# data[].attributes.headline
Are School Dress Codes Sexist and Racist?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are School Dress Codes Sexist and Racist?

# data[].attributes.headline
Food Waste: The Hidden Cost of the Food We Throw Out 

# data[].attributes.subject
Food Waste: The Hidden Cost of the Food We Throw Out 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food Waste: The Hidden Cost of the Food We Throw Out I ClimateScience #9

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Free Speech Be Protected, No Matter What? - UpFront

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Free Speech Be Protected, No Matter What? - UpFront

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Free Speech Be Protected, No Matter What? - UpFront

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kwame Alexander: Take a Knee - ESPN Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Newbery Medal winning poet delivers a new piece for The Undefeated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mya Middleton: "Guns have become the voice of America & the government is becoming more negligent"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student walkout Gun control refers to the rules for selling, owning, and using guns. There are federal gun laws that apply to the entire United States. Each state also has its own specific set of laws. Federal and state gun laws are subject to change and are frequently the subject of debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Gun control refers to legislation and regulations that place controls on the ownership of firearms, restrict certain types of firearms, or determine where they may be carried. In the United States, gun control is a highly controversial topic that engenders debate surrounding public safety, state and federal government oversight, and individual rights. Supporters of gun control seek tighter restrictions on the sale and circulation of firearms to decrease the high incidence of gun-related violence and deaths in the United States, while opponents argue they have a constitutional right to own and bear firearms.

Data from 2020 showed there were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States, as reported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Among firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020, about 54 percent were suicides and about 43 percent were homicides. Firearm-related injuries rank in the top five causes of death for United States citizens up to age sixty-four. Assault by firearm accounts for 70 percent of nonfatal firearm-related injuries, while unintentional injury accounts for 20 percent. The vast majority of victims (86 percent) are male.

Many Americans support the right to bear arms but also believe the government has the right to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety. Though there are differences along party lines, a 2022 Gallup poll found that 66 percent of Americans believe gun control laws should be stricter, and 8 percent believe they should be less strict. Gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), aim to prevent new gun control legislation and, if possible, roll back existing legislation. In the late twentieth century, the NRA wielded significant political influence at the national and state levels, especially among conservative politicians. In response, gun control organizations such as Brady, Giffords, and Everytown for Gun Safety have lobbied for legislation that better regulates gun ownership, such as requiring waiting periods, background checks, gun permits, gun safety training, and restrictions on the possession of assault weapons.

Pros and Cons of Banning Assault Weapons

Though many gun rights proponents state that guns are necessary for self-defense and hunting, such activities do not require the efficiency and firepower of automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Assault weapons are known to be capable of injuring and killing large groups of people in mass shootings.

Most Americans support a federal ban on military-style assault weapons. For politicians in many jurisdictions, supporting such legislation would reflect the will of the people.

While the accidental discharge of a firearm always carries the risk of injury, the accidental discharge of an automatic weapon can result in much greater damage.

Banning any type of firearm would be interpreted by some as a violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Because federal law forbids the importation of foreign-made assault weapons, all such weapons sold legally are manufactured domestically, thus helping local economies and encouraging further innovation.

A federal assault weapons ban would have minimal impact on gun deaths, as the majority of gun deaths are self-inflicted and do not involve automatic weapons.

The Second Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms is included as the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights ratified on December 15, 1791. It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The precise meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment have been subjects of frequent debate in the early twenty-first century. At the time it was enacted, each state maintained a militia composed of ordinary citizens who served as part-time soldiers to protect settlers on land contested by Native Americans and defend against any attacks by foreign entities, some of which still held territories later claimed by the United States. In addition, some of the authors of the Second Amendment feared the federal government would use its standing army to force its will on the states and intended to protect the state militias' right to take up arms against the federal government.

Opponents of gun control interpret the Second Amendment as guaranteeing individual citizens a right to keep and bear arms, often with little or no limitations. They assert the amendment protects the rights of the general population because colonial law required every household to possess arms and every white male of military age to be ready for self-defense and military emergencies. Therefore, by guaranteeing arms for the militia, the amendment simultaneously guaranteed arms for every citizen. Opponents of gun control further maintain the term "right of the people" in the Second Amendment holds the same meaning as it does in the First Amendment, which guarantees such individual liberties as the freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

Proponents of gun control debate some of these interpretations and argue that much has changed since the amendment was written. Some gun control supporters argue the amendment was meant to protect only a state's right to arm citizens for the common defense, not private citizens' rights to possess and carry any firearm in any space. They also argue that, according to the amendment, such militias were "well regulated," meaning they were subject to state requirements concerning training, firearms, and periodic military exercises.

Major Legislation and Court Cases in the Twentieth Century

The US Congress has created laws regarding gun regulations and the Supreme Court has ruled on several cases. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was the country's first major federal gun control legislation. The law required the registration of certain firearms, imposed taxes on the sale and manufacture of firearms, and restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk weapons such as machine guns. The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 provided additional regulations, requiring federal licenses for firearm manufacturers and dealers and prohibiting certain people from buying firearms. The Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Miller (1939) upheld the NFA and set a precedent that the right to bear arms applied to citizens in active, controlled state guard or militia units.

The next major piece of federal firearms legislation was the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, passed in the wake of the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The GCA expanded both the NFA and the FFA. The law ended mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition and banned the sale of guns to minors, felons, fugitives from justice, people who use illegal drugs, persons with mental illness, and those dishonorably discharged from the armed forces. The Supreme Court bolstered controls when it upheld New Jersey's strict gun control law in Burton v. Sills (1969) and the federal ban on possession of firearms by felons in Lewis v. United States (1980).

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), however, eased many GCA restrictions. Opponents of gun control lauded FOPA for expanding where firearms could be sold and who could sell them but continued to object to prohibitions on the manufacture and possession of machine guns for civilian use. In 1989 the administration of President George H. W. Bush announced a permanent ban on importing assault rifles. With passage of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (also called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban), Congress banned the manufacture and sale of specific assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 passed as an amendment to the GCA. The Brady Act addressed several key concerns of gun control proponents by requiring a five-day waiting period for all handgun sales, during which a background check would be run on all prospective purchasers. This provision expired in 1998 and was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a database used to verify the eligibility of a buyer to possess a firearm.

Legislation and Court Cases in the Early Twenty-First Century

After several victims and families of victims of gun violence and others sued gun manufacturers and dealers whose weapons were used to commit a crime, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005. The first act limited the liability of gun manufacturers and dealers when their firearms were used in crimes. The second act required anyone licensed to transfer or sell firearms to provide gun storage or safety devices. During his 2020 campaign for president, Democratic candidate Joe Biden supported repeal of the PLCAA.

Congress enacted the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2007. It was meant to improve failures in the NICS system that allowed a shooter to acquire a gun despite a disqualifying mental health status which was not submitted to NICS by the state of Virginia. He killed thirty-two people and himself on a Virginia college campus.

Gun rights proponents have used legislation as well as the federal courts to challenge gun restrictions. The US Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from making it illegal for private individuals to keep loaded handguns in their homes. It was the first Supreme Court decision to explicitly rule that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The decision in McDonald v. Chicago (2009) clarified that state and local authorities cannot prohibit private individuals from keeping loaded handguns in their homes. Both decisions stated that the Second Amendment allows for limits on the types of arms that can be kept and how they are used. Together, the Heller and McDonald decisions have been used as the basis for several city, county, and state bans on assault weapons and specific arms such as the AR-15 rifle.

State and local laws regarding licensing, registration, and possession of firearms vary widely. For instance, in some states a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public is only issued if the applicant demonstrates a need or meets safety and training requirements. In other states a concealed carry permit is guaranteed to any citizen legally allowed to own a weapon. Several courts have used the Heller and McDonald decisions as a basis to allow concealed carry of firearms. As of July 2022, twenty-five states allowed concealed carry without a permit.

The Supreme Court's rulings in Heller and McDonald also provided precedents for its ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen (2022). In its decision, the court deemed a 1911 New York state law that required applicants for concealed handgun permits show "proper cause," or a special need for self-defense rather than a general desire to protect oneself, to be unconstitutional. The ruling was handed down in June 2022, less than two months after a gunman killed ten people in a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, drawing harsh criticism from the state's governor and immediate action by its legislature. On July 1, 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act into law. Drafted in response to the court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the new law retains requirements on "good moral character" for concealed carry permit holders; strengthens background checks to include an in-person interview and submission of the past three-years' worth of social media activity; increases safety and training requirements; and identifies a number of "sensitive locations" such as schools, polling places, theaters, places of worship, government buildings, and medical and health care facilities as gun-free zones.

Loopholes in Legislation

Gaps in legislation can enable people to obtain guns who may not otherwise meet the legal requirements for purchase. The background check requirement, for example, can be avoided by purchasing firearms from an unlicensed seller who does not perform these checks. While referred to as the "gun show loophole," such sales can take place elsewhere, including online. Temporary loans of firearms are typically allowed as are transfers of weapons that are inherited or given as gifts. While unlicensed gun transfers are acceptable within one's own state, interstate sales are prohibited.

Federal law and some states allow juveniles to purchase long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, from an unlicensed firearms dealer. Child safety advocates have long campaigned for federal legislation that would raise the minimum age to own any type of firearm and have also called for regulations aimed at preventing children from accessing guns in the home.

An amendment passed in 1996 known as the Lautenberg Amendment prevents people who have been convicted of domestic abuse or are the subject of a protective order prohibiting contact from owning guns. However, abusers who are not a parent, guardian, or legal spouse to their victims face no such restrictions. A provision intended to narrow this gap, known as the "boyfriend loophole," was included in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in June 2022.

Underreporting and underfunding of NICS have contributed to lapses in data that resulted in multiple instances of weapons sales to unauthorized persons who then used the weapons to commit crimes. For example, following an incident in which a former member of the US Air Force killed twenty-six people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the Air Force acknowledged they had failed to report the shooter's military court-martial conviction for domestic violence to civilian authorities. In response, Congress passed the Fix NICS Act of 2017 to penalize federal agencies that do not meet NICS reporting requirements.

In 2015 a gunman shot and killed nine Black worshippers at a Charleston, South Carolina, church. Authorities later discovered the perpetrator had purchased the murder weapon while his background check was still pending because firearms sales are allowed to proceed by default if the check takes more than three days. The House of Representatives passed a bill in 2021 to extend background checks from three days to ten days, allowing more time for a full check to be completed. Known as the "Charleston loophole" bill, as of July 2022 the Senate had not voted on the legislation.

Critical Thinking Questions

Do you interpret the text of the Second Amendment to recognize an individual or a collective right to own weapons? Explain your answer.

Under what circumstances, if any, do you think gun control measures could be implemented without violating the Second Amendment? Why or why not?

In your opinion, are existing gun control regulations sufficient to ensure public safety? What other types of measures, if any, do you think are needed, and why?

Twenty-First-Century Approaches to Gun Control

Several mass shootings occurred during the presidency of Barack Obama, including the murders of twenty-seven children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 and forty-nine people at a Florida nightclub in 2016. Congressional inaction led Obama to issue executive orders that expanded background checks to cover firearms sold at gun shows and online, sought more federal agents to process background checks, advocated greater use of smart-gun technology, and required states to provide more information on people disqualified from purchasing guns. The last order was rescinded by the subsequent Donald Trump administration.

The largest mass shooting in US history, in which sixty people were killed in Las Vegas in 2017, and the February 14, 2018, shooting of fourteen students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, renewed debate over access to assault weapons. Student survivors of the massacre joined other gun control advocates in calling for reform. On March 9, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act was signed into law in Florida. The law placed some limits on gun sales while expanding resources for law enforcement and safety personnel. On March 24, a group of survivors and student activists organized a nationwide school walkout alongside the March for Our Lives to voice their demands for gun control legislative reform. An estimated one to two million people participated.

Leading up to the 2020 elections, lobbying organizations and political groups again invested large amounts of money in political campaigns aimed at electing candidates favorable to their stance on gun control. For example, the NRA gun rights lobbying group alone spent approximately $28.5 million dollars to back the political campaigns of Republican candidates during the 2020 election cycle. Gun control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords collectively spent about $21.6 million in support of Democratic candidates in 2020.

In 2021, with congressional action on gun control unlikely, President Joe Biden also issued a series of executive orders. Biden's orders focused on regulating specific types of firearms and gun modifications; funding research on firearms trafficking in the United States; and encouraging states to pass "red flag" laws. Red flag laws allow for the temporary removal of firearms from a person identified as a potential danger by law enforcement or family members, who can petition for a court order. Biden's executive orders also sought to ban sales of firearms bought through private sellers online and assembled at home. Referred to as "ghost guns," these firearms do not have serial numbers and are untraceable.

Gun control advocates were heartened by Biden's nomination of David Chipman to head the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), as the agency had not had a Senate-confirmed permanent director since 2015. Biden withdrew the nomination, however, due to political opposition to Chipman's past work with gun control organizations. Biden subsequently nominated Steve Dettelbach to head the ATF. Political opposition nearly derailed the confirmation process again. However, the Senate confirmed Dettelbach as ATF head in July 2022.

Dettelbach's confirmation was successful due partly to public pressure following the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, in May 2022. With the loss of ten lives in Buffalo and twenty-one in Uvalde, citizens' criticism of federal inaction on gun control once again intensified, leading to passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. The first major gun control legislation in nearly thirty years, President Biden signed the bill into law on June 25, 2022, just two days after the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen was released.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act does not go as far as instituting universal background checks or banning assault weapons, but it contains multiple provisions intended to strengthen the background check system. The law takes steps to close the boyfriend loophole, for instance, and institutes a more thorough background check process for buyers under twenty-one years of age. In addition, the new law requires all people who earn a profit from selling guns to register as licensed dealers, while previous regulations required licensing only for people who sold guns as their principal means of income. Bringing internet and gun show sellers under federal licensure will require they run background checks through NICS and may be a significant step toward closing the gun show loophole.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun control refers to legislation and regulations that place controls on the ownership of firearms, restrict certain types of firearms, or determine where they may be carried. In the United States, gun control is a highly controversial topic that engenders debate surrounding public safety, state and federal government oversight, and individual rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.headline
Four countries with gun control – and what America could learn from them

# data[].attributes.subject
Four countries with gun control – and what America could learn from them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thirty people will be shot dead in America today. On average. It could be more. If it's less, then more will die tomorrow. Or the next day.

