ES189

Discuss how your community service work for this class has shaped, confirmed or changed your view of the school of thought with which you most identify.

the school of thought that I identify with the most at my volunteer location (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant )is the the Critical Legal studies this is the most relevant to the work I did at the sanctuary because in one hand the US is "helping refugee/asylum immigrants from central america" and acting as a good country in the eyes of others. The US pretends to be a country that wants to help those most in need but in the other hand the US has contributed to the displacement and the violence that many of these immigrants try to escape in their home countries. hence, there is a lot of hidden politics in this type of immigration petition the US is trying to help these immigrants while the US contitues to create a lot of the issues in Latin America Overall the school of thought that I have identified the most and see the most prevalent in in societal structure is the critical race theory because the reality and the numbers of many institutions (high incarceration rates of males of color, low numbers of students of color in higher education) show that there are still many racist politics and bias laws that continue to oppress people of color it is not that the system is dysfunctional but rather that the system is working the perfectly fine. those in power since the beginning of the US constitution the laws favored only one group of people. that only way jim-crow laws have change have been in a negative way that they are now not to outfront but rather hidden behind politcs. 2) We discussed that Professor Crenshaw says there are expansive and restrictive interpretations of antidiscrimination laws. The expansive view defines equality as equality of result, and thus embodies a vision calling for substantive redistribution of opportunities that would alleviate the material deprivations of racism. The restrictive view, which seems to be the prevailing ideology, focuses on equality as a formal process with remedies available only against individual offenders. Once colorblind, formally equal processes are in place, law should do no more, under this view. Question: If your view was the expansive view, how exactly would you effectuate this view? https://docs.google.com/a/berkeley.edu/presentation/d/1JABl7FycOWTOP-YRyyFQsARvX5HW1XvK6a5r_rpns4k/edit?usp=sharing "The expansive view stresses equality as a result, and looks to real consequences for [oppressed groups]". "It interprets the objective of antidiscrimination law as the eradication of the substantive conditions of Black subordination and attempts to enlist the institutional power of the courts to further the national goal of eradicating the effects of racial oppression" (Crenshaw, 252) "The restrictive vision, which exists side by side with this expansive view, treats equality as a process, downplaying the significance of actual outcomes " "In sum, the restrictive view seeks to proscribe only certain kinds of subordinating acts, and then only when other interests are not overly burdened" (Crenshaw, 252) K-12 Educational Reform: Funding public schools based on need and based on the number of student serving than based on property taxes (prop 13). This would help decreasing the achievement gap between affluent schools and segregated poor schools. This would also be a stepping stone t0 alleviating poverty rates. Higher Educational Reform: Additionally, if my view was the expansive view, Affirmative Action would be the reform to go about because it would truly bring equality and thus embody a vision calling for substantive redistribution of opportunities that would alleviate the material deprivations of racism.- equal opportunity, upward mobility, decrease mass incarceration rates of people of color.

See the Grutter affirmative action decision. What qualifies someone to attend law school?

"A lot of factors are taken into account to attend law school, a students GPA, LSAT Score as well as their involvement (resume) qualify someone to go to law school."

At one point, the court's defined Arabs as white? What was the process for Arabs to be racialized to be "un-white," if any?

"Arabs might have been considered white at some point but their lived experience is not that of a white person. Legal and social factors have played a role in the "unwhitening" of Arabs, since race is a concept that signifies social conflict through bodies, Arabs are not white because of the racialization of their bodies as enemies."

How and why did ethnic whites suddenly change to just being white? When and how is whiteness learned?

