1. Affirmative Action Chapter 6, Theme C

2. 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

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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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 Federal preferences are more likely upheld than those by states due to 14 th Amendment’s sec. 5 Voluntary preference systems may be easier to justify than those required by law Remedy must be benign and “narrowly tailored”  Several states (CA & TX) have outlawed AA

7. 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  Most recent cases: Fisher v. University of TX (2012)—Watch clipWatch clip Schuette v. Coalition for Affirmative Action Schuette v. Coalition for Affirmative Action (2013)

8. Reaction to reading and questions:  Using the knowledge from last night’s assignment, assess whether or not affirmative action is still needed today with these questions: Explain how the Supreme Court in your opinion arrived at two different decisions in the Gratz and Grutter cases. Should affirmative action continue? Why or why not? Can preferences ever be justified under the 14 th Amendment’s equal protection clause? Explain your answer.

9. The New Civil Rights Movement: Gay Rights Chapter 6, Theme D

10. Historical Background  Why have states historically been given the right to legislate & regulate homosexual activity?  What type of laws have states passed to regulate this type of behavior?  Results?  Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): Georgia allowed to ban homosexual sexual activity  Right to privacy designed to protect “family, marriage or procreation”

11. Change in the Courts  How did the Supreme Court shift views?  Romer v. Evans (1996): Colorado voters had adopted state constitutional amendment making it illegal to protect persons based on gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation 1. Supreme Court struck down Colorado amendment 2. Colorado amendment violated equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment

12. More Change  How did the Griswold & Roe cases become precedents for Gay Rights?  Lawrence v. Texas (2003): Texas law banned consensual sexual conduct between persons of same sex 1. Supreme Court overturned law 2. Used same language it used in cases above—Implied right to privacy

13. Gay Marriage  Although not mandated federally, same- sex couples can legally marry in 32 states & DC and receive both federal and state-level benefits.  Several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage.  30 states had constitutional restrictions limiting marriage to one woman and one man, but most have been struck down (including NC)  Discuss Hollingsworth v. Texas case.Hollingsworth v. Texas  Discuss U.S. v. Windsor case.U.S. v. Windsor