# data[].attributes.body
Question #4
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 fought discrimination by stopping legal barriers such as literacy tests that prevented blacks from voting. Majority-minority districts were created to prevent the diluting of votes of a certain race.

# data[].attributes.headline
Juli Krause, Amanda Carballo, Sophia Montalban 

# data[].attributes.subject
Juli Krause, Amanda Carballo, Sophia Montalban 

# data[].attributes.body
Question #2
The racial restrictive covenant was a legally enforceable contract imposed on the buyer of a property. They are enforceable on the future buyers of the property. These covenants prohibited African Americans from buying property. It gave white property owners a false sense of honor and dignity and made them feel as if they were above the African Americans because they were the only ones to purchase property. Segregation furthered discrimination because segregation allowed everyday aspects of life to be unequal for African Americans. It was ruled that separate but equal was acceptable but things were not equal for white people and African Americans. After the series of amendments were passed to attempt to give African Americans the same rights as white Americans a series of laws called Jim Crow laws that were intended to restricting blacks rights. The Black Codes denied freed slaves the right to vote, to possess any form of weapon, and to leave a job and move elsewhere. They were considered servants now instead of slaves

# data[].attributes.body
2) Segregation + Jim Crow Laws + racial restrictive covenant

• Segregation allowed for blacks and whites to be treated separately but equally which meant that as long as both were given the accommodations, it didn’t matter if one was in better condition than the other.

• The Jim Crow Laws normalized discrimination to blacks because it legalized and promoted to discriminate.

• The racial restrictive covenant prevents blacks from living in white neighbors which promoted segregation and discrimination

# data[].attributes.body
Question #6
The Fair Hosuing Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination on a sale or rental of housing based on color, race, religion, sex or national origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of1989 expanded the previous fair housing act to stop discrimination based on disability or familial status and also allowed HUD attorneys to take action in court for victims. This helped stop segregation because it allowed for black to move into better neighborhoods where whites would usually live. There was obviously opposition by whites for blacks to move into their neighborhoods so this change was gradual not immediate. However, these acts made landlords allow blacks to rent or buy their property.

# data[].attributes.body
How did Title IX fight discrimination?

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

The objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX has fought against discrimination in 10 key areas: access to higher education, athletics, career education, education for pregnant and parenting students, employment, learning environment, math and science, sexual harassment, standardized testing, and technology. Since Title IX it passed in 1972 by Richard Nixon, it has been the subject of over 20 proposed amendments, reviews, Supreme Court cases and other political actions. Under Title IX, schools are legally required to respond and remedy hostile educational environments and failure to do so is a violation that means a school could risk losing its federal funding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elisa Herrera, Gabriela Carballo, and Adriana Duran 

# data[].attributes.subject
Elisa Herrera, Gabriela Carballo, and Adriana Duran 

# data[].attributes.body
Questions #3:
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a case that combined four similar cases in which African American children were denied admittance into certain public schools because of segregation in schools. The plaintiffs presented the argument that such segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to the evidence of better facilities in white schools. In district courts, the case was decided on the precedent of “separate but equal” from Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court of Delaware then ruled that African American students had to be admitted to white public schools because of the quality of the facilities. However, the constitutional question remained: Does the segregation of public education based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause? The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously decided that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to this ruling, the Court recognized that the public education segregation instilled a sense of inferiority that heavily impacted the education and personal growth of black children. The decision of this case helped fight discrimination because of the fact that the case allowed for black students to pursue the same opportunities of white students and in turn caused a drastic change in the way children grew up–amongst equal standards of education in the same schools. It downgraded the importance of “separate but equal” and put emphasis on the fact that society was separate but not equal.

# data[].attributes.body
How did the Americans with Disabilities Act fight discrimination?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, prohibits discrimination based on disability in employment, transportation, public accommodations, communications, and government programs. The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities. The main purpose of this act was to fight discrimination against the physically and mentally disabled, especially in the workplace.

# data[].attributes.body
Question #2

Segregation + Jim Crow Laws + racial restrictive covenants- Segregation, or the separation of black people and white people, furthered discrimination because it became another way for white people to discriminate against black people. The problem with segregation was the doctrine “separate but equal.” Whites used this dosctrine of separate but equal to justify their unjust treatment of African Americans, who got the lesser schools, water fountains, bathrooms, motels, etc. It did not open a door to equality between the races but rather found a way to keep the old ways of racism alive. Jim Crow was a fictional character of a lazy black man depicted by a white man in black face. These laws, named after this character, were laws that enforced racial segregation in the South. They were a means of segregating public facilities, such as schools, bathrooms, and motels. These laws created disadvantages for African Americans in society, economically, educationally, and socially. Racial restrictive covenants were essentially a way to prevent black people from moving into white neighborhoods. The purpose of these covenants was to prohibit a buyer of property from reselling, leasing, or transferring the property to members of a given race, ethnic origin, or religion as specified in the title deed. White neighborhoods would create these covenants to prevent African Americans from moving into their neighborhoods, which created further separation between the two races during the era of reconstruction. 10 white communities were even rewarded for their work with covenenants, because it was seen as an honorable way to keep the “wrong kind of people out.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Melissa Peña, Gianna Russi, Lauren Simpson 