"Ethnic whites changed to being just white by various different factors such as in the fight against fascism and communism, as well as through their upward mobility into the middle class. The increase in "enemy numbers" -slaves, fascist, communists- allowed for the expansion of the term white in order to mitigate the opportunity of danger (slave revolts). Ethnic whites also gained the right to vote, and supported the correct parties to gain political mobility while blacks were losing rights. Whiteness is learned as soon as you begin to engage with it. AS the reading stated, whiteness is so easily and quickly learned because it is so apparent in mainstream society. Race relations in the US allow whiteness to be learned because it is essentially the standard to be learnt. The analogy of white immigrants stepping off a boat knowing the word ****** exemplifies the ways in which whiteness is learned as soon as you interact with it. The word is learnt because of the dichotomy of white and black (racial divisions)."

The materials describe a belief that African Americans cause property values to decline, and that this belief has crosses racial lines, even among African Americans. Do you agree or disagree? If this is a real belief, how do you remedy this racist belief? (LH)

"I agree that this is the case because the belief itself causes the property values to go down. It is not that African Americans cause property values to go down but because people believe that they do, property values go down."

Do you agree with the Plyer court that denying education to undocumented children is an equal protection violation?

"I would agree because it is narrowly tailored to students that have no control over their specific status since they were brought by their parent, as well as since denying these students an education could create an illiterate group of people that would be under the US (which is not in the best interest of the state). (Intermediate scrutiny)"

Brown v. Board of Education is considered a landmark decision. Does housing and education segregation exist, and if so, why? What effect does such segregation have on society, and what should be the role of the law and the courts to remedy this segregation?

"It does exist, and it clusters a group of people together to further diminish their access to resources that will give them political, economic and social mobility. Law should create policy and programs that integrate neighborhoods as well as stop the current segregation of schools and neighborhoods."

Do you believe that race and crime are tightly linked in the American mind?

"No, I think that in the "American" mind, we live in a post-racial society where race and crime are not connected"

What does Professor Alexander mean when she says the criminal justice system constitutes the new Jim Crow?

"Professor Alexander means that the criminal justice system is a new system to oppress blacks because they are essentially funneled into prisons because of their criminalization as well as because crime has been racialized."

What is the significance of public schools for democracy?

"Public schools educates students and essentially trains them so that they can actively participate in democracy."

How does educational and neighborhood segregation affect the goals of legal organizations and how they provide services?

"Segregation affects the goals of legal organizations and how they provide their services because the services have to be tailored to the specific group that is being segregated and services don't really flourish because they are busy trying to continually fight a system that further criminalizes people of color. The amount of funding and revenue generated might also be affected by segregation."

If education is so important and that principle was central to the Brown decision, why did the Rodriguez court decline to hold that education is a fundamental right?

"They argued that the defendants could not prove that it is a fundamental right; this is because it is not explicitly stated in the constitution nor did they argue that the students deserve some kind of education or that this education is lacking. They had to apply strict scrutiny since it isn't in the constitution and there was a lot of similarities between Texas' and other school districts."

What is white privilege? Is there such a thing as black or brown privilege?

"White privilege is a system of informal exchanges, courtesies, favors and benefits that whites receive solely because of their race (white). There isn't any black and brown privilege but I'm guessing people might have this notion of brown privilege because they believe you get benefits because you're brown (scholarships, affirmative action) but those are responses to a system as opposed to a system itself, which shapes the social environment to a specific group."

Standardized testing remains the touchstone in measuring intelligence. Is there a relationship between such testing and race? 11) What role should schools play in discussing race? "Schools should be instrumental discussion space for race because they are suppose to be accessible to all and because schools should provide an accurate account of history and other materials that are extremely associated with race." 12) Why were certain Ethnic Studies classes outlawed by the State of Arizona? In what context did this occur? Ethnic Studies classes were banned because they were deemed as teaching anti-American sentiment because they focused on a specific group and might cause resentment to a specific group of people.

"Yes, there is an implicit biase in testing towards a specific group of people because facts might be directed towards that specific group of people (Carl Campbell Test - uses bias that would give points to anglo students because facts are associated with the culture"

Author Martha Mahoney states: "The lived experience of people in a segregated society links the perceived natural quality of the world we inhabit with its racialized characteristics—giving the social construction of race a quality that seems both natural and inevitable. Segregation therefore reflects and reinforces socially created concepts of blackness and whiteness." What does this mean, and what evidence exists to support such a statement?