The United States's gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, according to a recent study.

Americans are divided on whether the country's gun deaths could be reduced through tougher laws on gun ownership. Liberals argue that legal restrictions on gun ownership could save lives. Conservatives say that tougher gun laws would do nothing to change the behaviour of violent criminals.

Even the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting that left 20 first-graders dead was not enough to convince American lawmakers to pass new gun control laws, with many people seeing the ownership of guns as a crucial check on government tyranny. The country's highest court has ruled that outright bans on civilian ownership of handguns are unconstitutional.

After similar mass shootings, other countries have taken more dramatic steps to regulate gun ownership. A look at four countries show that tougher gun laws have been central to these efforts, but that enforcement and culture may also play important roles in preventing violence.

UK

From the moment 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton unloaded his legally held arsenal of handguns on children and staff at Dunblane primary school on 13 March 1996, gun control was on the cards.

Nothing like Dunblane - a massacre of 16 five- and six-year-olds, along with the teacher who tried to protect them - had taken place before in Britain. The shock and collective grief of the whole nation resonated from the northernmost point of Scotland to the tip of Cornwall. This was not the United States, where by 1996, classroom shootings had occurred in many places including Nashville, San Diego and South Carolina.

Gwen Mayor died with 16 of her young pupils at the school in Dunblane, Scotland. Photograph: PNR/PA

As grief turned to a national anger, public debate focused on how someone like Hamilton, a former Scout leader who had been ostracised because of his suspicious behaviour with young boys, had been allowed to own such lethal weapons.

Public petitions, most notably by the Snowdrop Campaign, founded by friends of the bereaved families, called for a total ban on the private ownership and use of handguns in the UK. Signed by 750,000 people it was symbolic of the weight of public opinion.

Nine years before Dunblane, there had been Hungerford, where Michael Ryan went on a rampage through the Berkshire town, killing 16 people in a series of random shootings before turning the gun on himself. He had been carrying a handgun and two semi automatic rifles, for which he had firearms certificates.

The aftermath of Hungerford brought to an end the right to own semi-automatic firearms in Britain; they were banned along with pump action weapons, and registration became mandatory for shotgun owners.

With Dunblane the focus turned to handguns - held by tens of thousands who took part in pistol shooting across the country. The Conservative then prime minister, John Major, passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 after the Cullen inquiry into the massacre. It banned all cartridge ammunition handguns, except 22 calibre single-shot weapons.

But with the landslide election of Labour and Tony Blair the same year, the law was tightened further, and the remaining .22 cartridge handguns were also banned. The decision, supported by a majority of the public, all but wiped out target shooting as a sport in the UK.

Dave Thompson, chief constable of the West Midlands, and the lead on gun crime for the National Association of Chief Constables, said: "The legislation coincided very well with a culture."

Overnight, however, about 200,000 owners of handguns, most of whom kept them for pistol shooting, found their weapon banned and their pastime wiped out. All small-bore pistols and rifles used by target shooters were included in the ban. Penalties for anyone in possession of an illegal firearm were tough - from heavy fines to prison terms of 10 years.

The hostility of those involved in the sport to what they term the draconian legislation is still strong, 20 years after Dunblane. Mike Wells, secretary of the Sportsman's Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, set up in 1996 to counter public pressure for a ban on handguns, said politicians had been driven by a need to show they were doing something but their actions did nothing to stop the criminal use of guns. "It never, never has any effect. The criminal underworld in England, the drug dealers ... have all got guns, but they are illegal guns," he said.

Mark Mastaglio, an expert on firearms who worked for the Forensic Science Service for 20 years, said there was no evidence that the ban on handguns after Dunblane had done anything to cut the criminal use of firearms. "It was very rare that there was ever leakage from the licensed gun owners to the criminal fraternity. Most guns used by criminal are either illegally imported or converted weapons. And that remains the case today," said Mastaglio.

Crime statistics in the years after the ban was introduced appear to support the theory that it had little impact. Gun crime rose sharply, to peak at 24,094 offences in 2003/4. After that the number of crimes in which a firearm was involved fell consistently, to 4,779 offences in 2013. In the year ending September 2015 there was a small rise of 4% to 4,994 offences.

Thompson said the legislation was only part of it: law enforcement agencies had to prove they would carry through on the tough penalties and there was also poor policing of gang areas, and poor ballistics records and analysis. Both were addressed in the early 2000s, when there was a huge decline in gun crime, he said.

But there has been only one mass shooting in the UK - in Whitehaven, Cumbria, in 2010, during which Derrick Bird killed 12 people - since Dunblane.

Mastaglio said: "Dunblane was certainly a turning point. It was a huge piece of legislation, and had a huge impact on registered gun owners in the UK. We now have one of the most stringent set of firearms legislation in the world - only Japan has tougher laws."

Japan

Japan has what may be the closest any country comes to "zero-tolerance" of gun ownership - a policy that experts say contribute its enviously low rates of gun crime. As of 2011, legal gun ownership stood at 271,000, according to police records, in a country of 127 million people.

There were six reported gun deaths in Japan in 2014, according to the National Police Agency. In 2006 just two people were killed in gun attacks; when the number rose to 22 in 2007 it prompted a bout of national soul-searching.
In his seminal 1993 paper for the Asia Pacific Law Review, whose conclusions still hold true more than 20 years later, David Kopel described Japanese gun control laws as "the most stringent in the democratic world".

The 1958 law on the possession of swords and firearms states: "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." Among the few exceptions are shotguns, but here too, the restrictions would cause outrage among American gun owners.

Before they can even lay hands on a shotgun for hunting and sport shooting, prospective owners must attend classes and pass written and practical exams. They must then undergo psychological assessments to determine they are fit to own a firearm. Police background checks are exhaustive and even extend to the gun owners' relatives.

The aim, according to Kopel, is to make possession of a shotgun so complex and drawn out that few people believe it worthwhile applying for one.

Civilian ownership of handguns is banned. The few violations reported in the media usually involve members of the country's many crime syndicates who have managed to smuggle them in from abroad.

But Japan was not always a low-crime, gun-intolerant nation. Guns quickly became the weapon of choice for feuding warlords after Portuguese traders introduced them to the country's south-west in the early 1500s. Over time, Japan improved the design and performance of firearms and began mass producing them.

The beginning of the end of widespread gun ownership came when the feudal warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537-1598) unified Japan, then disarmed the peasant population by banning civilians from owning swords and firearms in 1588.

Seized plastic handguns which were created using 3D printing technology are displayed by police in Yokohama, south of Tokyo. Photograph: Kyodo/Reuters

"The shogunate banned them because they were fearful of the consequences of having guns in hands of an angry populace," said Robert Whiting, author of Tokyo Underworld. The quid pro quo, Whiting added, was that the general population's safety would be assured provided they paid their taxes.

The notion that gun ownership should be limited to the authorities survived Japanese militarism and carried through to the postwar period. Japanese police officers did not begin carrying pistols until 1946, with the permission of the US-led occupation authorities.

Despite sporadic outbreaks of gun violence, Japan's yakuza crime syndicates are reluctant to build up caches of firearms. Threatening a rival with a gun is often seen as an "unmanly" departure from the yakuza's traditional code of honour, to which even modern-day mobsters try to adhere, according to Whiting.

Kopel says Japan's gun laws do not necessarily prevent criminals - especially the yakuza - from acquiring guns. But, he added, even gangsters "see themselves as within the social system, in a broad sense. Even when breaking the law, they still play by certain rules of society."

Australia

Eerily, Australia's moment of truth also occurred almost exactly 20 years ago, when a shooting spree in a gift shop in Port Arthur, Tasmania, resulted in 35 people dying in about half an hour. It was the worst mass shooting by one person in Australia's history. The killer, Martin Bryant, received a sentence of 35 terms of life imprisonment.

Less than two weeks later, Australia's then prime minister, John Howard, announced a sweeping package of gun reforms in a country where guns had long been considered an essential prop in the national mythology of life in the bush.

"Port Arthur we acted on," said Tim Fischer, then Howard's deputy prime minister. "The USA is not prepared to act on their tragedies."

Before Port Arthur, most states had a weak licensing system and no requirement to register guns. Howard proposed each state and territory should introduce and enforce a firearm licensing and registration system which required people to have a "genuine reason" for having a firearm, such as sport or target shooting, recreational hunting or being a farmer.

Howard also introduced a national gun buyback policy for all weapons that did not comply, which led to the buying and melting down of more than 650,000 firearms at a cost of A$350m (now £185m). One study said the buyback cut the rate of firearm suicides by 74% in the first 10 years.

There have been no mass shootings in the 20 years since Port Arthur; in the 20 years before the massacre there had been 13.

However, since the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, four states have moved to wind back the mandatory 28 days "cooling off" period between applying for and buying a gun, a trend Howard has described as disturbing.

One of those states was Tasmania.

Germany

Germany's relationship with firearms is intriguing: while there are a lot of guns in the country, they don't seem to kill a lot of people.

Germany has one of the highest weapons-per-head rates in the world. In 2014, 5.5m legal weapons were registered as being in the hands of 1.45 million private individuals. The country's police union estimates the number of illegal weapons in the country to be considerably higher, around 20m. According to GunPolicy.org, this puts Germany at 15th place out of 175 nations in terms of guns per capita.

Gun ownership is more widespread in the west of the country than in the former East Germany, where private gun ownership was illegal before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Recent reports suggest that gun ownership is rapidly increasing still: between November 2015 and February 2016 alone, 20,000 applications were filed for new gun licences.

Yet in Germany gun homicide rate is one of the lowest in Europe: a death rate of 0.05 per 1,000 people, compared with 3.34 in the US. In fact, incidents of gun crime, including both weapons being fired and used to threaten people, have declined by almost a quarter since 2010 (pdf).

Experts put this trend down to a number of tweaks to gun law in the wake of high-profile shootings.

In 2002, a 19-year-old student in the Thuringian state capital, Erfurt, shot dead 16 people at the school that had recently expelled him, using weapons he had obtained from his gun club.

Within a year, the law regulating access to guns had been changed: Germany is the only country in the world where anyone under the age of 25 who applies for their first firearms licence must undergo a psychiatric evaluation with a trained counsellor, involving personality and anger management tests.

Experienced hunters or sports shooters over the age of 25 may be called in for psychiatric tests if they display certain kinds of behaviour, such as being caught drink-driving.

A further tweak to the gun law in 2008 means that inherited guns have to be fitted with a state-of-the-art blocking mechanism, making them unusable.

A tribute to the victim of the school shooting in Winnenden, near Stuttgart, by 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer. Photograph: Alex Grimm/Getty Images

There were calls for even more stringent laws after 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer shot dead 15 at a school in Winnenden near Stuttgart in March 2009. Kretschmer had obtained his weapons from an arsenal of 15 guns kept by his father, who was a member of a shooting club.

Under the newly amended weapons act, it is now harder for individuals to own multiple weapons. A national gun register was established for the first time in 2013 - previously, records of gun ownership were kept only at regional level.

Police officers can now also visit registered gun owners' home for spot checks without warning. Guns in private possessions have to be locked away in a safe, with the security code or location of the key known only to the owner of the gun.

A number of politicians went even further in the wake of the Winnenden massacre, calling for a complete ban on the storage of firearms in private homes. Even hunters or sportsmen, they argued, should have to deposit their arms at centralised depots.

The proposal was rejected after protests from hunters, who argued that they frequently need access to weapons at short notice, such as when wildlife was involved in traffic accidents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four countries with gun control - and what America could learn from them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK, Australia, Japan and Germany have all taken measures to reduce gun homicides. Can the US learn anything from them?

# data[].attributes.headline
Parkland Survivor X González on Why This Generation Needs Gun Control

# data[].attributes.subject
Parkland Survivor X González on Why This Generation Needs Gun Control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an exclusive op-ed for Teen Vogue's gun control issue, Parkland survivor and activist X González shares why young people are stepping up for gun control.

On Wednesday, February 14, 17 students and faculty at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, were gunned down on the campus where I also attend school. Their names were Alyssa Alhadeff, Scott Beigel, Martin Duque, Nicholas Dworet, Aaron Feis, Jaime Guttenberg, Chris Hixon, Luke Hoyer, Cara Loughran, Gina Montalto, Joaquin Oliver, Alaina Petty, Meadow Pollack, Helena Ramsay, Carmen Schentrup, Alex Schachter, and Peter Wang. Our lives and our community are forever changed due to this senseless tragedy - one we know could have been prevented.

Since that day, many fellow survivors and I have not kept quiet. We have taken the media by storm through appearances and interviews, met with state and federal lawmakers to beg them to enact much stricter gun control laws, and been joined in protest by students around the nation and the world who've held school walkouts and demonstrations that exhibit the energy and power of young people in full force.

In just a few weeks' time, we, the youth of the United States, have built a new movement to denounce gun violence and call for safety in all of our communities.

And this is only the beginning.

A Generation Raised on Violence

I was born in 1999, just a few months after 13 people were left dead after a shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. From 1966 to the Valentine's Day that my school proved to be less than bulletproof, nearly 1,100 people have been killed in mass public shootings in the U.S.. From the deaths of 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, to the 2016 massacre of mostly Latinx people at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, to the loss of 58 lives at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas last year, we've seen mass shootings play out again and again and again.

