative action programs. What is the main criticism of these programs? 22. Under what circumstances have affirmative action programs generally been allowed by the courts? Section Describe the ways in which people can become citizens of the United States. 24. Describe the ways in which people can lose citizenship. 25. Briefly describe immigration in the United States today. 26. Identity two controversies involving undocumented aliens. 620 Chapter 21

30 Critical Thinking Skills Analysis Skills CS2, HR4 27. Face the Issues A supporter of changing Title IX has asked, "Why use the total number of students on campus... as your baseline for fairness to begin with? Doesn't it make more sense to only use students who are actually interested in playing sports?" How would supporters of Title IX answer these questions? 28. Making Comparisons Recall what you read in Section 2 regarding the Supreme Court's attitude toward women. (a) How has this attitude changed since the 1960s? (b) Does sex-based discrimination still exist? 29. Drawing Inferences Consider the separate-but-equal doctrine. (a) Do you think it is possible for facilities to be segregated on the basis of race or gender and be truly equal? (b) Why or why not? 30. Making Decisions Consider the process by which aliens can become naturalized American citizens. (a) In your opinion, should this process be made easier or more difficult? Why? (b) What standards, if any, should be added or removed? Why? Analyzing Political Cartoons Using your knowledge of American government and this cartoon, answer the questions below. I'M TELLIN' YAm 1KE~'S A Glf\~~ CEILING IN THI~ BUSINE5~! HAVE you EVER HEARD OF A KING BEE? IO!IT'S A REAL PROBLEM IN OUR CULTURE! j~ You Can Make a Difference Are there any opportunities in your school or community to mentor students who need attention-for example, recent immigrants who speak little English or students from disadvantaged backgrounds? How could you and your class organize to help these students? Consider forming a group of volunteer mentors to offer help in various areas, such as specific school subjects, community orientation, citizenship tests, and language practice. Participation Activities Analysis Skills CS3, HR4, Hl1 33. Current Events Watch Find a recent news article dealing with affirmative action. Then compose two editorials, one in favor of affirmative action and one opposed to it. Begin each editorial with a reference to the news article and explain how this article relates to your argument. When you have finished both editorials, have a classmate read them and rate your thoroughness and objectivity. 34. Graphing Activity Use a library or the Internet to find recent data on per capita income for African American men, African American women, white men, and white women. Create a line graph showing how per capita income has changed over time for all four categories. Then write a paragraph describing your conclusions. 35. It's Your Turn Interview a relative or a family friend who moved to the United States from another country or who experienced the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. Do they have any personal stories that capture a sense of the time? Do they believe their experiences were typical? How do they feel about television and film portrayals of immigrants' lives or the civil rights struggle? What lessons would they like to convey to members of your generation? Use your interview to write a personal history written from the point of view of that person. (Interviewing a Relative) 31. (a) What form of discrimination is referenced by this cartoon? (b) How does this cartoon reverse the usual situation? 32. Why is "glass ceiling" an appropriate metaphor for this form of discrimination? Standards Monitoring Online For: Chapter 21 Self-Test Visit: PHSchool.com Web Code: mqa-5215 As a final review, take the Magruder's Chapter 21 Self-Test and receive immediate feedback on your answers. The test consists of 20 multiple-choice questions designed to test your understanding of the chapter content. Civil Rights: Equal Justice Under Law 621