-Race is is a social construction, not "a natural dicision of humankind." - The construction of race in America today allows whiteness to remain a dominant background norm, associated with positive qualities for white people, and it allows unemployment and underemplyment to seem like natural features of black communities. - The appearance that this is "the way things are" in turn tends to make prevailing patterns of race, ethnicity, power, and the distribution of privilege appeat as feautures of the natural world. EXAMPLE: When we see White people only living in the Suburbs→ we see it as a natural thing. When we see Latinos and Blacks living in Urban areas-->we see it as a natural thing. If there were Blacks living in the Suburbs we would be "naturally shocked."

The legal system defined and protected racial hierarchy, and racialized access to wealth and property for centuries. African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and certain Asian American ethnic groups have less wealth and property than their White counterparts. Can the legal system remedy this and make it right? If you absolutely had to come up with a remedy for economic disparity as a result of discriminatory practices and law, what would it be?

Because of exclusionary property laws, land conquests, and redlining, white Americans have had a long history of being able to accumulate wealth and property. There are ways the legal system could make this right. There could be the passage of laws to subsidize people of color buying homes and property in neighborhoods with good schools, access to food, etc. In addition to subsidies, there could be low or no interest rates so that people could pay off their homes in their lifetimes. That home would always be in the family, and if they were to sell it, they would have much more money than they started off with. As there are equal opportunity employers, real estate agencies could be incentivized to be equal opportunity housers in better neighborhoods. The legal system could also increase the estate tax, and more heavily tax the wealthy to redistribute wealth to education and affordable housing options in the short term. The government could also sponsor education programs on the best ways to incur wealth, and subsidize families of color who chose to buy instead of rent homes.

Neoconservative:

Emphasizes formal color-blindness, i.e. a 'non-recognition of race' since the law is neutral and objective. Civil rights justice has been achieved and any remaining inequality is the result of natural group competition, cultural deficiencies, or lack of individual motivation--not discrimination. Law no longer discriminates on basis of race, therefore it is irrelevant in analysis of disadvantage. For example, in context of the criminal justice system and education, there is no evidence of systematic racial bias Minorities are overrepresented in prisons b/c of criminal pathologies and underrepresented in colleges b/c, unlike Asians, for example, they are not intellectually inclined and hard-working Neoconservative School of Thought is also best represented by the "Model Minority Myth" (notion that some minorities have pulled themselves up and succeeded beyond other groups due to will power and ambition)

What is the role for Whites in the struggle for equality? Is the idea of the white race traitor tenable?

I believe that the role of whites is to act as allies, spread the message of equality to spaces that aren't accessible to people of color but at the same time, not speak on behalf of people of color struggles or act as by being an ally you understand them (you can't claim bodily or lived experience). The idea of a white race traitor might be tenable but in reality, you can't be a traitor because you can't denounce whiteness, regardless of whether you accept it or not, you will still continue to reap the benefits of being white.

What is your definition of being white? What was the court's definition in the cases here?

In re Ah Yup The Caucasian, or white race, to which belong the greater part of the European nations and those of Western Asia In re Najour "Free white person" refers to race, rather than to color, and fair or dark complexion should not be allowed to control, provided the person seeking naturalization comes within the classification of the white or Caucasian race, and the Syrians as belonging to what we recognize, and what the world recognizes as the white race. Ex parte Shahid "Free white person" would mean all persons belonging to the European races, then commonly counted as white, and their descendants. 2) What is the social and legal construction of "whiteness"? <legal construction> George v Martinez In light of the privileged status of whiteness, it is instructive to examine how legal actors - courts and others - constructed the race of Mexican Americans. The court held that a "Mexican" should not necessarily be found to be a white person. In re Rodriguez The court held that Mexicans would probably be considered non-white from an anthropological perspective but because of certain treaties with Mexico expressly allowing Mexicans to become citizens of the US. Thus, the racial categories can be constructed through the political process. → Other 3 cases in #1 are also legal construction <social construction> Social construction is how society groups people and how it privileges certain groups over others. How Irish, Italians and Jewish people were examples of immigrants who suddenly became whites is a good example of a social construction of whiteness. Many new immigrants learned to deploy and manipulate white supremacist images associating themselves as "their own kind," and differentiating themselves from other nonwhite working people based on common oppression.