Gun violence has torn up many communities across the country, mainly due to negligence on behalf of local and national government to properly regulate access to guns, ignorance to their constituents' varying situations, and willingness to take money from organizations that very clearly do not have the best intentions for the future of the United States.

The problem of gun violence goes beyond the countless demographic differences between people. Any way you cut it, one of the biggest threats to life as a teen in the U.S. today is being shot. People have been shot to death en masse in grocery stores, movie theaters, nightclubs, and libraries, on school campuses and front porches, and at concerts - anywhere and everywhere, regardless of socioeconomic background, skin color, age, ethnicity, religion, gender, geographical location.

Young people in this country have experienced gun violence for their entire lives, only to be faced with a number of representatives and officials who have been seduced by the gun lobby or have generally failed to make effective change. The pro-gun propaganda peddled by the National Rifle Association feeds myths about gun ownership, and these myths arguably perpetuate the suffering of thousands of Americans each year.

After all of this pain and all of this death caused by gun violence, it seems as if the kids are the only ones who still have the energy to make change.

What Do We Mean When We Say "Change"?

Parkland youth are working to end gun violence through actions like the March for Our Lives event in Washington, D.C., on March 24 and the ongoing #NeverAgain movement. I'm one of them. Fed up with the apathy pervading this country, we realized that we don't need to wait around to have our voices heard or for someone else to make change - we have to be the change we need to see.

The mass walkouts held around the country on March 14, which marked the one-month anniversary of the mass shooting at our school, weren't even organized by March for Our Lives. They were efforts led by students around the world who were speaking in the most influential way they knew how: civil disobedience, marching in the streets with signs and chanting truth to power. Efforts to mobilize young voters are widespread, and many are being conducted by first-time organizers.

Students around the country have already shown commitment to doing their part. Now it's on the adults to join us.

Many companies have broken ties with the National Rifle Association, and the House of Representatives passed a bill to fund more security measures in schools. That's great, but it's not enough.

We need to digitize gun-sales records, mandate universal background checks, close gun-show loopholes and straw-man purchases, ban high-capacity magazines, and push for a comprehensive assault weapons ban with an extensive buyback system.

It would also benefit us to redefine what assault weapons are so that when we call for a ban against them, it's clear that we aren't trying to ban all guns. No one needs to use an assault weapon to protect themselves while walking home at night. No one should be allowed to use an AR-15 to strategically hunt people, which, in case anyone forgot, is what made us speak out in the first place.

Rather than engage with this logic, many are suggesting that a possible solution to increasing school safety would be arming teachers. This doesn't make any rational or logical sense. For those who don't agree, I have questions:

How would arming teachers work, logistically?

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools? Would students be able to break into armories?

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lockbox?

If it was in a lockbox on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?

Why would a student shooter even need to worry about metal detectors or getting patted down if they already know they can overpower the teacher and take that gun for their own use?

If the teacher wasn't in close proximity, what would stop the teacher's bullets from hitting other students who might be in the way and obscured by gunsmoke?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?

At Stoneman Douglas, the entire shooting lasted roughly six minutes. In that time, the shooter - a former student who conducted this violence in a three-story building known as the freshman building - fired at least 100 shots, which hit walls, windows, classrooms, and 32 people. Seventeen people's lives ended far, far too soon, and each of them had ties and connections to countless other individuals, and all of those people have to grapple with the fact that these students and faculty - our friends, our teachers, our coaches, our family - are gone.

This is the reality we face as young people in America today: the constant fear of being gunned down in the places we should feel the most secure. We have grown up in this country and watched violence unfold to no resolution. We have watched people with the power and authority to make changes fail to do so.

And that's why we are stepping up. Some of us are new to this fight, but across America there are people, young and old, who have been fighting for gun safety and an end to gun violence of all kinds.

This month, Teen Vogue is dedicating its digital cover to rising voices in the gun control movement, young people who are working on the issue in different ways, all of them impacted by gun violence.

There is 21-year-old Howard University student Clifton Kinnie, who, in 2014, mobilized teenagers to organize against gun violence and register to vote after 18-year-old Mike Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Natalie Barden, a 16-year-old sophomore at Newtown High School in Connecticut, was a preteen when she lost her younger brother, Daniel, in 2012, during the Sandy Hook shooting. She's been asking for change for more than five years as part of a family that has become vocal anti-gun-violence organizers, and she is now courageously stepping up to mobilize her peers.

Jazmine Wildcat, a 14-year-old member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, is part of a gun-owning family in Riverton, Wyoming, and she started writing letters to her lawmakers after the students were killed in Parkland. In her community, where gun ownership is considered a fact of life and a point of pride, she's bravely taking a stand as one of the few voices advocating for change in her area. Kenidra Woods, a 17-year-old junior from St. Louis, was already advocating for more discussion of self-harm and mental health among teens before Parkland, after which she sprang into action to help conduct a walkout at her school in February in solidarity. She and her classmates faced resistance from administrators after students were barred from returning to class, and she's since become one of the most vocal young activists in this nationwide movement.

Nza-Ari Khepra of Chicago founded Project Orange Tree after a friend, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, was shot and killed in 2013. She's now 21 and a student at Columbia, continuing her efforts to end gun violence; her smart work was the inspiration for the nationwide "Wear Orange" campaign.

Then there are those of us representing Parkland: Fellow Stoneman Douglas student Nick Joseph lost one of his best friends, Joaquin Oliver, on February 14, and is speaking out in his name by organizing and marching, rising to a challenge no 16-year-old in mourning should have to face. Sarah Chadwick, 16, has been organizing the March for Our Lives event set for March 24, and she is loudly denouncing critics like the NRA's Dana Loesch on Twitter. Jaclyn Corin, 17, who lost her friend Jaimie Guttenberg on February 14, planned a trip to meet lawmakers at the very start of the movement and has been a crucial member of #NeverAgain.

We Stoneman Douglas students may have woken up only recently from our sheltered lives to fight this fight, but we stand in solidarity with those who have struggled before us, and we will fight alongside them moving forward to enact change and make life survivable for all young people. People who have been fighting for this for too long, others who were never comfortable enough to openly talk about their experiences with gun violence, or still others who were never listened to when opening up about their experiences with gun violence or were afraid to speak out - these are the people we are fighting with and for.

The media afforded a group of high school students the opportunity to wedge our foot in the door, but we aren't going through this alone. As a group, and as a movement, it's vital that we acknowledge and utilize our privilege, use our platforms to spread the names of the dead and the injured, promote ideas that can help spread kindness rather than hostility, support those who aren't being heard, take our voices and use them together with the megaphones provided.

We the Wounded of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Future, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common People, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Generations to Come, do ordain and establish this March for the United States of America.
This story is a part of Teen Vogue's ongoing coverage on gun violence and the growing movement for gun control. Be sure to check out the other features: Meet the Young Activists Fighting to End Gun Violence A Roundtable Talk With 5 Young Gun Control Activists Where to Join the March For Our Lives How the NRA Came to Influence America The Truth About Mental Illness and Gun Violence How to Survive a School Shooting Real Students Read the Haunting Text Messages Sent During Mass Shootings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an exclusive op-ed for Teen Vogue's gun control issue, Parkland survivor and activist X González shares why young people are stepping up for gun control.

# data[].attributes.headline
17 Big Pros and Cons of the 2nd AmendmentApr 20, 2019 

# data[].attributes.subject
17 Big Pros and Cons of the 2nd AmendmentApr 20, 2019 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the initial days of the United States as an independent nation, the founding fathers worked together to form a governing set of laws that would apply to all people. It would begin with the Constitution, and then proceed to the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments that are treated as if they were part of the original Constitution. Each amendment is given a number under American law, and then implemented immediately once three-quarters of the state's ratify any new ideas. One of the most important amendments in the U.S. is the Second Amendment, which states the following.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The founding fathers adapted the wording of the Second Amendment from clauses that were nearly identical in some of the original state constitutions that were written during the 18th century. Recent rulings by the Supreme Court have set the precedent that all people in good standing can own a gun or guns without being part of a recognized state militia.

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own," Jeff Cooper wrote in Art of the Rifle. "Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

Is this perspective correct? Or should Americans work to embrace more gun control legislation that could reduce the ownership of weapons that could create mass casualties?

Here are some of the pros and cons of the Second Amendment to consider.

List of the Pros of the Second Amendment

1. Gun ownership works to reduce other types of crime in society.
Frank Lloyd Wright once said, "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." The fact will always be that a gun is a tool and nothing more. Can it be used to kill someone? Yes. Is it possible to inflict mass casualties with certain types of firearms? Yes. It can also be useful for hunting to provide food for one's family. Guns can protect you when someone breaks into your home. People use them to drive off predators that try to take their livestock. Owning a gun can even reduce homicide numbers, sexual assault, and aggravated assault by at least 5%.

2. The Second Amendment offers people a chance to defend themselves.
According to information published by the National Sheriffs' Association, the average amount of time for a school shooting to take place is 12.5 minutes, but it takes police officers 18 minutes to respond to the first calls that come across emergency lines. Active shooter incidents in all locations, but especially schools, have risen at an alarming rate in recent years. During the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one incident. In 2015, there were 55 active shooter incidents in American schools. As Cooper wrote, the only choice that we can make is one that allows us to protect ourselves. We can't stop bad people from getting their hands on a gun to use it for evil purposes, but we can help good people find ways to stop them with the same tool.

3. It reinforces the laws of the Constitution by its mere presence in the Bill of Rights.
Alan Dershowitz may not be a fan favorite of every conservative in the United States, but he does offer this observation about the Second Amendment. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Guns might be controversial in some ways because of the ease that they inflict damage, but it is also because of this tool that people in the U.S. have the freedoms that are available to them. When you start to erode one granted right, it does not take long for more of them to experience the same outcome.

4. The Second Amendment allows the average person to defend their country.
In Priority, Aaron Powell makes this observation about the Second Amendment. "When the Chinese invade our country, who do you want to depend on? The over-extended police force and the National Guard? Or the next-door neighbor who is a former Marine and has enough guns and ammunition for your entire block?"

The entire point of the Second Amendment from the perspective of the founding fathers is still valid. When you own a gun, then it is more difficult to take away what you have earned in life than if you did not own this weapon. People will think twice (or more times) about trying to take something from you, including domestic and foreign governments, if you have the capacity to defend yourself adequately.

5. It allows for a well-regulated militia to be part of U.S. culture.
The focus on the Second Amendment is often on the right of gun ownership, but it is also essential to note that there is the right for states to have a well-regulated militia because of this addition to the Bill of Rights. Even though we have numerous levels of law enforcement that work to serve and protect our communities, there may still come a time when there is a need to keep the peace in other ways. This option allows for states to develop their own defensive resources without costing taxpayers in other locations any money to do so. If you need to defend your home for any reason, all you need to do is get together, form a militia, and follow whatever state rules are in place for organization.

6. You must qualify to own a gun in the United States already.
There are already regulations in place that make it impossible for anyone to walk into a gun shop to make a purchase. Any store that sells firearms must use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, called NICS, to see if there are any records in place that would prevent a customer from owning a gun. This system scans three different databases to ensure there are no matches. Anyone declared mentally unfit, convicted of a felony, or receives a misdemeanor sentence of 2+ years will not qualify for the purchase. Lying on the form in an attempt to purchase the gun is also considered an illegal act which could strip you of the firearm when discovered.

7. The Second Amendment offers more checks-and-balances for society.
When the founding fathers creating the structure of the American government, they wanted to make sure that no one branch of it could hold more power than the other. The system of checks-and-balances ensures that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches must work together to the benefit of society.

The Second Amendment offers this same benefit for the average person in their daily routines. It is a way to protect your individual liberties to ensure that you are not deprived of the right to pursue happiness. "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted," said James Madison. Gun ownership is a way to ensure that the government is obliged to control itself in addition to supervising the governed.

List of the Cons of the Second Amendment

1. It does not provide for the safe usage and implementation of a gun in society.
"Saying gun control hurts our freedom is a false argument amounting to propaganda," said DaShanne Stokes. "Gun laws don't curtail freedom any more than speed limits or seat belts. You still get to drive your car and have guns. We're just trying to save lives as you do." Although the Second Amendment does allow for the private ownership of guns according to the current interpretation offered by the Supreme Court, it does not contain provisions that require the safe use of this tool. That level of implementation is left to the states, which means there is a patchwork series of laws that gun owners must follow to stay in compliance.

2. There is no guarantee that a good guy with a gun is going to be around.
DaShanne Stokes has also said that gun violence in the United States is not a Republican or Democrat problem, but an American problem - and one that requires an American solution. "When a country with less than 5% of the world's population has nearly 50% of the world's privately-owned guns and makes up nearly a third of the world's mass shootings, it's time to stop saying guns make us safer," he said.

Even though there are plenty of stories about a good guy with a gun stopping a crime that you can find, there are also more than 14,000 homicides attributed to firearms each year in the United States. That means 4.5 deaths per 100,000 population are because of guns.

3. Gun ownership comes with great risk to the owner's household.
There are plenty of good reasons to own a gun in today's American society, but there are also a few reasons why some families believe that the rights given under the Second Amendment are not something they want to use. That is because up to 95% of the suicides that occur with a firearm are potentially preventable if the gun wasn't present in the home. Households that own just one gun carry a 7 times higher risk of experiencing premature death than those without one.

Even the states which have the least amount of controls places on gun ownership see homicide rates that are more than double those of states with the most extensive restrictions. The problem with a firearm is that this tool doesn't offer many second chances.

4. There are multiple ways to deter crime other than gun ownership.
In Guns Part 2, Aaron Powell makes this observation.

1. "So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better make sure kids can't get guns."

2. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better find out what's making these kids want to kill, fix that, and then they won't want to use guns to kill teachers and classmates."

