Term
| What's weird about Brown v. Board of Education? |
|
Definition
| It talks about how segregation hurts hearts and minds, and some footnotes talk about social science research on how it hurts self-worth. It's kind of weird to focus Con law on social science. They could have just based the decision on the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits race discrimination. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| About how to find a remedy to segregation; said all schools must be desegregated with "all deliberate speed." The schools can deliberate, but they need to do so quickly. |
|
|
Term
| What was the real-world impact of Brown II? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1968; The time for "all deliberate speed" was over and segregation needed to end now. |
|
|
Term
| What was the solution to segregation between Brown II and Green v. New Kent County? |
|
Definition
| Students could request to transfer from one school to another, but none did. |
|
|
Term
| Swann v. Charlotte-Necklenburg Board of Education |
|
Definition
| 1971; Busing was an available remedy to solve for de facto segregation. |
|
|
Term
| What's scary about all the desegregation cases? |
|
Definition
| The course was legislating enlightened social policy. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1995; there was a federal guardrail contract that went to a minority-owned company even though a white-pwned company underbid it. The government gave road-building contractors more money if they hired "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" as subcontractors. They had this policy because previous gov. discrimination had made some ethnically-defined communities more disadvantaged. The line was race-based. |
|
|
Term
| What are two tests to determine if discrimination is legal? |
|
Definition
1) Strict scrutiny; CSI/LRM
2) Rational Basis Scrutiny; does the law have a rational relationship to a legitimate government end? |
|
|
Term
| When do you go to strict scrutiny? |
|
Definition
| If race classifications or fundamental rights are involved. |
|
|
Term
| Does affirmative action trigger strict scrutiny? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Grutter v. Bollinger facts |
|
Definition
| 2003; A white girl couldn't get into MI St. Law School because they wanted minorities. The school made race a factor in entrance. |
|
|
Term
| What's the deal with Regents University of CA v. Bakke? |
|
Definition
| MI St. Law school (Grutter v. Bolinger) patterned their aff-ac program on it; a school had race quotas, so a white student that couldn't get in sued. The court split 4-1-4, with 4 anti-aff ac, 4 pro-aff ac, and one pro aff-ac but anti quotas. So Powell (the 1) defined what was constitutional as far as aff-ac was concerned. |
|
|
Term
| Grutter v. Bollinger holding |
|
Definition
| The Court applied strict scrutiny to aff-ac and MI won b/c having more minorities improves law schools by encouraging cross-racial understanding and better class discussion, which is a compelling state interest. The court basically abandoned LRM because the school could have just lowered its admissions standards. But the court deferred to the school (though it's gov-run and, ergo, has no 1st amendment rights). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2003; aff-ac gave minorities 20 bonus points on applications to a MI St. U and the court said that wasn't allowed. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| about sex discrimination; the government action must have a substantial relation to an important government interest |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1996; VMI didn't let women in because of its "adversative training." They had a VA Women's Institute of Leadership as an alternative. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The VWIL wasn't enough. It didn't matter that VMI would have to soften its program to let women in. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1996; an amendment to the CO constitution said sexual orientation couldn't get people special legal protection. Some cities had ordinances that violated this. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The amendment was overturned based on rational basis scrutiny; the amendment wasn't rational because only animosity to the class of gays could have led to this amenement. |
|
|