What is the issue, analysis, and holding of People ex rel. Joan R. Gallo v. Acuna, and the reasoning of the dissent in the same case? With which view do you agree with, and why?

Issue: Is it legal to put curfews and rules on what someone wears in a city? Is this unconstitutional? Rules: 1st Amendment of the Constitution 5th Amendment Analysis: (Credit to Amy) Courts fine Injunction Provision A and K as okay. Provision (a): defendants may not physically associate in public with other known KMR members. Provision (k): defendants are forbidden from "confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking, assaulting, and/or battering any resident, patrons or visitors to Flemingsville who are known to have complained about gang related activities. The community's right to security must be reconciled with the individual's right to expressive and associative freedom. Referencing Montesquieu, Locke, and Madison, the court argues that there is an unsaid compact to which society members agree to: "By entering society, individuals give up the unrestrained right to act as they think fit; in return, each has a positive right to society's protection." The Supreme Court disagrees that the injunction is a violation of the First Amendment, arguing that the First Amendment does not protect the gang's collective public activities that are focused on drug trafficking, and intimidation and violence of the community they are terrorizing. The Supreme Court then shuts down the Court of Appeal's argument that the language in the provision ("confront," "annoy," "harass," etc.) was too vague and poorly defined by bringing up the precedent of the Madsen abortion clinic harassment case, where similar words were upheld against such claims of vagueness. The effect of the provision's ban on the defendants' speech is minimal, especially considering that the gangs seem to have no constitutionally protected goals within the community of Rocksprings. There was sufficient evidence before the superior court to deem the gang's presence in Rocksprings as a public nuisance. Dissent: The court held that the injunctions were primarily invalid except for maybe a few aspects. The judge's dissent warned that the ruling would have been dangerous for Latinx youth in the future who are not associated with gangs at all but will become targets of police for being outside at late hours. Ultimately, it also criminalizes bodies without evidence and creates a tyrannical city government.

What is the issue, analysis and holding in McClesky v. Kemp, and the reasoning of the dissent in the same case? With which view do you agree, and why?

Issue: Is the Georgia capital sentencing process administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Analysis:The court reasoned that proof of intent to discriminate is necessary in order to challenge racial disparities of the criminal justice system. The capital sentencing decision and the statistics relating to that decision are different from the elements related to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Baldus study is not sufficient evidence to prove the decision makers acted with a discriminatory purpose or violates the 8th Amendment. There is no evidence showing the Georgia Legislature set in place a capital punishment for a racially discriminatory purpose. The study does not prove that there is racial bias in capital sentencing punishments. Punishment for crimes are not determined by the courts, but by the legislature. Therefore, the petitioner's claims are best presented to the legislature. The court can only determine whether the law was applied constitutionally. In this case, the law was properly applied. Holding: The court rejected McClesky's constitutional claims and denied his petition for habeas corpus relief because the Baldus study does not prove in his specific case that the administration of the Georgia capital punishment system violates the equal protection clause under the 8th Amendment. Dissent: The dissenters claimed that race would play a prominent role in determining whether McClesky would live or die. Defendants charged with killing white victims in Georgia are 4.3 times as likely to be sentenced to death as defendants charged with killing blacks. Blacks who kill whites are are sentenced to death 22 times the rate of blacks who kill blacks. Out of the 7 executions that have taken place in Georgia, all were convicted of killing whites and 6 of them were black. Georgia has a legacy of racial discrimination in both the courts and the criminal justice system, indicating that the defendant's race influences criminal proceedings. Historically, Blacks were given the death penalty with greater frequency than whites. Therefore, racial prejudice takes from subtler forms.