Both sides of the Second Amendment debate can quote statistics which support their argument. There are stories about how gun ownership can save lives, just as there are times when it takes lives. Saying that guns are the only way to deter crime is laziness. There are multiple facets of protection that we can implement every day if we are willing to take bold steps to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities. Can guns stop a crime? Sure. So can an alarm system, an airlock system in schools, metal detectors, and many more methods. We cannot have tunnel vision on just one outcome.

5. It creates the potential for a domestic arms race.
"If Jesus Christ himself were to come down off the cross and grant you one wish, would you opt for a world without guns - or the one we live in now?" asks Quentin Bufogle. "If every gun owner truly feared for their life and liberty, the answer would be obvious."

When we push toward a world of gun ownership, then we are creating a society where good and evil are both racing toward a place where each feel like it can be a dominant force. This perspective is what fueled the nuclear race during the Cold War, and it is also what causes some people to stockpile firearms. There are an estimated 89-100 guns for every 100 Americans, but only up to 29% of households actually own one. 14% of owners have between 8 to 140 guns in their possession, accounting for 50% of civilian ownership.

6. We already know that the current gun control laws don't work.
According to reporting from The New York Times, only 8 states have laws which provide an explicit mechanism so that people who are suspected of owning guns in violation of their prohibitions are required to hand them over. Some of these laws allow, but do not require, the police to seek a court order for confiscation.

Authorities in Chicago knew for over 4 years that Gary Martin was a felon with a violent history, yet did nothing to make sure that he surrendered his Smith and Wesson handgun with a laser sight. He used that weapon to kill five of his co-workers in Aurora, IL, in February 2019. It would be helpful to enforce the laws on our books to ensure that we are doing all that we can to stop the bad guys with guns.

7. The Second Amendment increases the cost of law enforcement.
Open-carry laws for gun ownership because of the Second Amendment create a phobia about this tool that increases the amount of resources that law enforcement must receive each year. 40% of Americans already say that one of their biggest fears is that they will end up being the victim of a mass shooting. Firearms are already the second-leading cause of death for American children and teens. Women are 21 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the United States than they are in other high-income countries.

Because there are so many guns on the streets, even if they are owned by a minority of the population, the resources dedicated to law enforcement activities are that much higher. Even a slight reduction in this cost could be directed toward something more useful, like free firearm education programs.

8. This amendment has seen inconsistent application in the law.
Before the recent Heller ruling set the precedent for individual ownership as a right, the judicial system interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to militias only. That meant no one had the right to travel with their gun across state lines. The common law standard was that there was a duty to retreat if someone wanted to take your things. If you lived in the city, then a loaded firearm was banned from being in your home.

Once upon a time, you even had to swear a loyalty oath as an American to have the right to own a firearm. Refusing to take that pledge meant that your right to gun ownership disappeared. It is an inaccurate statement to say that the U.S. has never had gun restrictions in place before. What we are doing is creating inconsistent case law based on current political desires.

9. There is no right to own a firearm if you cannot afford the cost.
One of the unique aspects of the Second Amendment is that it doesn't mention the cost of ownership as part of your individual rights as an American. There is nothing that would stop Congress from passing a law which required a minimum price for this item, similar to the expense one must pay to obtain a passport or a driver's license. The only thing that the Bill of Rights guarantees is that if you can afford the cost of a gun and there are no other restrictions in place for you, then this is an opportunity that you can have.

10. The Second Amendment does not exclude specific actions, behaviors, or choices.
The Second Amendment would be arguably more powerful if it created specific restrictions to ownership based on high-risk behaviors. Several demographics, including teens with a history of violence, can still purchase firearms despite their history of choices. Even people convicted of a gun crime can still buy more of them if they are not convicted of a felony and their misdemeanor sentence is less than 2 years in some states.

One Final Thought on the Second Amendment

Most people read the key pros and cons of the Second Amendment in the form of an echo chamber. They will see the areas in which they agree and use that information to support their position while dismissing everything else. Although it is true that guns have long been part of the culture in the United States, we cannot be honest with ourselves by saying that we treat this tool differently than other elements of life.

When terrorists flew airplanes into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 was retaken by passengers to crash so it couldn't do more damage, the legislative response from the U.S. government was immediate. The focus is on the outside threats more than it is the domestic ones. We cannot change the actions of a person with evil intent when they get their hands on a gun, but what we can do is initiate an extensive, accurate, and mandatory screening and licensing process which allows each person to access their right to own a gun if they should so choose.

You cannot legally drive without a driver's license that you earn by proving you have the skills and knowledge to be successful. You must also renew that license periodically. Some states make a similar requirement for those who wish to have a concealed carry permit. Extending that process to all gun ownership with minimal fees to process the paperwork seems like a common-sense compromise that could help to reduce the amount of violence that is present in U.S. society.

The status quo is not working. It is time to do something.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
17 Big Pros and Cons of the 2nd Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the initial days of the United States as an independent nation, the founding fathers worked together to form a governing set of laws that would apply to all people. It would begin with the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A boy's testicles will shrink if they pick up a Barbie and a girl will undoubtedly grow chest hair if she plays with a Batman figurine. As preposterous as this sounds, this is what our society thinks when it comes to our children and acceptable playtime behavior. But who decided that pastel colors and dolls should only be enjoyed by girls, and blue and trucks by boys?

As a parent, I have Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel and a whole slew of other kids networks blasting from my TV more than I'd care to admit. One thing that is blindingly obvious during toy commercials is that you rarely ever see boys and girls playing together. Boy and girl commercials are two very separate entities, with the very rare exception of a board game or Slip and Slide commercials. How do we expect our children to broaden their creativity when the toy companies and retailers themselves are stunting their growth by dictating what toys they should play with based on gender?

Even Disney's beloved Frozen sadly falls into the category of gender bias commercials. Almost every child in the universe (boys and girls alike) have seen and fallen in love with the movie Frozen. And who can blame them? It's a wonderful movie. It grossed over 1 billion dollars in worldwide box office revenue, making it the highest grossing animated film of all time. But if you take a look at toy commercials for Frozen you'll see one obvious thing missing, the boys. Why is it ok for little boys to love the movie, but not ok for them to play with the toys? I just don't get it. It makes me really sad. We're stifling our children's creativity in fear of what? That they'll turn gay if they play with an Anna and Elsa doll. You know that's not how it works, right?

I take this whole stereotyping toys BS very personal. As the proud mother of a 7-year-old boy who sees no gender when it comes to his imagination and love for toys, Frozen dolls were on the top of his holiday wish list last year. Like millions of other children, my boy couldn't get enough of the movie and was constantly singing "Let it Go". A ballad that for many parents became as annoying as nails on a chalkboard due to the fact our kids were belting it out from sunrise to sunset. But for me, the song always made me tear up. I'd listen to the lyrics and my heart would slowly break a little inside. This was my son's anthem. "Conceal don't feel, don't let them know...Well now they know!" As lyricist Kristen Anderson-Lopez explained it,"I was really excited to write an anthem that said, 'Screw fear and shame, be yourself, be powerful'." That's my beautiful little boy in a nutshell. A boy who makes no apologies for liking pretty things. A boy whose imagination takes him on adventures we only wish we could experience in real life. A boy who's been called "Barbie" by bullies in an attempt to make him cry (and failed). A boy who stands up for himself on a daily basis at school because his peers don't understand why he likes "girl" toys. Well whoever taught these kids that these were "girl" toys? Why can't they just be TOYS!

It's time we realize that toys don't have a gender. We assign it to them.

My child's story is far from an isolated case. There are tons and tons of children out there who like toys originally created with the opposite sex in mind. The problem is that many kids are afraid and embarrassed of the repercussions if exposed. A boy who only feels secure playing with his Hello Kitty doll in the privacy of his own bedroom because he's ashamed someone might see him. A little girl who's turned her locked bathroom into Spiderman's lair because she's worried her brother will tease her if she's caught playing with the web slinger. Playtime should be a joyous time for our children. They shouldn't feel worried that making the "wrong" toy selection based on their gender might get them teased or bullied. Or are we a society so narrow-minded that we really do believe a boy should only stick to sports, super heroes and bloodshed and girls are better suited for shopping, beauty and tiaras. This is the same type of mentality that says "A woman's place is in the home".

Instructions from a 1973 Lego set has recently made news reminding us of the beauty of gender equality through play. It also shows that over the last 40 years we have sadly taken a step backwards. (Pardon the grammatical errors. This was translated from a German Lego toy set)

"The urge to create is equally strong in all children. Boys and girls. It's imagination that counts. Not skill. You build whatever comes into your head, the way you want it. A bed or a truck. A dolls house or a spaceship. A lot of boys like doll houses. They're more human than spaceships. A lot of girls prefer spaceships. They're more exciting than dolls houses. The most important thing is to put the right material in their hands and let them create whatever appeals to them." - Lego

And let's not forget Marlo Thomas' 1972 ground-breaking film Free To Be... You and Me. Teaching children (and parents) the concept of gender equality and finding acceptance within. The song and video for "William's Doll" (the story of a boy longing for a doll) is still as meaningful today as it was 40 years ago.

While companies like Toys R Us are still segregating the boys from the girls into different sections of their brick and mortar and online stores; making it virtually impossible for a child to feel comfortable shopping outside of what's expected of them, there are companies trying to make a difference.

Back in 2011, London's historic Hamleys (the world's oldest toy store) took steps towards gender equality by taking down their pink and blue signage and replacing it with floors divided into themes. A year later Harrods followed suit by creating their own 26,000 square foot gender-neutral toy department called "Toy Kingdom" which is also divided into themes, rather than sex. Hopefully this is just the very beginning of a new trend on how we view toys.

While I'm not saying every little boy should drop their race car in exchange for a princess; I long for the day when Cinderella can hop into a Hot Wheels and drive off into the sunset... and it will be no big deal.

This post was originally published on Super Goody Bag.

Follow Jill Topol's children's fashion & lifestyle blog Super Goody Bag at:
www.supergoodybag.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While I'm not saying every little boy should drop their race car in exchange for a princess; I long for the day when Cinderella can hop into a Hot Wheels and drive off into the sunset... and it will be no big deal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Must monsters always be male? Huge gender bias revealed in children’s books

# data[].attributes.subject
Must monsters always be male? Huge gender bias revealed in children’s books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Must monsters always be male? Huge gender bias revealed in children’s books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A thieving duck in Peppa Pig is one of the few female villains in the 100 most popular picture books. An Observer study shows that, from hares to bears, females are mostly sidekicks

# data[].attributes.headline
Children’s books are adding to science’s gender problem

# data[].attributes.subject
Children’s books are adding to science’s gender problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ask young children what they want to be when they grow up and the chances are that scientific jobs such as astronaut and doctor will appear high on the list. But ask them to draw a scientist and they are more than twice as likely to draw a man than a woman. Children can form these kinds of biases from many sources. But perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised to see such an absence of women scientists in children's drawings when the illustrations we show them are often just as bad.

Our study of imagery in children's science books reveals that women are significantly underrepresented. In the physical sciences in particular, the pictures frequently fail to communicate women's technical skills or knowledge. The imagery in these books gives the impression that science is a subject for men, and that careers in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) are unrewarding for women.

Developmental theories explain that children learn gender expectations to help them to respond appropriately within their social environment. This influences their understanding of who they are and encourages them to behave in a way that is conventional for their gender.

Pictures of men and women in children's science books contribute to these expectations by teaching them "rules" about the occupations suited to each gender. This encourages them to conform to prevailing gender career stereotypes. To counter this, female role models need to be visible in books to help develop girls' interest in science as they get older, and overcome negative perceptions of female scientists

Where are all the women?

Our research analysed the children's science picture books in two public libraries in England. First we counted the frequency of images of men, women, boys and girls within the 160 available books. Then we did a detailed visual analysis of two scientific professions: astronauts and doctors. In this subset of 26 books, we examined what the male and female astronauts and doctors were doing, wearing and holding in the pictures.

We found that, overall, children's science books pictured males three times more often than females, reinforcing the stereotype that science is a man's pursuit. The under-representation of females only worsened as the target age of the book increased. The women were generally depicted as passive, lower status and unskilled - or their presence was not acknowledged at all.

For example, one children's book about space exploration shows what's involved in a spacewalk. Along with pictures of astronauts in their white padded spacesuits, we are told: "Without a spacesuit an astronaut's blood would boil and his body would blow apart." The use of male pronouns suggests the person inside the spacesuits is male.

There is no mention of the 11 courageous women who have performed spacewalks, including astronaut Sunita Williams whose image is used in the montage. As Williams's face is covered by her helmet and the text only mentions men, it would be easy for children to think that women don't do spacewalks.

On the pages of another book, we do see a female astronaut, pictured floating inside a space station and smiling at the camera. The qualifications and experience required to get astronauts to this point are extensive. Places on NASA's Astronaut training programme are highly competitive with thousands of applications each year. But in the book, the woman's training, expertise and knowledge are not mentioned.

Instead, the picture caption reads: "In zero G, every day is a bad hair day." Comments like this that focus on women's looks fail to take their contributions seriously. What's more, research shows that emphasising appearance in science role models can reduce school girls' self-rated ability or make scientific jobs seem unobtainable to them.

Our study also found important differences between subject disciplines. In physics books, 87% of images were of men or boys, and in the few pictures where female astronauts were pictured, they were never shown driving shuttles, doing experiments or spacewalking. Books about biology, in contrast, did have an even balance of images of men and women - and female doctors are shown carrying out the same activities and having the same status as male doctors.

Why this matters

You might think that imagery isn't important, that the messages in pictures or illustrations are trivial. A multi-billion pound advertising industry disagrees with you. Advertising rarely provides detailed arguments for products or services but this doesn't make its messages less powerful. Instead, adverts rely on persuasion through peripheral cues, such as by exemplifying appealing lifestyles and using imagery depicting the rewards of status or respect.

