Civil Rights Act: Diversity

An underlying conflict within the Supreme Court was partially abstained as Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the system in 1954 and 1993. Although their oath of office resembles a major breakthrough in law, there is still no doubt that the conflict of ethnic and gender diversity and the need for diverse, experienced members within the Supreme Court is a problem that should be addressed by society within the next few years. From past events, such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and consistently throughout history, it is perceived that problems in our justice system are addressed when people come together as a society in resistance in want for change. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s

Sixty-two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional. The decision from the Plessy v. Ferguson case was lawfully denounced by the Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown case, which was initiated by the members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), served as a stimulus for challenging segregation in all areas of society, especially in public educational institutions. Among the support for the desegregation in school systems, there was a young yet compelling voice who was heard by numerous ears in the rural city in Farmville, Alabama. The virtuous and determined Barbara Johns, who was only a high school student then led her tiny, hovel-like school’s student body and the Farmville community to file a lawsuit in the hope of terminating the inequality in regards to the educational system.

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

It is without a doubt that discrimination in this country has existed since its early stages. However, to this day after many movements and eras to try and eliminate it all together, it remains. And in this class, we seek to understand why. For these last couple of weeks, we discussed the 14th amendment and more specifically referenced its equal protection clause which vows to protect the fundamental rights of “all” citizens of the United States. Because of this state and federal governments attempt to create neutral laws that will apply fairly to all citizens in the United States. Which seems to be the best thing they can try and do nonetheless if a bill is said to be neutral, but has an unequal influence on a particular group of people problems

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

The petitioner Abigail N. Fisher, who is a woman of Caucasian decent, applied to the University of Texas in late 2008 (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). Since Fisher was not ranked at the top of her class her application was denied (“Fisher v. University of Texas.”). The former University of Texas applicant Abigail N. Fisher believes that the Institutions discriminatory admission policies was the reason she did not get admitted into the school for the incoming freshman class of 2009, even though her application was much better than many of the admitted minority students. Fisher then filed a suit case against the University arguing that the University of Texas admission policy was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states it forbids

In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) was a highly divided decision, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of race in admission decisions on a time-limited basis to further the educational benefits that flow from a diverse

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) case, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, tried applying to medical school twice and was denied, even though his GPA, and test scores were better than others who were recently admitted. According to the court, they believed that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race”. Because of this, the shut down the system that discriminated against other races. In the Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that “Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational

The basic issue in Brown vs. Board of Education was the beginning of integration in the school system. Trial transcripts, interviews, meet the browns, and segregated Topeka will be used to support evidence and opinions in this paper. Due to the decisions made in The Brown vs. Board of Education it changed who could attend with diversity in schools and continues to change schools to this day. After reading this paper, it should show that all people should be treated equally. Just because a person’s skin color was different than another person’s doesn’t mean they should have had to go to another school or be treated any differently.

“It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never

The overall issue did Justice Vinson state in this case is the concept of the 14th Amendment which stipulates the equal protection clause. Thus, the petitioner will not get his full-constitutional right in the law school for Negroes that is not fully-equipped with facilities that will help him get his law degree. In addition, limited part-time educators for Negroes is unacceptable. Whereby, admission to the Texas University of Law School will provide him the best education that white people and other race achieved. Only then, that the 14th amendment will be

It has been argued that Fisher III neither provides any substantive additions to Equal Protection Clause (EPC) Jurisprudence, nor any guidance to lower courts how to apply Grutter and determine whether a race-based admissions program is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. Danielle Holley-Walker, in her article published in winter of 2014, explores the impact Fisher III has on race-conscious admissions programs, and argues that Fisher III enhances the strict scrutiny analysis, especially when compared to Grutter. Moreover, she argues “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent meaningfully highlights one of the most pernicious flaws in the current Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, which is that strict scrutiny standard encourages universities to make their admissions process opaque instead of transparent and that there are many benefits that flow from having a transparent, race-conscious admissions program.”

Three court cases that played a huge role in the relationship between citizenship, rights to suffrage and representation of the American democracy are The People of the State of California v. George W. Hall, Dred Scott v. Sandford and Guinn v. United States, where each case left a lasting change in the minority group’s flight for equality. In the case of The People of the State of California v. George W. Hall, the Supreme Court ruled that a White defendant was falsely convicted of murdering a Chinese person on the basis of the testimony from a Chinese witness. On appeal, the defendant’s lawyer argued that a non-white witness could not testify against a white person (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 141), where in the state of California, blacks, mulattos, and Indians could not testify in any case against a white person because they were not reliable in court because they were, “no recognize the Chinese and other Asians as a full person whose testimony were admissible in court,” (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 142). The court decision emulated the prejudice that was heavily present in the United States, especially Anti-Asian Movement, because they were seen as, “inferior, who were incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point,” or “claim any citizenship rights” (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 142) and were left unable to protect themselves or their rights because the ruling ultimately dehumanized them into being seen as mediocre asinine individuals. In the case Dred Scott v.

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

We come then to the question presented: 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...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.