6 – CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

SWEATT V. PAINTER BACKGROUND In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. State law restricted access to the university to whites, and Sweatt's application was automatically rejected because of his race. When Sweatt asked the state courts to order his admission, the university attempted to provide separate but equal facilities for black law students. DECISION In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be admitted to the university. The Court found that the "law school for Negroes," which was to have opened in 1947, would have been grossly unequal to the University of Texas Law School. The Court argued that the separate school would be inferior in a number of areas, including faculty, course variety, library facilities, legal writing opportunities, and overall prestige. The Court also found that the mere separation from the majority of law students harmed students' abilities to compete in the legal arena. Fourteenth Amendment = Equal Protection Clause

TINKER V. DES MOINES BACKGROUND In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16- year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year’s Day, the planned end of the protest. DESCISION he Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district’s actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference. First Amendment = free speech

WISCONSIN V. YODER BACKGROUND Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. QUESTION Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons? DECISION In a unanimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

WHITE V. REGESTER BACKGROUND In 1970, as required by the Texas Constitution after each national census, the Texas Legislature drew up a reapportionment plan for the Texas House of Representatives but was unable to agree upon a reapportionment plan. Allegedly, the districts currently drawn contained impermissible deviations from population equality and that the plan’s multi-member districts for Dallas and Bexar counties were constitutionally invalid because they diluted the voting strength of racial and ethnic minorities. Mark White (Sec. of State of Texas), was responsible for all the rules concerning election laws. Mr. Regester (African American voter) brought the case, represented minorities who complained that the district lines were drawn in a way that reduced the impact of the votes for minorities. DECISION This case the Supreme Court declared the 1970 reapportionment plan was unconstitutional for discrimination against racial and ethnic groups.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Affirmative Action – Companies and institutions doing business with federal government would actively recruit African Americans with the hope that this would lead to improved social and economic status. Officials later expanded affirmative action to include other minority groups and women. Regents of University of California v. Bakke BACKGROUND Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. DECISION There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

TITLE IX (TITLE 9) Visit Title IX website ( History-Overview.aspx) History-Overview.aspx Read over the history Then read over each area from the “10 Key Areas of Title IX” on the right column the site Looks like this  Pay close attention to the “Before Title IX” and “After Title IX” in each “Key Area”