In the same way, children's books advertise career choices, and their imagery communicates what it means for men and women to be associated with these occupations. Women need to be present in children's science books to demonstrate that all science subjects are fulfilling for girls.

Research shows that, even before children go to school, they have the idea that men are better at male-dominated professions. Given that girls as young as eight are often put off maths and science by teachers and parents, it is perhaps no surprise that only 20% of A-level students taking physics are female. Interviews with successful female scientists have shown that girls do seek out role models in science, but are often unable to find them.

As such, it's vital that imagery in children's books is given greater consideration. Book editors and illustrators need to make significant efforts to represent women as qualified, skillful and technically able. They need to be pictured actively engaging in scientific activities and using appropriate tools or equipment, not merely present as assistants or observers. Women also need to be represented in greater numbers so that girls can see female role models in STEM professions and see these careers as potentially rewarding.

Parents, teachers and librarians - along with authors, illustrators and publishers - should review their books for gendered messages. Question what the images are teaching children and ask what career aspirations the books might be igniting or quashing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children's books are adding to science's gender problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New research shows children's images of scientists are all too often male.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global Issues: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

# data[].attributes.subject
Global Issues: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global Fund for Women's approach focuses on winning rights for women, girls, and all historically marginalized people. Women's human rights are essential to achieving gender justice globally. Learn more about gender justice here.
What are women's human rights?

Women's rights are the fundamental human rights that were enshrined by the United Nations for every human being on the planet nearly 70 years ago. These rights include the right to live free from violence, slavery, and discrimination; to be educated; to own property; to vote; and to earn a fair and equal wage.

As the now-famous saying goes, "women's rights are human rights." That is to say, women are entitled to all of these rights. Yet almost everywhere around the world, women and girls are still denied them, often simply because of their gender.

Winning rights for women is about more than giving opportunities to any individual woman or girl; it is also about changing how countries and communities work. It involves changing laws and policies, winning hearts and minds, and investing in strong women's organizations and movements.

Global Fund for Women exists to support the tireless and courageous efforts of women's groups who work every day to win rights for women and girls. These groups are working to ensure women can own property, vote, run for office, get paid fair wages, and live free from violence - including domestic violence, sexual assault, and harmful practices such as female genital mutilation.

What rights do we stand for?

We want every woman and girl to realize the rights that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We also stand for other rights that are vital for women's equality. We stand for a woman's right to decide if and when she has children, and to have high-quality health care that means she won't die in pregnancy or during childbirth. We know female genital mutilation is a violation of girls' rights, and must be eliminated. And we stand for the right of every woman to live equally and free from discrimination, no matter her sexuality or identity.

We support two critical documents for women's rights that have followed the UN declaration. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an international bill of rights for women, requires governments to end gender discrimination and affirms women's rights to health services, including family planning. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted in 1995 at the UN's Fourth World Conference in Beijing, was a rallying cry to embed gender equality and women's rights in every facet of life.

Women's rights and the Global Goals

The UN Millennium Development Goals set specific targets to reduce poverty, including targets for increased gender equality in education, work, and representation. UN Women found that progress was uneven. Globally, more women are now in school and work. Yet girls are still more likely than boys to be out of school (particularly at the secondary level). And although the number of women in elected office has risen, they are still only 21.8 percent of parliamentarians. What's more, women's rights remain at risk in many areas not addressed in the millennium goals - from violence against women to sexual and reproductive rights. And women who are already marginalized because of their race, caste, sexuality, income, or location see the fewest gains of all.

The new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) hold real promise to embed advances in women's rights, and include a specific goal (Goal 5) for gender equality. Goal 5 is more broad-based than the last gender goal and includes targets on ending gender-based violence, eliminating child marriage and female genital mutilation, and ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health. It also includes equal access to education, expanding women's economic opportunities, and reducing the burdens of unpaid care work on women and girls. Now it is up to all of us to hold governments accountable for their commitments and make sure the goals are met. Involving women - and funding the solutions of grass-roots women's groups - will be critical to success.

What does the future of women's rights look like?

The future of global women's rights is at stake. The U.S. administration's proposed cuts to foreign aid and stringent policies-from abortion and refugee resettlement to climate change- pose a direct threat to the health, dignity, and well-being of women and girls everywhere. We must reflect: Will women globally lose hard-won rights, or will the backlash instead catalyze new wins?

This moment calls for energizing new efforts and focus on strengthening women's movements to help lead the charge for social change on the most pressing issues of our time. Global Fund for Women is committed to turning these challenges into opportunities for women to assert their leadership, action, and voice. By 2020, Global Fund for Women will ensure that movements for women's rights are powerful, influential, and achieving lasting gains. Now is the time to stand with the global women's movement.

Global Fund for Women is working for a world where every woman and girl can realize and enjoy her human rights.

Only when women and girls have full access to their rights - from equal pay and land ownership rights to sexual rights, freedom from violence, access to education, and maternal health rights - will true equality exist. Only when women have taken leadership and peacemaking roles and have an equal political voice will economies and countries be transformed. And only then will all women and girls have the self-determination they are entitled to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Information about Women's Human Rights - Global Fund for Women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global Fund for Women focuses on winning rights for women, girls, and marginalized people. Learn more about what women's human rights are and more, today.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a website about student rights in California

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a website about student rights in California

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Dress Codes & Uniforms - My School My Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can my school make a dress code policy? YES1. But your school’s dress code policy cannot be used to disfavor a specific message or single out one particular group of students. Please note charter schools may be subject to different rules than those below. Can my school enforce its dress code policy…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects a person's freedom of expression. This freedom can be limited, however, for students attending public schools. The school must provide a safe academic environment for all students, which may result in infringements on students' freedom of expression, particularly as it relates to restrictions on the clothing students can wear.

# data[].attributes.headline
Schools Loosen Dress Codes that Targeted Girls

# data[].attributes.subject
Schools Loosen Dress Codes that Targeted Girls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At Alameda High School, students can wear almost anything they want now as long as certain body parts are covered. Ripped jeans, tube tops, short shorts, and midriff bearing shirts are now acceptable for school in this Northern California city. Alameda is the latest school district to adopt a more permissive dress code after students complained the old rules unfairly targeted girls.

Girls were being pulled out of class more often than boys, which raises issues about equity in terms of access to the classroom and they also were saying that when they were having teachers or office staff comment on their clothing, or measure their bodies or their clothing that it was humiliating for them.

Who's your Spanish teacher?

Freshman Kristin Wong and Henry Mills advocated for the change after seeing their middle school classmates shamed and punished for what they were wearing.

We really wanted to make it equitable for all genders and between to have the same dress code that would apply to the same set of students.

I wouldn't say it's distracting personally, no. I haven't seen any of my friends say, "Oh did you see what she or he was wearing?" Like, this is a healthier dress code and it's benefiting a lot of people.

But some think the looser dress code is misguided.

I teach middle school and I see the kids coming with spaghetti straps and midriffs and it frankly breaks my heart.

Teacher Marie Hsu says students shouldn't be punished for being distractions, but some girls now feel more pressure to look sexy.

And if all of the messages around them are telling them that they're supposed to sex it up, that's what they think is most important and that strips them of everything else that they are.

Portland public schools adopted a similar policy two years ago after students complained the old dress code was sexist. Grant High School Principal Carol Campbell says the staff can now focus on teaching not on what students are wearing.

We were spending time like kind of deciding, is this too short? Or is this too revealing? The policies we had in place was actually making students feel unsafe and judged. So having that gone has really changed the culture.

The Alameda School District will assess how its culture has changed when it revisits the dress code next spring. Terry Chea, Associated Press, Alameda, California.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schools Loosen Dress Codes that Targeted Girls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At Alameda High School, students can wear almost anything they want now as long as certain body parts are covered. Ripped jeans, tube tops, short shorts, and midriff bearing shirts are now acceptable for school in this Northern California city.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are dress codes a drag? School fines boy for wearing dress to the prom

# data[].attributes.subject
Are dress codes a drag? School fines boy for wearing dress to the prom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ask students: What is the dress code at our school? What are the pros and cons of school dress codes?

* The most famous school dress code case went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court ruled 7-2 that public school officials could not censor student political expression unless the school could reasonably predict that such expression would cause substantial disruption or interference with school activities or invade the rights of others. The case involved four teenagers who wore black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The Court noted that the students were engaging in a form of symbolic speech that was "akin to pure speech." In later decisions, judges have ruled that students have more protection when they engage in political expression.

* Not all political expression is protected at school, however. For example, a federal court rejected a student's First Amendment claim that she should not be punished for wearing a "Drugs Suck" T-shirt to class. Even though the message spoke to an important political topic, the court determined that the word "suck" was too vulgar and could be prohibited.

* The wearing of a particular type or style of clothing usually is not viewed as protected expressive conduct. Various school dress codes including a prohibition against sagging pants and clothing featuring advertisements or objectionable statements have been upheld. Courts have ruled that student speech that is indecent or profane is not entitled to constitutional protection.

Have students research recent dress code cases at www.firstamendment center.org. How do those cases differ from Tinker?

Last spring, Kerry Lofy figured that if girls could wear dresses to the prom, why couldn't he? Though the 18-year-old from Lake Geneva, Wis., didn't usually wear dresses, he thought it would be funny to show up dressed as a girl.

School officials, however, weren't laughing when the 6-foot, 185-pound Lofy arrived at the prom wearing a black spaghetti-strap dress and a blond wig. Though Lofy said he "looked like Marilyn Monroe" he was turned away at the door by administrators who had warned him not to wear a dress to the dance.

Undeterred, Lofy went out to his car, donned a plaid leisure suit over his dress, and headed for the dance floor. When Lofy stripped off the suit during a dance contest, school officials blew their tops and escorted him out of the prom. When he arrived at school the next day, a police officer issued him a ticket for disorderly conduct and a $249 fine.

School officials say Lofy's behavior crossed the line, but Lofy says the school violated his fight to free expression. He is suing to get the charges against him dropped.

Jim Gottinger, Lake Geneva school district administrator, says schools have every fight to set rules that dictate student dress and behavior. "I don't see where we were in the wrong. We think the attire for the prom is a formal event" he told The Associated Press (AP). Plus, the school claims that Kerry wasn't punished solely for wearing a dress. They say his behavior on the dance floor was inappropriate.

Some of Lofy's classmates agree. "I attend Badger High School. ... When administration caught wind of [Lofy's] little plan, it repeatedly warned him not to come in a dress, yet he did it anyway. I believe any punishment he receives is justified. ... For a male to show up at an important dance ... in a dress is mocking the whole event" wrote Melissa Gramse in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Lofy's attorney, Erik Guenther, says "the only thing that Mr. Lofy did wrong was wear a purse that didn't match the dress?' He says the school violated Lofy's First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Guenther agreed to represent Lofy for free, in part because he doesn't want the school to further encroach on students' rights. "This is a $250 ticket but if you don't protect the fringes of free speech, the next action is at your front door," he told

Though courts have ruled in the past that dress codes are a legitimate way for schools to keep order, Lofy says he "wasn't preventing anyone from learning?' Lofy also says that he wasn't dancing any differently than anyone else. "They can't single me out and say, 'It was only you.' I think it's over the dress?'

Make it count! Take part in an instant CE poll on this news debate. Go to www.weeklyreader.com/ce

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. They were adopted by Congress on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws that establish a national religion or that restrict freedoms of religion, speech, or the press. The amendment also protects Americans' right to peacefully assemble and to express grievances.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are dress codes a drag? School fines boy for wearing dress to the prom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ask students: What is the dress code at our school? What are the pros and cons of school dress codes? * The most famous school dress code case went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Tinker v.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video of Attorney and constitutional educator discussing court views of student rights regarding first amendment rights and how those views differ from court views on those rights applied to adults.

# data[].attributes.subject
Video of Attorney and constitutional educator discussing court views of student rights regarding first amendment rights and how those views differ from court views on those rights applied to adults.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

1 - If the students today take away anything about the constitution. The important thing to remember is that all the protections you find in the Bill of Rights in the body of the constitution and subsequent amendments are about what the government can and cannot do in your lives. Your mom and dad are not the government. If you're in a parochial or private school, because they're not federally funded, they're not the government. So different standards do apply. Again, on the religious expression on the t-shirt or the shirt that you wear, I'd have to see what your dress code policy is. Because again, I know here in Missouri, and I'm sure the Lieutenant can address this too, is that for a variety of reasons, schools have said no logos, no sayings on a shirt. So that would include anything. If they do allow shirts, if say, a school says, they have shirts, you know, you can wear logos, you can have a homecoming signs on or you can have various things on there, and then they discriminate against the religious message, that could be a problem. But a religious message wouldn't be an exception to the dress code if there's a policy against wearing shirts with logos and advertisements and sayings on them.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1 - If the students today take away anything about the constitution. The important thing to remember is that all the protections you find in the Bill of Rights in the body of the constitution and subsequent amendments are about what the government can and cannot do in your lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Dress codes have long been part of both public and private school systems in the United States. In recent years, schools have seen a rise in the number of complaints related to dress codes, many of which make claims of discrimination. The majority of these complaints have originated with female and transgender students, who believe that school officials have shown sexist and limiting attitudes in creating and enforcing dress code rules. A transgender individual identifies as a gender identity other than the person's sex at birth.

School officials have stated that certain clothing choices of female students are "distracting" to their male peers, and have created dress codes that forbid such articles of clothing. In other incidents, female students have faced serious discipline for seemingly minor violations. Student activists have protested these decisions. Some cases have received national media attention.

Transgender students are often bound by strict gender-specific clothing. For example, some school dress codes state that skirts and dresses can only be worn by girls. Transgender students can be forced to conform to dress code rules that do not match their gender identities. This, they argue, is a form of discrimination.

School Dress Codes: Is There a Double Standard?

