Jackson V. Birmingham Board Of Education Case Study

When there is any type of discrimination it will always take time for an act, opposing it, to have an effect and start to make a change. When Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation to set all of the slaves free there weren’t many people who where very happy about it; and it did not make all of the discrimination against African American’s go away. It took time and effort on both parts and there are still areas in our nation where we can still see discrimination, against African Americans, today. The same goes for the Title IX act. It took a while for women to break through and for it to have a lasting effect for women. But Title

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.

Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity (2015). Title IX covers 10 key areas including: education, athletics, careers, employment, learning environments, technology, sexual harassment, testing, Math and Science, and education for pregnant and parenting students (2016). The law was passed in 1972 (2016). One of the most striking figures of the Title IX movement was Billie Jean King. King was a renowned tennis player and huge advocate for gender equality (2013). Despite having to endure both private and public battles, she never gave up on fighting for what she believed in (2013). Although King is often seen as someone who fought for women’s right she continually points out that she was fighting for “equal opportunity for both boys and girls” (2013). Title IX mainly focuses on helping women and young girls gain gender equality in common places but it can affect men

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

Then, in a 1984 decision, Grove City v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Title IX. In that ruling, the court said Title IX did not cover entire educational institutions - only those programs directly receiving federal funds. Other programs, such as athletics, that did not receive federal funds, were free to discriminate on the basis of gender.

In some cases a schools decision to cut sports in order to comply with Title IX has lead to a lawsuit. An example of this would be Miami University. The university formed a committee to address the issue of Title IX compliance and hired a consultant as well. "The committee and consultant determined that in order to comply with Title IX, the university had the option of eliminating a few sports for men. As a result, the university eliminated the men's soccer, wrestling and tennis teams, effective at the end of the 1999 spring semester (Challenge 2002)." On November 18, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, claming that the defendants' elimination of the men's wrestling, tennis and soccer programs at Miami University, a state university of the State of Ohio and a recipient of federal funds, constituted gender discrimination in violation of the 20 U.S.C.& et seq. And violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (United 2002). The court found that the plaintiffs failed

The district court’s decision to dismiss this case is based on the Plaintiffs failure to prove theory of purposeful discrimination, which is denied under Alexander v. Sandoval where the Supreme Court ruled that even if a federally funded entity knowingly adopts a policy that creates disparate impact, Title VI still affords no remedy and also because Proposition 16 is a facially neutral policy that happened to create a racially disparate impact, it holds no bearing to Title VI. The court ultimately found that Proposition 16 was created to improve ALL student athlete graduation rights. As for Pryor’s ADA claim, it too was dismissed because Pryor lacked the standing to remedy her loss of eligibility due to the fact the NCAA may still grant her the relief she seeks.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from being discriminated against due to who they are and what they look like this includes skin color, religious preference, where they come from and sex of the person. Title VII was amended to include the protection of pregnant women.

Title XI is a federal amendment educational law of 1972 that forbids sex and gender based discrimination in educational programs that received federal funding There are various types of discrimination such as gender based harassment, sexual misconduct and sexual violence. It applies to both men and women who are a member of the educational programs and activities at GCU.

Title IX is a controversial law that has raised many conflicts with colleges and other federal funded establishments. Title IX has had a long controversial history throughout America and has been the focal point of many court cases. Among these court cases women have believed that this law has only affected women’s athletics in a positive way and has not affected men’s athletics in a negative way at all. Although Title IX has affected women’s athletics in a positive way it has, at the same time, negatively impacted men’s athletics among universities’ and other federal funded establishments. Taking into consideration the effects that the law has had I can conclude that this law has negatively impacted men’s athletics and I will prove it within this paper by providing statistics and examples of its negative impacts throughout its history in America.

James Loudermill was dismissed from his job as a security guard for the Cleveland Board of Education for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction on his application. Loudermill, a classified civil servant under Ohio law, filed an appeal with the civil service commission stating Ohio statue provided he could only be terminated for cause; therefore, he was entitled to administrative review of his dismissal. Nine months after the appeal was filed the Commission upheld his termination. Loudermill filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging the Ohio statute that provided for administrative review of a discharged public employee was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges against him prior to being discharged. The suit also alleged the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as applied because he was not given a prompt appeal hearing by the Civil Service

In 1984, Grove City College officials, in order to keep an autonomous institution, did not accept federal funds or aids. However, things became complicated when the college accepted a large amount of students who received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOGs).  Because grants are given by a federal bureau, the ED saw this as the Grove City College officials accepting federal funds.  As a result, the ED put the Grove City under the order of TITLE IX; therefore, they also had to issue an Assurance of Compliance form and get Grove College City to sign it. When Grove City refused to sign the compliance form the ED cut off the financial aid to the students attending the college.

During 1978, Alan Bakke was denied acceptance into the Medical School at the University of California. Bakke had a higher grade point average and higher test scores than other students who got accepted. Under the circumstances, Bakke stated he was denied acceptance because of his race. Not only did Bakke get denied because of his race, was a white male. Immediately he noticed and took the case to court. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution stated Bakkes rights being the Equal Protection Clause. (Bakke v. University of California)

Abigail Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz were just two young women from Texas trying to get into their dream school. In 2008 the young women applied at the University of Texas. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause being a clause that allows no state to deny any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the law”.

The lack of action and the incompetence of HEW was the primary obstacle in the way of thorough enforcement of Title IX . Inspired by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title IX took years for women to see the law enacted due to the disgraceful lack of enforcement by HEW. Experts show that the Education and Welfare did “three tenths of a complaint per person” failing to protect women to the best of its abilities for more than five years (NOW 71). The HEW did not make a priority to evaluate the claims of race or gender discrimination and after the passing of 1972 women who were excited about the passing of the law were met with one obstacle, the grace period. Feminist Susan Ware notes that The Department of Health, Education and Welfare appointed a “grace period of four to three years” for secondary institutions, meaning that some women did not see the law take hold until graduation (NOW 74). The grace period allowed schools to do as they please under the guise of evaluating results of complaints of discrimination which gave the law a sluggish start. During this period women flooded HEW with thousands of complaints by women facing gender discrimination on college campuses across the nation.