# data[].attributes.subject
Melissa Peña, Gianna Russi, Lauren Simpson 

# data[].attributes.body
Question #5

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

In the 60’s there was a debate on a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits? In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241), popularly known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. It was clear that although the 14th amendment has already been passed, the law was not being enforced as discrimination continued to happen everywhere. Like the 14th amendment, the Civil rights law did not immediately go into effect but took time for people to stand up against injustices and use the law in lawsuits and actually begin to win. This was a small step in the big battle to end discrimination.

Title II & Title VII

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments.

Heart of Atlanta v. U.S.

This case addressed the consitutional question, “Does the federal government have the power to outlaw the racial discrimination of private businesses?”

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could regulate interstate commerce within a state in order to eliminate discrimination. This case outlawed racial discrimination in public accommodations and was a major step toward racial equality and the desired symbolic freedom and enjoyment that African Americans would be able to enjoy as free American citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 7: Affirmative Action, Class action suits, University of California Regents v. Bakke, Grutter v. Bollinger, Gratz v. Bollinger
Affirmative Action- first made reference to in Executive Order by JFK which creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias; affirmative action was unfair if it led to reverse discrimination; Affirmative action programs seek to create special employment opportunities for minorities, women, and other victims of discrimination

Class Action Suit- A law suit filed on behalf of a group of people, and whose result affects that group of people as a whole. Interest groups such as the NAACP often use these as a means of asserting their influence over policies; civil court procedure under which one party, or a group of parties, may sue as representatives of a larger class. To proceed, the court must permit the class action. If the class action is certified, members of the class must be given notice, and the opportunity to exclude themselves from the proceeding. Only the class members who opt out are not bound by the judgment in the case.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke- Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action programs could not use quotas to meet civil rights goals; however, it did say that gender and race could be considered among other factors by schools and businesses practicing affirmative action;; imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. The Supreme Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of such inflexible quotas as the medical school had set aside was not.

Gratz v. Bollinger- university's argument was as follows: just as preference is granted to children of alumni, scholarship athletes, and others groups for reasons deemed beneficial to the university, so too does the affirmative action program serve "a compelling interest" by providing educational benefits derived from a diverse student body; The Court held that the OUA’s policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of “underrepresented minority” status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous jurisprudence on the issue.

Grutter v. Bollinger- Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse 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."

# data[].attributes.body
#6 Fair Housing Acts and Amendments 1966 and 1968

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It was later amended in 1988 by the Fair Housing Amendments Act. This expanded the act to prohibit discrimination based on disability or on familial status, established new administrative enforcement procedures with HUD attorneys representing victims of housing discrimination, and revised and expanded Justice Department jurisdiction to bring suit on behalf of victims in Federal district courts.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 8

Title I X

• “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation  in, be denied the befits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

• Schools are required by law to “respond and remedy hostile educational environments”

• If they don’t, the school could lose federal funding.

• Schools must have a notice of nondiscrimination in their student handbook.

History of Title IX

• Signed into law on June 23, 1972

• Signed into law by Nixon

• Most recent history on April 4, 2011- Department of Education made Title IX apply to all students, including athletes.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 4:

How did each of these fight discrimination?

• Voting Rights Act of 1965

◦ In 1965, president Lyndon B. Johnson singed the Voting Rights Act into law. This law prevented African Americans from being denied the right to exercise their voting privileges granted by the 15th amendment. This law prevented the south from setting barriers making impossible for African Americans to vote. It made illegal literacy tests, poll taxes, and federal oversight of voter registration. This act led to the 24th amendment which made poll taxes unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave legal means to challenge the boundaries implemented by states and improved black voter turnouts. This law prohibited racial discrimination in voting and energized the black community to bring about change on who becomes an elected official.

• Minority-Majority districts

◦ Section II of the Voting Rights Act makes it illegal for government officials to dilute the votes of a minority by manipulating or gerrymandering district lines. The drawing must show a clear concentration of a minority population being polarized by a majority. This section gives legal grounds to the black community to file suit against racial gerrymandering. However, majority-minority districts are not prohibited unless they are drawn to dilute the votes of a race. The prohibition of racial gerrymandering gives weight to each minority vote, making the voice of the black community impactful.