Both male and female student activists have argued that some dress code policies display a double standard, with different rules applying to boys and girls. For example, a male student might wear pants that sag or sit low on the waistline. Meanwhile, a female student may dress in a tank top during hot weather. Student groups have claimed that in such situations, the male student would simply be told to pull up his pants, while the female student would be sent to the principal's office, or ordered to go home and change. The students claim these actions show that boys and girls are held to different sets of expectations, and girls face more severe punishments for violating rules. This, they say, is sexist.

Another problem with school dress codes arises from lists of acceptable and unacceptable articles of clothing. For example, female students may not be allowed to wear leggings, shorts, revealing tops, or skirts that fall shorter than a certain length. In many such instances, school officials argue that female students cause a "distraction" to their male peers when they wear these items of clothing. Yet, in schools where such dress codes are in place, males typically face far fewer restrictions on the type of clothing they can wear, or no restrictions at all. Again, student groups argue that this is a sexist attitude that reinforces the idea that girls are primarily judged on the basis of their appearance.

In some cases female students have been disciplined for questionable violations. Media agencies have highlighted cases in which girls have been sent home, forced to change, or even suspended for exposing bra straps, wearing shirts that revealed their collarbones, or choosing pants deemed to be "too tight." Such cases have often been accompanied by claims that boys who break established rules for male students often face no disciplinary action at all.

Gendered Clothing and School Dress Codes

In some documented cases, transgender and gender non-conforming students have been punished for wearing clothing that does not match what society expects of their legally registered sex. A male-born transgender student that identifies as female may choose to wear a skirt or dress to school, only to be told that boys are not permitted to wear skirts or dresses. Students across the United States have been campaigning for inclusive, gender-neutral clothing policies. They claim that students should be free to express themselves through their clothing choices, regardless of how they perceive their gender identity.

SUMMARY POINTS: Are School Dress Codes Sexist and Exclusionary?

Both male and female students have argued that dress code rules for boys are not related to their sexuality, while dress code rules for girls prohibit attire deemed "inappropriate"

Media outlets across the United States have reported cases in which female students have been taken out of class, sent home, or suspended for violating dress codes

Meanwhile, student activist groups claim that male students are rarely, if ever, punished for violating rules that apply to boys

Students also claim that policies that outline what boys and girls can and cannot wear are based on sexist attitudes

Transgender students are frequently banned from wearing clothing that matches their gender identities, on the grounds that it is not appropriate

School officials often make the counter-argument that dress codes are in place to ensure that all students can enjoy a safe and productive learning environment

The Counter-Arguments of School Officials

School administrators often claim that dress codes exist to help maintain a safe and productive learning environment. Daring or inappropriate clothing choices, they say, make it difficult to create the kind of learning environment that benefits the entire school community. They also claim that the role of school is to prepare young people for the realities of adult life. Many say that appropriate clothing is expected in many workplaces. As such, students should get used to the idea of dressing to meet society's expectations.

Student backlash against these arguments has extended beyond schools to social media and the Internet. Campaigns meant to point out the sexist and discriminatory attitudes of school officials have gone viral on video sharing websites like YouTube. Feminist and transgender rights groups have also joined in the discussion. Students say they want to modernize dress codes and make sure that male, female, and transgender members of the school community are treated equally.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dress codes have long been part of both public and private school systems in the United States. In recent years, schools have seen a rise in the number of complaints related to dress codes, many of which make claims of discrimination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Chelsea Bailey BBC News, Washington

One thing Americans find hard to talk about

February was Black History Month in the US, a time typically set aside to recognise African Americans and their contributions to the country.

This year's commemoration ended with insults and accusations of racism on the floor of Congress, at a televised hearing broadcast into millions of homes. But that exchange, between a Democrat and Republican, was hardly an isolated incident.

The month began with calls for Virginia's governor to resign after a photo emerged of him in blackface. And it ended with President Donald Trump - who himself has been accused of racism - saying Academy Award winner Spike Lee was being racist after the film director urged Americans to "do the right thing" and choose love over hate by helping to thwart Mr Trump's re-election hopes.

The flood of racially-charged headlines underlined a feeling shared by many - that 400 years after the first slaves were brought to the US, Americans still struggle to have meaningful conversations about race.

"We can't even have a productive conversation if people aren't open to looking in the mirror," said Ibram Kendi, director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University.

"Denial is essentially the heartbeat of racism in this country and every time you are not open to what you could be doing in the moment, you are living and breathing racism itself."

African Americans in New Orleans on the state of race relations

He says the first step to dismantling racism in the US is recognising that we can all shift between being racist and anti-racist.

"When someone is charged with doing something that's racist, instead of getting upset and lashing out, they should consider the evidence."

Conversations about race typically devolve into arguments because Americans have come to view the word "racist" a permanent label and not a description of an action, says Mr Kendi.

He now advocates for redefining the word "racist" as a reflection of both our beliefs and behaviours and not merely as an insult.

"A racist supports, by their action or inaction, policies that reproduce racial inequality. An anti-racist supports, with their actions, policies that reduce or eliminate racial inequality," says Mr Kendi.

"What you're doing and what you're saying is an expression of who you are in that moment."

Much of this discussion was sparked by the argument on the floor of the House of Representatives, which began when after Rashida Tlaib, a Democratic freshman, accused the Republican veteran congressman Mark Meadows of racism and using a black woman as a "prop".

Mr Meadows had asked Lynne Patton, a long-time employee of the Trump Organization, to attend the Michael Cohen hearing to refute accusations that President Trump was racist.

Speaking for Ms Patton, Mr Meadows said "as the daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, there is no way she would work for a man who is racist".

Allow Twitter content?

This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read

and

before accepting. To view this content choose 'accept and continue'.

When Ms Tlaib said that simply having a friend or employee who's a minority does not prohibit someone from being racist, the hearing quickly dissolved into a very heated row.

Social psychologist Daniel Effron, who studies morality and race, said there's a reason people often resort to the "black friend" defence when charged with racism.

Mr Effron said his research shows that whenever a person is accused of racism or their moral identity is challenged, they instinctively search for any example to bolster their "non-racist credentials", which can be a low bar.

"When people are motivated to find evidence that they're not prejudiced, they're more likely to think having a black friend is really strong evidence," he said.

Getty Images

Spike Lee never mentioned President Trump by name in his speech but it was interpreted as a message to vote him out

"We make a mountain of morality out of a molehill of virtue."

But even people with good intentions can face criticism when it comes to discussing race in America, as the director of the Oscar-winning movie Green Book discovered.

Set against the backdrop of the segregated South in the 1960s, the film follows the unlikely friendship between a black classical and jazz musician and his white chauffeur.

Critics accused the film of whitewashing history and furthering the "white saviour" trope in Hollywood.

More on race in the US

Racism in the US: Is there a single step that can bring equality?

Author and anti-racism activist Tim Wise said he thinks we need to reframe the way we teach race in America, shifting the emphasis away from an individual's actions and looking at the system as a whole.

"When we think about the way Americans teach racism historically, it is a story about individuals who did or did not own slaves, individuals who did or did not own segregated businesses. It's a lot harder to see systems of inequality," he said, adding that this can absolve people from reflecting on their own actions.

Mr Wise explores his own struggles with reconciling white privilege and racism in his autobiography White Like Me and has made a career out of navigating difficult conversations about racism.

He said he thinks Americans have been conditioned to believe certain racial stereotypes and unlearning those prejudices begins with recognising they exist in the first place. Until then, he said, we will continue to have circular arguments about race without making progress toward dismantling racism.

"It would be ridiculous to say, 'I don't have a racist bone in my body'... you grew up in America," he says.

"It's about saying, 'Look, I'm going to be humble enough to admit my weaknesses. Not because I want you to beat me up and not because I want to beat myself up, but because I know that I'm capable of better.'"

Copyright 2023 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Beta Terms By using the Beta Site, you agree that such use is at your own risk and you know that the Beta Site may include known or unknown bugs or errors, that we have no obligation to make this Beta Site available with or without charge for any period of time, nor to make it available at all, and that nothing in these Beta Terms or your use of the Beta Site creates any employment relationship between you and us. The Beta Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis and we make no warranty to you of any kind, express or implied.

In case of conflict between these Beta Terms and the BBC Terms of Use these Beta Terms shall prevail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A series of very public arguments over race blighted Black History Month and reminded us of an undisputed fact.

# data[].attributes.body
Kids Discover Online
Username : newhaven
Password: newhaven

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rise of Segregation | Kids Discover Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The headlines pop up with alarming frequency: People of color going about their daily business - shopping, golfing, moving in - only to have the cops called on them.

But for every story that makes the news, there are countless others that don't involve police. Black customers who get followed too closely by store employees. Hispanic students and Muslims who get asked if they're really American.

This is everyday racial profiling - and it doesn't just hurt the victims. It has an insidious ripple effect on the rest of society - in business, health and public safety.

It's more common than people think

In just the past month, a golf course owner called police on black women because they were playing too slowly. A mom called police because two Native American students made her "nervous." And a white student at Yale called police because a black student was napping in a dorm building.

Everyday racial profiling is "almost second nature now," said Darren Martin, a 29-year-old black man.

Late last month, he was moving into his own New York apartment when a neighbor called police saying he was an armed burglar.

Martin still has no idea what his neighbor could have mistaken as a weapon.

"It could have been the TV, the couch, the pillows - I don't know," he said. "It's a fear of black men that makes people see things. I didn't have weapons. I just wanted to move home."

For people of color, everyday racial profiling is one indignity piled atop another.

When he's leaving a store, Martin often hears the same line: "Sir, can you please turn around and show me what's in your pocket?"

"It's dehumanizing," he said.

The consequences can be dangerous

The day Martin moved in, about a half dozen New York police officers showed up under the impression he was armed. Had he made one wrong move, Martin said, he could have been killed.

But there's a hidden and much more common danger to racial profiling - long-term health problems.

"There are enormous health consequences to those experiencing these everyday harms ... because of the constancy of this stress," said Rachel Godsil of the Perception Institute, a research group that helps organizations reduce discrimination.

Minority groups who endure everyday discrimination often suffer high rates of chronic diseases. And black, Latino and Asian customers get charged higher car interest rates than whites - even if they have similar credit histories.

Then there's the impact on business. One study found that white job interviewers sat farther away from black applicants than from white applicants and ended the interviews 25% sooner.

Another study showed that résumés sent out with stereotypically white names, such as Emily and Greg, received 50% more callbacks than résumés with stereotypically black names, such as Lakisha and Jamal - even if they had similar qualifications. That study also found that "a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience."

Racial profiling impacts white people, too

Godsil urges white people to think about what it must be like to live under a cloud of suspicion. "That's something that those of us who are white never have to think about," she said.

As director of research for the Perception Institute, Godsil said racial profiling has a broad ripple effect on everyone.

"Even if it happens to someone that doesn't look like you, it's a harm to the community," she said.

For example, many calls about a "suspicious person" don't really involve suspicious activity - just a person of color walking down the street.

This kind of racial bias wastes officers' time and resources, which could be spent actually protecting communities.

On a more personal level, those holding racial biases are actually harming themselves, too.

When you start feeling anxiety about someone's race, Godsil said, it triggers the amygdala - the part of the brain that's activated by fear.

"That's a higher level of stress on your body," she said.

"In addition to reducing the harm of bias to those being stereotyped, de-linking races with negative stereotypes would be a physiological benefit to those holding the bias. ... If people can begin to let go of the fear, it will benefit them personally as well."

Biases often begin at a young age

Racial profiling often stems from what researchers call " implicit bias " - a bias we might not be consciously aware of.

For example, studies show "white people will frequently associate criminality with black people without even realizing they're doing it," according the Perception Institute.

And the seeds of bias are often planted in our heads before kindergarten.

"Social scientists believe children begin to acquire prejudices and stereotypes as toddlers," according to Teaching Tolerance, which helps schools educate children about tolerance and diversity.

Those environmental triggers can come from verbal slurs, ethnic jokes and acts of discrimination. And "mass media routinely take advantage of stereotypes as shorthand to paint a mood, scene or character."

Once embedded, these biases are hard to shake.

"Stereotypes and prejudices resist change, even when evidence fails to support them or points to the contrary," Teaching Tolerance says.

But there are ways to fight back

The first step is to recognize your own biases. Everyone has them. And researchers have developed a several ways to test the biases hidden in your psyche, like the Implicit Association test, ' Test Yourself for Hidden Bias' and the Bias Cleanse.

And since biases start early, it's important for parents to help young children get on the right track. The Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley, suggests:

- Exposing kids to more positive images of other racial groups

- Helping your kids develop diverse friendships

- Cultivating your own diverse friendships

- Talking openly about race and the effects of racism

Whatever you do, don't try to pretend prejudices don't exist.

"People who argue that prejudice is not a big problem today are, ironically, demonstrating the problem of unconscious prejudice," Teaching Tolerance said.

Kelly Fyff-Marshall, one of three black people wrongfully accused of burglarizing their Airbnb rental, said it's time to make a conscious effort to stop racial profiling.

"It seems as a black person, you can't live. There's nothing you can do without calling the cops," she said. "This is getting out of hand."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is why everyday racial profiling is so dangerous | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The headlines pop up with alarming frequency: People of color going about their daily business - shopping, golfing, moving in - only to have the cops called on them. But for every story that makes the news, there are countless others that don't involve police. Black customers who get followed too closely by store employees.

# data[].attributes.headline
Encyclopedia Britannica article on RACISM

# data[].attributes.subject
Encyclopedia Britannica article on RACISM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.headline
Racism - Link to Opposing Viewpoints Database

# data[].attributes.subject
Racism - Link to Opposing Viewpoints Database

# data[].attributes.body
Click on the Google Link in the upper right corner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints

Find overviews, news, and opinions on hundreds of today's important social issues.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Find overviews, news, and opinions on hundreds of today's important social issues. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.headline
The data proves that school segregation is getting worseThis is ultimately a disagreement over how we talk about school segregation.

