Race and rights in contemporary US politics Flashcards
(30 cards)
what is racial equality
the belief all races should be treated the same and not be discriminated against
how have minority rights been advanced
affirmative action
voting rights
representation
what is affirmative action
applied to a programme which is giving members of a previously disadvantaged minority group a head start in eg in higher education
the argument between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity
many civil rights advocates say that minority rights could no be guaranteed by equality of opportunity because its just ‘giving’ rights to people and it more for show
if people want to see the practice of rights then they had to work towards equality of outcome and the only way to do this was to overcome disadvantage by introducing racial advantage
what are ways of racial advantage
- busing
- quotas
- affirmative action
what is busing
movement of school children between racially packed neighbourhoods (white suburbs and black inner cities) to create racially mixed schools
what are quotas
programme where a certain percentage of places eg in higher education are reserved for people who are previously disadvantaged
what did democratic politicians begin to think of affirmative action
they thought you should positively discriminate because black americans have been so disadvantaged over the years in areas such as employment, education and housing which is when they thought of affirmative action programmes
drawbacks of affirmative action
some people thought it was just reverse discrimination eg republicans think affirmative programmes are patronising to minorities and unfair to majorities
they believed that the constitution and both federal and state laws should be ‘colour blind’
gratz v bollinger
sc ruled 6-3 that affirmative action based programmes for undergraduates was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it was too ‘mechanistic’
how? - ALL black and hispanic american applicants were awarded 20 out of the 150 points required for the schools admissions
grutter v bollinger
sc ruled 5-4 that an admissions programme was CONSTITUTIONAL because it used a more ‘individualised’ approach when considering the racial profile of its applicants
what did justice thomas think about grutter v bollinger
didn’t agree because affirmative action and racial diversity programmes ‘do nothing for those too poor or uneducated to participate in elite higher education’ in the first place
regents of the uni of california v bakke 1978
25 before the other cases the sc ruled that racial quotas were not constitutional in university progs BUT it left the door open to race being considered in admissions procedures
fisher v uni of texas
a young white woman had been rejected from a uni and filled for a lawsuit because she said she had been a victim of discrimination because minority race students had been accepted with lower qualifications
the sc said the case should be heard with stricter scrutiny in a federal court because there was possible discrimination
the appeals court heard again and voted in favour of the uni and the woman appealed again to the sc upheld the appeals court decision, supporting the uni’s affirmative action programme
has affirmative action been positive in the usa
yes
helped reverse decades of discrimination and righted numerous wrongs- the previously disadvantaged are now advantaged
in education a diverse student body creates a better learning enviro but promotes racial tolerance
it works - between 1960 and 1995 the %of black people aged 25-29 who graduated uni rose from 5% to 15%
21st century now is 21%
has affirmative action been positive in the usa
no
advantage or preference of one group leads inevitably to disadvantage another group - reverse discrimination eg california v bakke
‘when you deny someone who has earnt it and given it to someone else who hasn’t, it creates anger’- Richter
aff action can be considered condecending to minorities and implies they need a helping hand to succeed which undermines their achievement - divides the black community more
the long struggle to achieve voting rights for black americans
court action
bus boycotts
mass marches lead by MLK
what has happened to voting rights since biden came into power
republican states have considered further state laws to restrict mail in voting
goes against voting rights because a lot of minority voters who are democrat use mail in voting
republicans also think that mail in voting is counted wrong and in the democrats favour
and want to reduce polling station opening hours
how is mail in voting the reducing polling hours discriminative
its discriminative against full time workers or night shift workers - low socioeconomic background
they won’t be able to get to the polling station and vote - people on a lower income are more likely to be democrat SO the republicans want to restrict their vote in their favour
who ran for governer in 2018 and what did they do
stacey abrams
ran for governor of georgia in 2018 and lost because it was against a known republican who was trying to minimise the right to vote
she founded the Fair Fight action which is an org that addresses voter suppression
in 2020 her efforts had massively boosted voter turnout, despite losing herself
the differenc between democratcs and republicans for mail in voting
two parties have funded over 200 lawsuits in 43 states supporting and opposing mail in ballots
- 60% of democrats plan to vote by post (massively effects dem vote)
- 20% of republicans plan to vote by post
shelby county v holder 2013
struck down the preclearance formula as unconsitutional meaning that boundaries could be drawn and not be checked which was against minority rights
what was the preclearance formula
every 10 years districts draw up boundaries and have to hand them in to check that they are fair
voting rights act 1965
prohibits racial discrimination in voting and all citizens have equal access to the right to vote regardless of ethnicity and race
