1. Objective: Students will identify how the US government has attempted to alleviate discrimination in order to evaluate if certain groups need more assistance. Warm Up: 1. Civil Liberties Review: How does procedural due process differ from substantive due process ? Upcoming Assignments: * Unit 5 Presentations = Friday! * Civil Rights Quiz = Tuesday, March 28 th * Unit 5 Unit Work & Exam = Thursday, March 29 th * Supreme court Case Cards & Quiz = April 10 th March 19, 2012

2. Civil Rights 101

3. Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties Civil Rights: (14 th Amendment!) - what the govt. must do to ensure Americans have equal protection and freedom from discrimination - govt. helps people who have history of facing discrimination Civil Liberties: - specifies what the govt. cannot do to Americans

4. A Timeline of the USA ’ s Treatment of People of Color - 1619: First African slaves sold in Virginia - 1838: US govt. forcefully removes 18,000 Cherokee from their land  “ Trail of Tears ” - 1865-1960s: Jim Crow era —Blacks were not being treated equally by state & local governments era —Blacks - 1920: Women get voting rights ( 19 th Amendment )

5. A Timeline of the USA ’ s Treatment of People of Color - 1941-45: Japanese Americans were forced to live in internment camps during WWIIWWII - 1954: Brown v. Board of Education : declares that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional - 1962: Cesar Chavez leads farm workers to bargain for better wagesChavez - 1982: Plyer v. Doe : declares that children of illegal immigrants have a right to free public schooling

6. Civil RightsCivil Rights: Introduction (cont.) Many Civil Rights laws passed since the end of the Civil War— little enforcement Beginning in 1950s, the Supreme Court became the catalyst for Civil Rights progress Warren Court  Brown v. B.O.E

7. Important Sections from the 14 th Amendment (1) “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge (reduce ) the privileges or immunities (protections) of citizens of the United States” (2) “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (3) “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

8. 14 th Amendment Interpretation (1) States can’t make laws that remove protections and rights of Americans (2) States can’t deny people life, liberty, property, and due process (3) States can’t deny people equal protection of the law

9. Affirmative Action

10. When is Liberty Infringement Allowed? * Reviewing the Strict Scrutiny Test - Some forms of discrimination may be lawful…WHOA! - Govt. must prove a “ compelling interest ” exists to discriminate - method must be “ narrowly tailored ”

11. Affirmative Action Definition: policies that give special preferences in educational admissions and employment decisions to groups that have historically faced de jure discrimination  Is it “Reverse Discrimination”?Reverse **Court Cases: – Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978):1978 * racial quota’s = illegal (not narrowly tailored), but race can be a factor in deciding admissions * Govt. has a“compelling interest” to promote racial diversity –University of Michigan cases 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger (involved the U. Michigan Law School) Gratz v. Bollinger (involved the U. Michigan Undergraduate program)U. Michigan Undergraduate

12. The University of Michigan Cases Grutter v. Bollinger : - Law School uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions b/c it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." - Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants." Gratz v. Bollinger : - the automatic distribution of 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant - Chief Justice Rehnquist: "because the University's use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents' asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause."

13. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austinv. Texas * Issue: Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinge r (2003), permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions - Justice Kagan recused herself - Case is on the 2012-13 docket

14. On the test on Friday Bill of rights –Libel v. slander Supreme Court Cases –Plessy v. Ferguson –Brown v. Board –NJ v. TLO –Gitlow v. NY –Palko v. Connecticut –Mapp v. Ohio –Texas v. Johnson –Roe v. Wade –Tinker v. Des Moines –Etc. Incorporation of 14 th amendment Treatment of minorities overtime Affirmative action and related cases Civil War amendments Suffrage amendments Types of segregation Anything from homework chapters or civil rights scavenger hunt!