Is it possible to be part of the white race, without risking lapsing into white supremacy?

It is not possible because solely by existing as a white individual you are lapsing into white supremacy because you are benefitting from privileges that weren't earned.

Critical Legal Studies:

Like liberals, they share the goal of eradicating inequality but they question the supposed neutrality/objectivity of the law. Drawing on Realists, they argue that traditional scientific methods of legal reasoning do not necessarily produce determinate or objective outcomes. Rather, cultural/political factors provide better explanations since the law is largely a function of "hidden politics" and discretion. I.e. legal decision-making serves the interests of those in power, legitimized under the guise of neutrality. Examples include the Scott (1857) and Plessy (1896) decisions, Alien Land Law (1913), and Japanese Internment, the Violation of the Burlingame treaty by the SCOTUS and by the Chinese Exclusion Act - I would say that it simply perpetuates the interests of those in power. basically under CLS the law becomes a tool to legitimize what ever the interests of those in power is. It could be economic but it also could be something else....like to look good to the rest of the world etc.... - All CLS is saying is that the law is a tool that those in power use to legitimize their interests....aka to make what they want legal

Racial minorities are not only underrepresented in higher education but are also overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Define the neo-conservative view of race and law, and a neo-conservative's explanation for this phenomena. Define a critical race theorist's view of race and law, and how critical race theory might explain the same phenomena.

Neoconservatives ignores race is the process of making laws. Neoconservatives ascribe to colorblindness and argue that the law is objective and neutral. Law does not discriminate based on race. Neoconservatives believe equality has been achieved and inequality today is attributed to natural group competition, cultural deficiencies and lack of individual motivation. Underrepresentation in higher education and overrepresentation in prisons are not due to discrimination. Those who are in prisons have criminal pathologies and are naturally inclined to committing crimes. Representation in higher education is the result of a fair merit based system (meritocracy) that is non discriminatory. A neoconservative would say those who are admitted to higher institutions are the most qualified and hardworking. Neoconservatives would argue that Asian Americans are a "model minority" who have an adequate representation in higher education because they are hard working. If Asian Americans can achieve this success, then other minorities can too. CRT reject CLS and the neoconservative views, arguing that colorblindness has perpetuated racism. Critical race theorists recenter the significance of race and take into account historical race (historical subordination of a minority group) in their view of race and law. CRT theorists argue that connecting race with law and social structure is necessary in addressing systemic and institutionalized racism. Minority groups have historically been subject to exclusion and marginalization. Racism is embedded in existing power structures based on white supremacy and white privilege. CRT theorists recognizes the intersections of multiple oppressions that marginalize people of color. Laws are constructed that disadvantage and discriminate against people of color. Men of color are disproportionately affected by the school to prison pipeline, which bars them from opportunities to higher education. Poverty, zero tolerance policies in schools, residential segregation, lack of resources and funding for K-12 education, over criminalization in both the classroom and their neighborhoods are all factors that funnel black and brown communities out of the public school system and into the juvenal and criminal justice systems.

One of the main avenues to wealth in the U.S. is through schools and education. Without affirmative action, the disproportionately low number of minorities in higher education will drop further. Prof. Charles Lawrence says that the dismantling of affirmative action is segregation. He states the purpose and meaning of this attack on affirmative action is the same as the Jim Crow laws. What does Prof. Lawrence mean by saying that opposing affirmative action is to be a segregationist? Do you agree or disagree, and why?

