1. The Civil Rights Movement & Legislation Chapter 6, Theme B

2. Pop Quiz 6  In what city was JFK assassinated?  Name the House committee that was the graveyard of CR legislation.  What practice did the 24 th Amendment outlaw?  Name 1 practice outlawed by CRA of 1964?  Name the Senate committee that halted CR legislation.  What state saw 3 young civil rights workers killed by the Klan & local sheriff?

3. “Front Burner” Issue NAACP knew the problem had to be placed on the public agenda. Change public opinion, but how? a. Use media campaigns (Invite coverage of abuse) to play on sympathies of whites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbbcjn4d1cE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbbcjn4d1cE b. Use civil disobedience to initiate dramatic confrontations (Rosa Parks) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8A9gvb5Fh0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8A9gvb5Fh0 c. Enfranchise black voters d. Discourage riots as frustration grew over the slow progress.

4. The Campaign in Congress  Powerful Southern Democrats blocked nearly all legislation in committees or filibustered in Senate. The House Rules & Senate Judiciary Committees were the graveyards of legislation.  In 1957, Strom Thurmond filibustered for over 24 hrs to block civil rights legislation.  In 1964, a filibuster was ended by cloture leading to passage of the Civil Rights Act.  So, what led to this change?

5. The Campaign in Congress  How did the assassination of JFK help the civil rights movement?  How did the 1964 elections bring change?  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 & the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were landmark laws. Why were these so significant?  Discuss each.

6. What REALLY led to integration?  Futile resistance  Disruption of economy & government  Enfranchisement of blacks  Unsuccessful legal challenges  Withholding federal funds  Public opinion changed Is the battle over for civil rights? How have police tactics fueled debates over race?

7. Affirmative Action Solution  Define it!  What are the two views of the practice?  Compensatory action (helping minorities catch up) vs. preferential treatment (giving minorities preference, applying quotas)  Which does the public support & why?  So, how do you achieve and measure equality? Equality of Results versus Equality of Opportunity

8. Equality of Results  What does this mean?  Racism & sexism can be overcome only by taking them into account in designing remedies  How does society achieve these results?  Affirmative action― preferential hiring practices― should be used in hiring  What are the goals?  Diversity or multiculturalism  Remedy to level the playing field for past discrimination

9. Equality of Opportunity  What does this mean?  Reverse discrimination occurs when race or sex is used as a basis for preferential treatment.  How does society prevent this problem?  Laws should be color blind and sex neutral  What are the goals?  Government should only eliminate barriers  The most qualified and demanded applicants are hired.

10. Court Battles  No clear direction in Court decisions.  Court is deeply divided & affected by ideology. Results are conflicting & confusing. a) Bakke (1978): numerical minority quotas are not permissible, but race could be considered b) Court upheld federal rule that set aside 10% of all federal construction contracts for minority-owned firms (1980) c) In 1989, Court overturned Virginia law that set aside 30% of construction contracts for minority firms d) In 1990, Court upheld federal rule that gave preference to minority-owned firms in awarding broadcast licenses

11. Meaning of Standards for Quotas  Quota system subjected to strict scrutiny— must be compelling state interest to justify quotas: Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)  Must correct an actual pattern of discrimination  Must identify actual practices that discriminate  Voluntary preference systems may be easier to justify

12. More Court Battles!  Recent examples: Discuss using CT packet Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)―overturned UMI admissions policy giving “bonus points” to racial minority applicants for undergraduate program Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld UMI Law School admissions policy that used race as a “plus factor” but not as part of a numerical quota Fisher v. University of TX (2012)—Watch clipWatch clip