# data[].attributes.subject
The data proves that school segregation is getting worseThis is ultimately a disagreement over how we talk about school segregation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The predominant narrative among education activists is that school segregation has gotten worse in the past several decades. It's an argument backed by data - one I've stressed in my own work. And earlier this year, a New York Times op-ed also made this argument and cited that same data.

But there's now a handful of pundits pushing back on this notion, like the National Review's Robert VerBruggen. In response to the Times piece, he wrote that changing demographics makes the data misleading - and that ultimately, "we're not going in reverse" when it comes to segregation. Prominent journalists, like New York magazine's Jonathan Chait and my colleague Matt Yglesias, shared VerBruggen's post on Twitter.

The National Review piece isn't coming out of the blue. The idea that changing demographics - the US becoming less white - makes it harder to integrate schools is something that has picked up steam in recent years. In Connecticut, Gov. Dannel Malloy has pushed for more leniency in standards set by a court-ordered desegregation case.

So how could two sides look at the data and come to two different conclusions about school segregation trends?

On the surface, this is an argument about how we measure school segregation trends. But ultimately, it's a disagreement over how we should be thinking about school segregation.

Is school segregation not actually getting worse? It depends on how you measure it.

The core disagreement comes down to federal government data that was highlighted by the UCLA Civil Rights Project on the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Boar d of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled segregated schools were unconstitutional.

The data shows that black students in the South are less likely to attend a school that is majority white than about 50 years ago:

National Review's VerBruggen sees this chart and argues that a smaller portion of black students are attending majority-white schools because the US is just less white than it was 40 or 50 years ago:

Both arguments are the products of some messy data work.

On one hand, if we're measuring segregation by how many children attend majority-white schools, then it's worth acknowledging that white people are now a smaller percentage of the US population. This is something I've admittedly left out of my work when presenting this data.

On the other hand, VerBruggen uses this flaw to argue that school segregation actually isn't getting worse - even though it's virtually impossible to make this argument from this data alone. VerBruggen does cite a study by Stanford sociologist Sean Reardon and USC sociologist Ann Owens that says school segregation hasn't changed that much in the past few decades. But Reardon and Owens specifically write that there are two ways they measure segregation:

1. Exposure or isolation, which looks at whether students attend schools with a high or low proportion of a given racial group

2. Unevenness, which measures how evenly distributed students of a given racial group are

Reardon and Owens write, "The debate about whether the last two decades can be characterized as a period of resegregation largely hinges on whether one uses exposure or unevenness measures of segregation."

The VerBruggen argument adopts the "unevenness" frame: School segregation hasn't gotten worse because students are just as unevenly distributed now as they were in the 1980s.

Reardon and Owens give this example:

... Consider a school district in which 90% of students are black. If all schools in the district had enrollments that were 90% black, we would have low unevenness but high black isolation (or, equivalently, low black-white exposure) because the average black student would attend a predominantly black school. Conversely, in a school district with very few black students, isolation might be low even if students were very unevenly distributed by race.

But if you care about more equity in education, this is an odd argument. It's essentially saying: Hey, we haven't made school segregation worse - and it's because of Asian and Hispanic immigrants.

This leads to the reason why people who care about equity balance it with the other measure: isolation.

A reason to measure racial isolation, not just unevenness

Let's just state this for the record: Racial segregation in schools was caused by white America's policies that kept schools and neighborhoods white-only. For black families, this meant their country engineered for them a second-class experience - one that put them in poor, segregated ghettos and poor, segregated schools.

And that's not getting better. Black children are now more likely to grow up in poor neighborhoods than they were 50 years ago.

This is important because a large body of research shows that growing up in heavily segregated, poor neighborhoods affects everything from your education level, your future earnings, and your happiness to your health and, ultimately, your life span.

But in many of these areas, where you live determines where you go to school. So when we see students who are racially isolated, it's describing both underlying residential segregation and how little school districts do to ameliorate that segregation.

As it turns out, things have been getting worse since the 1980s when we look at segregation using this isolation frame:

As Reardon and Owens point out, indices of exposure show black-white segregation have actually gotten worse since the 1970s:

This has caused a growing number of our schools to be predominantly black or Hispanic with a higher concentration of students in poverty:

This isn't even considering the growing charter school movement. An increasing number of charter schools are high-poverty and are predominantly black or Hispanic. Meanwhile, a growing number of charter schools are also low-poverty and predominantly white and Asian:

So, yes, there is a portion of America that is getting more diverse. And overall, the "unevenness" measure of segregation shows we're racially distributing students about as well as we were a few decades ago.

But we are also increasingly isolating the most vulnerable students in America. Things haven't been steady; they are getting worse.

Focusing on what's holding steady pushes a misleading narrative

VerBruggen is pushing back against a narrative that most experts agree with, which says that America went through a period of desegregation from the 1950s through the 1980s but then backslid in the decades since. VerBruggen is arguing that as immigration policies have diversified America in recent decades, our schools diversified as well.

But research by Cornell sociologist Daniel Lichter shows that segregation between white families and nonwhite families has actually changed very little since the 1980s. In fact, while segregation within cities has gotten slightly better, segregation between municipalities has gotten worse.

In other words, there is probably less segregation within the neighborhoods of your town. But there is probably more segregation in comparing your town and a neighboring one.

So if broader segregation has increased, it might be reflected in our schools, as school attendance zones are often drawn based on where you live.

This is partially what has entrenched the heavily segregated school attendance zones in virtually every American city:

But school boards can draw school attendance boundaries to lessen that segregation - to send kids to less racially segregated schools. We don't have to send kids to the nearest school, especially because it ends up recreating the underlying residential segregation:

But most school districts don't do anything to ameliorate this situation. We continue to recreate the residential segregation. (Here's an interactive that lets you look up your own district.)

In addition, research from Southern Methodist University's Meredith Richards shows that when neighborhoods don't experience much demographic change, they tend to draw school attendance zones that resegregate. Also, when neighborhoods experience a lot of demographic change, they defensively draw attendance zones that further segregate:

So let's rehash here:

We are increasingly isolating poor black and Hispanic children in segregated schools, both public and charter.

Residential segregation between cities is getting worse, and the Supreme Court in the 1974 case Milliken v. Bradley said surrounding cities could not be forced into school integration plans.

Meanwhile, segregation within cities is about the same as in the 1980s. It's still extremely high.

School districts are doing very little to ameliorate that segregation.

And when neighborhoods don't change or drastically change, school districts actually tend to make even more segregative attendance zones.

Yes, we can find metrics that show school segregation isn't getting worse; we can find metrics that show our schools are not any more segregated now than they were 30 years ago. These metrics are important, and they describe significant ways our schools are changing.

And, to be fair, VerBruggen writes in his piece that "this doesn't mean that this country's racial problems are over or that there's nothing we can do to spur further integration."

But using those metrics to paint a picture in which school segregation isn't getting worse misses the point of why we talk about school segregation. The American education system has vestiges of engineered inequities, and those inequities have created unequal opportunities for a huge chunk of black Americans. When we query the data using this framework, the answer is clear: We are going in reverse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The data proves that school segregation is getting worse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is ultimately a disagreement over how we talk about school segregation.

# data[].attributes.headline
The U.S. student population is more diverse, but schools are still highly segregated

# data[].attributes.subject
The U.S. student population is more diverse, but schools are still highly segregated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To listen to this broadcast, click here:

RACHEL MARTIN: This country is becoming more diverse. Yet some schools remain highly segregated by race, by ethnicity or the students' socioeconomic status. This is according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. NPR's Sequoia Carrillo reports on persistently segregated schools.

SEQUOIA CARRILLO: The GAO looked at enrollment and segregation during the 2020-2021 school year, a period when the U.S. population as a whole was more diverse than ever. And yet, 14% of students were in schools where more than 90% of their classmates were of a single race or ethnicity.

JACKIE NOWICKI: What that means is that you have large portions of minority children not only attending, essentially, segregated schools, but schools that have less resources available to them.

CARRILLO: That's Jackie Nowicki, a director at the GAO and lead author on the report. She says the findings are cause for concern and that a lot of factors are at play here.

NOWICKI: And they paint a rather dire picture of the state of schooling for a segment of the school-aged population that federal laws were designed to protect.

CARRILLO: There isn't just one reason this is the way the school system looks. But to understand it more, Nowicki says, we have to not just look inside schools, but around them.

NOWICKI: There is clearly still racial division in schools, which is not surprising. Schools are a microcosm of their communities.

CARRILLO: Seventy percent of U.S. students attend their neighborhoods' public schools. And past practices, like redlining, have created racially segregated neighborhoods.

NOWICKI: There are historical reasons why neighborhoods look the way they look. And, you know, some portion of that is because of the way our country chose to encourage or limit where people could live.

CARRILLO: Though the 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed housing discrimination on the basis of race, housing segregation is still widespread. The GAO found little improvement since a similar report in 2016. One disturbing trend was a practice called district secession. It's when schools break away from an existing district, often citing a need for more local control, to form their own new district. It's happened in places like Tennessee, Alabama and Maine. And when it happens, the report finds, segregation deepens.

BOBBY SCOTT: Virtually always, you end up with a district that is significantly whiter and wealthier than the ones left behind.

CARRILLO: That's Congressman Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat who chairs the House Education Committee. He also commissioned both the 2016 report and this latest one.

SCOTT: Slowly but surely, we've regressed to the point where we're about as bad as it was in the 1960s.

CARRILLO: But Scott doesn't think all is lost. He's proposed two bills. One would provide funds for district-level desegregation efforts. And the other would hold schools more accountable for meeting federal regulations. But with a deeply divided Congress in an election year, it's unlikely there'll be much improvement anytime soon.

Sequoia Carrillo, NPR News.

(SOUNDBITE OF ODDISEE'S "AFTER THOUGHTS")

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The U.S. student population is more diverse, but schools are still highly segregated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To listen to this broadcast, click here: RACHEL MARTIN: This country is becoming more diverse. Yet some schools remain highly segregated by race, by ethnicity or the students' socioeconomic status. This is according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. NPR's Sequoia Carrillo reports on persistently segregated schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
An interview with the founders of Black Lives Matter

# data[].attributes.subject
An interview with the founders of Black Lives Matter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi: An interview with the founders of Black Lives Matter | TED Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Born out of a social media post, the Black Lives Matter movement has sparked discussion about race and inequality across the world. In this spirited conversation with Mia Birdsong, the movement’s three founders share what they’ve learned about leadership and what provides them with hope and inspirat…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed - OFFICIAL VIDEO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

The Science

Science paints a clear picture: Climate change is happening; it is caused mostly by humans; and it creates many serious and damaging effects. The primary cause of climate change is human activities - like driving cars, creating electricity, and cutting down forests - not natural changes in the climate. These human activities release gases into the atmosphere called greenhouse gases, which slowly warm the planet, creating climate change.

The climate is very complex, and there are still some things we don't know about it. But through centuries of studies and experiments, we've been able to create a strong understanding of how the system works, and how humans are changing it.

The Greenhouse Effect

Imagine a greenhouse made of glass used to grow plants, like flowers and vegetables. The greenhouse keeps the plants inside warm even when it's cold outside because it traps heat from the sun. The earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse: When light from the sun passes through the atmosphere, some of it is absorbed by the Earth's surface to heat it, but some heat is also trapped in our atmosphere by certain gases. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases, and they act like a blanket, keeping the earth warm. This greenhouse effect is a natural process that makes the planet comfortable to live.

But human activities are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. One type of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has reached a level in our atmosphere that the Earth hasn't seen for more than 400,000 years! Plants, soils, and the ocean can absorb carbon dioxide, but they can't keep up with all the extra greenhouse gases that we have been releasing. And some greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for a long time, from hundreds to even thousands of years. All these gases are making things hotter than natural, so we need to stop producing them to avoid climate change.

Weather vs. Climate

Weather refers to the state of the atmosphere in a short period of time, like minutes or days. It includes lots of things we are familiar with, like temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind speeds. The weather changes every day, but the climate is much more consistent because it measures the patterns of weather over long periods of time (at least several decades). Let's say you were going to visit Florida for a few days in June. You would expect it to be hot and humid, because that's what the climate of Florida is usually like in June. It might turn out to be hot during your trip, or it could rain or be cloudy. All of those are examples of possible weather during those days.

The Greenhouse Effect Explained

Where do greenhouse gases come from?

Up until about 150 years ago, humans did not produce many greenhouse gases. That changed as the human population grew, we cut down forests to make way for cities and farms, and important inventions and technology, like in-home electricity and cars, transformed the way we live.

These inventions and technologies need energy. Some types of energy called fossil fuels - like coal, oil, and natural gas - have become important sources of that energy. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We call the release of these gases emissions.

Today in the United States, electricity and transportation (cars, trucks, and planes) are responsible for almost 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from agriculture, industry - such as factories that make products we use - and from energy we use in our homes and businesses.
Learn more about U.S. greenhouse gas emissions here.
Greenhouse Gases

The most common types of greenhouse gases are:

Carbon Dioxide (CO ₂): Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas created by human activities. It makes up 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) are burned for electricity and transportation, and because of other processes like making cement. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored when it is absorbed by plants, soils, animals, and the ocean as part of the carbon cycle.
Learn more about how energy emissions are controlled in the United States.

Methane (CH ₄): Methane is the next most common greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It makes up 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most methane emissions come from raising livestock (like cows), but methane is also released when coal, natural gas, and oil are produced and transported, and when organic waste (like food) decays in landfills. Methane is a stronger gas than carbon dioxide, meaning it creates more warming, but it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time.
Learn more about how industrial greenhouse gases like methane are controlled in the United States.