Opposing affirmative action is the same as being a segregationist, according to Prof. Lawrence, because it declares that like Pless V. Fergusen, "separate is equal," and that everyone starts of in an equal playing field when it comes to education and therefore, affirmative action should not step into place in order to increase the numbers of minority students. In other words, opposiing affirmative action is the same as being a segregationist because those who oppose affirmative action are refusing to acknowledge the systemic inequalities that most people of color live in which makes equal access to educational resources more difficult to obtain. The attack is the same as the Jim Crow Laws because once given freedom and rights, many blacks had temporary access to land and opportunities of wealth, however, as soon as the Jim Crow Laws became enacted, whatever progress of help was being made, was taken back which is the same parallel that has happened with the ban on affirmative action- when in place, it gave many opportunities for students of color to do well but with the ban, the numbers of students of color doing well has slowly gone back to the numbers it had before affirmative action was in play.

Critical Race Theory:

Sharply challenges both the liberal and CLS paradigms as inadequate in addressing systematic and institutionalized oppression. Disagrees with CLS disparaging of legal rights. It re-centers the significance of race—viewing it as social construction process that both structures and reflects reality It therefore takes into account "historical race" of particular minority groups, e.g. the 'forever foreign' image of Asian Americans, lazy Mexicans, savage Indians, criminal Blacks, etc. This contrasts with the "formal race" view adopted by the majority of the Supreme Court, i.e. the view that race only reveals skin color/descent and is unconnected to social context, history, culture, disadvantage, language, family structure, etc. An example would be the view that asian americans are viewed the same as white americans. CRT would challenge this view by claiming that asian americans are still seen as foreigners regardless of how long their ancestry in america is; without taking this viewpoint one would be ignorant to the fact that there are inherent inequalities and discrimination because of this.

Schools and neighborhoods across the US are still largely segregated today. Should this be remedied, and what remedy would you propose? Can constitutional doctrine by itself remedy this?

This should be remedied; however, such a solution is both difficult and tricky to find. Direct remedies would be nearly impossible, since school districts are based on neighborhood lines - which makes sense because of property tax money - and it would be too chaotic to let students from outside the district into that school, because where would the limit be set? What if everyone in a city wanted to go to the best school in town? There is an obvious limitation to that, which is population capacity of a school. There are two possible solutions I see: 1. Increase the quality of the education system by creating better, more motivated educators - This is crucial in low-income/at-risk school districts. Often, teachers are these schools are paid the least and have little incentive to provide the students with a quality education. By creating higher standards for teachers and making it a more desirable profession, it is possible to create a better public education system, especially for disadvantaged neighborhoods. This could lead to more students going to college, getting better jobs, and thus having a bigger financial and opportunity flow within the community. 2. Increased government focus on fixing the wealth gap, increasing minimum wage, and moving towards the goal of equal opportunities for everyone. If the government could decrease poverty rates, at-risk communities would have more energy to focus on education and career advancement to increase their opportunities, thereby becoming more financially stable and successful. This would mean greater purchasing power, which would increase new home construction and/or renovation -> increase property values -> increase city property tax incomes -> increase public school funding and quality. This would then decrease the wealth (and thus opportunity) gap, making society more financially homogenous and thus encouraging neighborhood integration. Conclusion: NO, constitution doctrine itself cannot remedy these issues, as they would not fix the growing wealth disparity or levels of unemployment and poverty. The solution must come from drastic policy changes to truly help low-income communities, which are disproportionately made up of minorities, gain better opportunities that would increase their socioeconomic situation.

What has been the evolution of segregation in schools? Consider both de facto and de jure segregation. What are the holdings of Brown v. Board of Education, Sweatt v. Painter, Tucker v. Blease, Grutter v. Bollinger, Westminister v. Mendez and any additional segregation cases that may be applicable.

Tucker v Blease (1914): The action of the board was "neither capricious nor arbitrary" because they were willing to provide equal accommodations (that action being the removal of children of mixed ancestry, but with white skin, from a public school in South Carolina.) Because most of the white patrons would refuse to send their children to Dalcho, the trustees only acted for the good of the school and for the children who would not have been sent to a mixed school. Therefore, the petition, which attempted to establish the removal of the children from the school as illegal, was dismissed. The law is regarded as race-less in its regard to peoples, but there is a social element that arises out of racial instincts. In society, the status of the individual is not in relation to race, but rather to the reputation, by their reception into society, and by having a commonly exercised privileges as a white man (In other words, although these children had light skin, their association, interaction, and assimilation into black society defines them as "non-white," and, therefore, black.) In the face of the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the court cannot force integration between these socially perceived, different classes. If society is to separate in accordance to common regarded differences, the law does not inhibit this. In a testimony given by the majority of the children's parents, they would refuse to send their children to school. And so, the court cannot inhibit the rights of the many for a few whose separation from the majority would be separate, but equal in all aspects. - "The law recognizes racial instinct." In short, the races are different and shouldn't be forced to mix; people perceive themselves as separate and therefore should remain separate. This relates to the entrenched social construct of race; That is to say that the belief that racial differences are "natural" further enforced racism. Westminster v Mendez (1946): Restrained further discriminatory practices against pupils of Mexican descent in the specified school districts **in California.** Separating English-speaking pupils and Spanish-speaking pupils was said to be detrimental to assimilation. It made arguments not against a raceless construction of separate spaces that were equal, but rather the de facto differences that were inherent to separation itself. Beginning the reasoning for Brown (intersectionality) and the arguments of seeing the effects of segregation. Also, the law segregating in California was meant for Asians, not Latinos. Shelley v Kraemer (1948) : It is unconstitutional for a state to enforce a racially-restrictive covenant. Sweatt v Painter (1950): Legal education equivalent to that offered by the state must be offered to students of other races, and such is not available in a separate law school offered by the state. The court cannot agree with Plessy v Ferguson in this case. Thus, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the petitioner (a black law student) be admitted to the University of Texas Law School. the separate school failed to qualify, both because of quantitative differences in facilities such as accreditation and intangible factors, such as its isolation from most of the future lawyers with whom its graduates would interact. The court held that, when considering graduate education, intangibles must be considered as part of "substantive equality." -*Student admitted to the University of Texas Law school Brown v Board (1954): Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal (because law-sanctioned segregation creates a feeling of inferiority which affects the motivation of a child to learn).Thus, such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. -14th Amendment Milliken v Bradley (1974): School districts were not obligated to desegregate unless it could be proven that lines were drawn with racist intent (In other words, public schools need not attempt to enforce policies of desegregation unless they engaged actively in segregation in the first place.) Arbitrary lines which produced segregated districts could not be challenged. This case made a distinction between de facto and de jure segregation, with de facto segregation being allowed. This law makes de facto segregation allowed by the state. Regents of the University of California v Bakke (1978): 16 / 100 seats at UC Davis Medical School set aside for underrepresented groups (blacks, latinos, Indians, etc) -Quota system ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL (cannot set aside spaces/have different admissions processes for people of different backgrounds) - Race can be taken into account (a "plus" for acceptance) because of compelling state interest to increase diversity of student body/professional fields Grutter v Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity, thus the use of race in admissions decisions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. (Upheld the affirmative action policies of the school). This law makes de facto segregation something the state has a compelling interest in defeating. Affirmative action is a policy to correct de facto segregation. Soon to be struck down (within 25 years race-based admission policies will be abolished). Also, note that this law uses strict scrutiny to allow the curtailing of a constitutional right. Also important: Proposition 209 aka The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) This proposition, passed by Californians in 1996 by a 54% majority, banned considerations of race, ethnicity, or sex in the public sphere (employment, contracting, or education), ending affirmative action in the state of California. Later hearings by the state supreme court have upheld the constitutionality of this law. NOTE: California, an economically and politically influential state with a diverse population, often changes US legislative paradigms. After the passage of Proposition 209, other states in the union propelled similar measures into law, such as Initiative 200 in Washington (1998) or Proposal 2 in Michigan (2006), both of which prohibited "racial preferences" in determining admissions for public education or public employment.

Liberal:

Views the law as an objective, rational process of precise decision-making and politics as a realm of imprecise, often irrational opinions and competing interests. (In other words, congress is political but judges are rational and objective) Recognizes that racial justice has not been achieved yet (and thus remedies for discrimination are still necessary), but we are nonetheless moving towards the ideal of "color-blindness". Racism is an anomaly, i.e. an intentional and irrational deviation from otherwise neutral power distributions. intentional as in racism, as understood by liberals, refers to something deliberate, conscious, and/or individual. Liberals reject the idea of structural racism and white privilege. essentially, they view racism as something that is now largely obsolete, as evident by the fact overt forms of racism are rare. To put this another way, racism is an individual explict act, not an institutional problem Believes that racism and racial injustice/inequality can be remedied using race-neutral laws (examples of laws under this school of thought are civil rights? act of 1964, reconstruction amendments) - the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, 14th Amendment all these fall under this school of thought. Here a law's neutrality is seen as the tool for remedying injustice.

What did author Lawrence Bobo mean when he said residential segregation is the linch-pin of racial inequality? Do you agree or disagree, and why?

a. Division of labor created poverty disparities i. Schools and job (concentrated poverty) was reinforced by residential segregation 1. Ex: Oakland v. Piedmont (school district are great housing values) b. yes, in the way these factors are all inter-connected which is reinforced by segregation • Federal housing authority p. 728 o Home owners loan corporation inititated in "redlining" Ranked, Supported home owners, Legally reinforces segregation c. Ex: Shelly v. Kramer d. CRT (race formation is a historical process) • According to Lawrence Bobo, racial segregation represents the denied or diminished opportunity in education, employment, and other social services. Racial segregation can be seen as the "New Jim Crow" in the sense that it continues the historical discrimination against the marginalized communities, especially the Black community. The concentration of blacks in largely black urban neighborhoods limits their acquisition of financial capital, narrows employment opportunities, which maintains the Jim Crow system of public schools, and may diminish the political power of African Americans by concentrating them into largely black districts. • Racial segregation both produces and reinforces socially created concepts of black inferiority and white superiority. The "Black neighborhood" was increasingly linked with "inner city" and with "unemployed or unemployable," while whiteness was identified with "employed or employable" • The core problem with racial segregation is that withdrawal of financial resources and infrastructure from the urban areas where Blacks remained and the redirection of these assets to the suburbs into which the white population fled.

Define de facto segregation v. de jure segregation. What evidence is there that racial minorities still face high levels of residential segregation? What is the tipping phenomenon as it relates to residential resegregation?

de facto: institutionalization of racist politics and discriminatory behavior. Although illegal, sets the standard for business + everyday interactions -Viewed as normal, even necessary ("races want to remain with their own") de jure: imposed by law De facto residential segregation is a leftover from the days of de jure segregation mahoney: discretionary power of sellers and agencies to not sell tipping phenomenon: % of minorities goes up in an area, white population moves out and property values go down perception causes this phenomena

Prof. Lawrence also says the following: If we are unwilling to reexamine the measures of merit that replicate white privilege, we must explain our collaboration with segregationists. Respectable white people were responsible for the bombings and lynchings in the South because they could have shut down the KKK but did not do so. Similarly, we are responsible for the crime of resegregation of our schools, and that truth must be told. These truths have been lost amidst the rhetoric of "color blindness" and "racial preferences." Do you agree or disagree, and why?

• Pg 1221 Responses to Racism • Professor Lawrence is claiming denying Affirmative Action is segregationist • Need to speak the TRUTH about how race is still prevalent today; • We need to speak directly to our communities of color to educate them about the histories of inequalities and oppression instead of directing all of our attention to the white men in power • For example we need to educate our African American youth who think they are internally inferior by telling them that the truth is they are NOT but they are raised to think that by societies history of inequalities • Critical Race Theory: acknowledgement of race in todays society compared to the normative denial