Nitrous Oxide (N ₂ O): Most nitrous oxide is emitted by agricultural activities, like applying fertilizer, but it also comes from industrial activities, burning fossil fuels, and other sources. It makes up 6 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions. Nitrous oxide is even more powerful than methane and carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6): Try saying these gases three times fast! They're called "fluorinated gases" for short. These gases combined make up only 3 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That may sound small, but they are very important to solving climate change because they stay in the atmosphere for a very long time (sometimes for thousands of years!) and are much more powerful warmers than all other gases. These gases are made by humans and are used to cool our refrigerators, freezers, buildings and cars.

U.S. Greenhouse Gases by Gas Type and Sector, 2021

Impacts of a Changing Climate

Because of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures are rising. Each of the past four decades has been warmer than the previous one. 2016 and 2020 were the warmest years on record, and the six warmest years have all been since 2010.
Learn more about the relationship between extreme weather and climate change.
The following charts show how emissions and temperatures have gone up since 1900, and how they could continue to change in the future. If we continue to emit more and more greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth will rise a lot - maybe as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Even if we reduce our emissions right now, the temperature of the Earth will still rise slightly, but we might be able to keep the rise below 2 degrees Celsius (or about 4.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Two degrees might not sound like much, but scientists agree that even that small amount of warming can have large impacts on humans and the environment.

Past and Projected Changes in Carbon Emissions and Temperature

Rising global temperatures affect many things, like extreme weather, human health, food supply, and ecosystems. These impacts are already being felt today, and groups like the poor, elderly, and others are especially vulnerable.
Impacts of climate change include:

Heat waves. Heat waves are long periods of time with temperatures that are hotter than normal. As the Earth warms, more areas will be at risk for hotter and more common extreme heat waves. Learn more about the link between climate change and extreme heat.

Heavy precipitation and storms. Heavy precipitation - like rain or snow - is becoming more common in many locations, which can lead to flooding and other dangerous weather. As seas warm, coastal storms like hurricanes are also becoming more frequent and damaging. Learn more about the link between climate change and heavy precipitation and hurricanes.

Sea level rise. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880 because glaciers and ice sheets are melting and seas are warming. Scientists predict that, with 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, sea levels could rise by as much as 1.8 feet this century, which would harm communities living on islands and near coasts. These rises could be even higher if glaciers in Greenland or Antarctica melt very quickly.

Threats to habitats and animals. Warming temperatures, rising seas, melting ice, and other impacts of climate change can threaten the habitat of many plants and animals. Some species are moving to new habitats, but others may struggle to adapt and become endangered or extinct.

Ocean acidification. Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic. This can make it difficult for corals and organisms that form shells to survive, which can create problems in the food chain for other sea animals.

Wildfires. These are fires that burn large amounts of forests and brush. When they are not controlled, wildfires can destroy homes and be deadly. The number of large wildfires and the length of the season when they're most likely and threatening have been increasing in recent years. Find out how climate change will worsen wildfire conditions.

Drought. A drought is a period with little rain and not enough water. Global warming will increase the risk of drought in some places and make it harder to grow food. Learn about the links between climate change and drought.

How can you help?

Even though climate change sounds scary, we still have time to avoid some of the worst impacts. Everyone can play a part, including government, businesses, and you.

There are two main things we need to do:

The first is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. By choosing cleaner ways to power our homes, offices, and cars, and being more efficient and less wasteful, we can produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

There are lot of things you can do to help, like turning off the lights when you leave a room to reduce the electricity you use, walking or biking where you can, or planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide. If you do any of these things, make sure you communicate with other people (like your family, teachers, and friends) about why you're doing them! Communication can inspire more people to change their habits and help save the climate.

Look for more ideas on what we can do together and individually.

The second is to prepare for life in a changing climate. Even if we could stop creating greenhouse gases tomorrow, the climate would still change some because of our past emissions. So we need to make sure our buildings, roads, businesses, and communities are ready for the climate changes that we can't avoid. This includes things like helping cities on the coast prepare for floods, preventing wildfires in our forests, and more.

Learn how communities and companies are preparing.

The power of YOUth

Around the world, young people are learning about climate change and taking action. In fact, young people are some of the most important voices in the climate movement because you can inspire powerful people to create a better future for you.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a politician to make a difference in the fight against climate change. Whatever your talents are, there's a role for you to play. Some young people, like Greta Thunberg, Vanessa Nakate, and others, are leading the Fridays for Future movement to tell their governments to create strong policies to fight climate change. Other students are inventing new technologies to cut emissions and reduce waste. And others are using their creativity to bring awareness to climate change by writing music and creating art.

You can also look for ways to get involved in your community - maybe you can help your school set up a composting program to keep food waste out of the landfill. Maybe your synagogue or mosque needs help switching to energy efficient lights. Maybe you can write a letter to your local government to encourage your community to prepare for extreme weather or wildfires. Everyone can do something to fight climate change.

Check out our Educator Resources page for activities you can do to learn more about how climate change works and how you can be a part of the solution.
C2ES thanks the Alcoa Foundation for its support, which allowed us to develop our Climate Classroom content. As a fully independent organization, C2ES is solely responsible for its positions, programs, and publications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like what the “greenhouse effect” actually is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Science, Explained in 10 Graphics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thousands of people are expected to attend this weekend’s People’s Climate Movement march. It’s a good moment to reflect on the facts—what we know about climate change today, and what impacts we can expect in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Animation Shows Devastating Effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Global warming happens when Earth slowly gets warmer over a long period of time. Earth is always warming up and cooling down. However, it is getting warmer faster than it has before. Scientists said that 2016 was the warmest year ever. If global warming continues, it could cause bad weather. Some plants and animals could be wiped out.

Scientists say there are things people can do to stop the effects of global warming. They can use less coal and gas as fuel. These make greenhouse gases that cause global warming. People can also stop cutting down trees. Trees help absorb bad greenhouse gases.

Main Ideas

Earth is slowly getting warmer. This is happening faster than ever before. This is called global warming.

People's use of fossil fuels is putting too much carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere. This speeds up global warming.

If global warming continues, extreme weather may increase. Some animal species may die out.

Global warming can be slowed by using alternative energy sources and saving rainforests.

How Global Warming Occurs

The atmosphere is a cloud of gases around Earth. It protects Earth from radiation from outer space. It also traps heat from the Sun. Without the atmosphere, Earth would be too cold for humans to live.

Greenhouse gases trap heat and help keep Earth warm. However, too much greenhouse gas could cause global warming. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Tests show that Earth has too much carbon dioxide.

Many human activities make carbon dioxide. The biggest is the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Fossil fuels form from dead plants and animals over hundreds of millions of years. They are very flammable. Common fossil fuels include coal, oil, and natural gas.

Fossil fuels are often used to power cars, buses, factories, and homes. Gasoline, oil for cars, and other fuels are made from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons. When burned, hydrocarbons release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Activities that use fossil fuels speed up global warming. They include driving cars, running factories, and heating homes.

Many green plants, such as trees and bushes, absorb carbon dioxide. Forests and rainforests absorb lots of carbon dioxide before it gets into the atmosphere. Plants and trees are part of Earth's natural balance. Unfortunately, many trees are cut down every year. Logging companies chop down trees and sell the wood. Rainforests are destroyed to make space for farmland. This adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and speeds up global warming.

Consequences of Global Warming

If it continues, global warming will cause much more damage to people and the environment. Temperature increases of just a few degrees might not seem dangerous. However, even small shifts in Earth's overall temperature will have severe results. Many places will not grow warmer. Instead, these areas will see an increase in extreme weather. Tsunamis, hurricanes, thunderstorms, blizzards, and droughts could become more common. Also, as Earth gets warmer at the poles, the ice caps will continue to melt. This may cause sea levels to rise and may make coastal areas unlivable over time.

Earth naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles. However, Earth has never changed temperature at such a high rate. Over millions of years, most animals can adapt to changing environments. When environments change in just a few hundred years, many animals cannot adapt fast enough to survive. Polar bears are a good example of this. Global warming made a lot of polar ice melt quickly. Polar bears have not adapted to smaller environments. They need polar ice to sleep and hunt large prey. Now there are fewer large ice sheets. This has caused the number of polar bears to drop by more than 20 percent in fewer than twenty years.

As global warming continues, many animals will not be able to adapt to changing environments. They may become extinct. This will change the environment. It will damage food chains and other fragile parts of the environment.

Connections: Types of Pollution

Besides the burning of fossil fuels, there are many forms of pollution that damage Earth's water, land, and air. Dumping trash and chemicals into water damages oceans, rivers, and streams. Burying waste harms the land and can make it hard for plants to grow. The smog produced by factories and cars pollutes the air. It makes it hard to breathe. Oil spills and other accidents also damage the environment. Government groups such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) work to help reduce pollution and its effects on the planet.

Preventing Global Warming

Scientists have suggested many ways to slow and stop global warming. One idea is for people to switch from using fossil fuels to other energy sources. Hydroelectric power, wind energy, and solar energy could be used to power homes and cars instead of oil, gas, and coal. This would lower the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Scientists also warn of the dangers of the continued clearing of rainforests. This will release an additional two hundred billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the coming years. While saving forests and rainforests will cost money, scientists believe that it is needed to slow global warming.

Words to Know

extinct

The term used to describe the loss of an entire animal or plant species.

hydroelectric power

The use of moving water to generate electricity.

radiation

Energy that is released in the form of waves and can be dangerous to humans.

smog

A cloud of dirty air that can make it difficult to breathe.

solar energy

The use of devices such as solar panels to harness the Sun's power and convert it into usable energy.

tsunami

A huge wave often created by an underwater earthquake that can cause severe damage when it reaches a coast.

wind energy

The use of devices such as wind turbines to harness the power of the wind and convert it into electricity.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global warming happens when Earth slowly gets warmer over a long period of time. Earth is always warming up and cooling down. However, it is getting warmer faster than it has before. Scientists said that 2016 was the warmest year ever. If global warming continues, it could cause bad weather.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Friendly Guide to Climate Change - and what you can do to help #everytoncounts

# data[].attributes.headline
How our warmer oceans are contributing to climate breakdown

# data[].attributes.subject
How our warmer oceans are contributing to climate breakdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humans have made the oceans more stable, and the result will be more extreme weather and the acceleration of climate change.

You may have heard the phrase "hot air rises". And it is true: when you heat up air, the warmed air wants to rise, like a hot-air balloon. The rising motion is caused by the changing density of the air, a process scientists refer to as buoyancy.

The same thing is true in the oceans. Warm water is less dense than cold waters. In oceans, water tends to stratify, with warmer, less dense water sitting atop colder, more dense water. We refer to this as a "stable" configuration.

Sometimes the waters are not stable. For example, the upper waters of the ocean can suddenly become heavier. This causes the water to fall from the surface towards the ocean floor. Waters near the ocean floor are then brought up to the surface where mixing occurs.

Not only does water move up and down in the ocean, but currents flow around the world horizontally as well.

The upward and downward motions are common in the North Atlantic, the north Pacific, and in the Indian and Southern oceans. It turns out these water currents have major effects on the entire ocean, as well as the weather.

How would ocean water near the surface suddenly become more heavy? It is to do with the saltiness of the water. The saltier the water is, the more dense it is. Fresher waters are less dense. When warm water forms the top level of the ocean, evaporation of liquid water into the air removes water molecules and increases the saltiness of the water, which then causes the water to fall and mixing to occur. So mixing is affected by both temperature and saltiness.

A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, of which I was one of the authors, used new techniques to analyse ocean waters using a large collection of data from around the world.

The paper shows that the stratification of the oceans - less dense waters sitting above more dense water - is increasing. In other words, the oceans are become more stable, with less "up-and-down" motion.

The team has shown that the ocean stability has increased by 5.36% in the upper 6,310 metres (20,700ft) of the oceans over the past 50 to 60 years. Our paper shows some of the increased stability of the oceans is due to a warmer ocean surface because of greenhouse gases and human-caused global heating.

But why should we care? This is the big question. Does a more stable ocean matter for humans?

It does, and we will feel the effects. First, when warm waters sit at the ocean surface, they affect weather, particularly typhoons and hurricanes. In fact, warm ocean surface water provides the fuel for these large storms.

A warmer ocean, then, is less able to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Consequently, more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, which will lead to more warming.

In addition, a more stable ocean is less efficient at moving nutrients through its waters. This means animals that require the flow of nutrient-rich waters could be at risk.

There is a final risk - one related to more severe implications in the future. The more stable oceans mean we expect the Earth to warm faster in future because of the weakening mixing that penetrates down to deep oceans, and the lower capability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide.

In a terrible twist of fate, the warming we have caused in the past has resulted in a more stable ocean, and that will increase future warming - a feedback loop that keeps getting stronger.

It is not all doom and gloom. The good news is we know why the climate is changing and we know how the oceans are responding. We can do something about this problem - we have the ability to slow down climate change. We just lack the will and leadership.

But if 2020 has shown us anything, it has revealed that humans can change and adapt quickly to situations. There is hope that we can navigate the challenges resulting from a more stable ocean - but we must start immediately.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How our warmer oceans are contributing to climate breakdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humans have made the oceans more stable, and the result will be more extreme weather and the acceleration of climate change. You may have heard the phrase "hot air rises". And it is true: when you heat up air, the warmed air wants to rise, like a hot-air balloon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our changing climate

October 2018

A problem felt around the world

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural gas that helps make the planet warm so life on earth can survive. Human actives are putting too much CO2 gas in the earth's atmosphere and the ocean. This is harming our planet and is causing global temperatures to get warmer. This is called climate change.

More CO2 in the atmosphere is creating dangerous environmental changes around the world that are not good for people. Additionally, more CO2 in the ocean is making it harder for ocean life, like fish and shellfish, to survive. This means there is less seafood for people to sell and eat.

What climate change means for us

Climate change will harm people and communities around the world differently based on age, gender, health, where they live and what they do for work.

As greenhouse gases build up in Earth's atmosphere and oceans, more heat will be trapped. CO2 in the atmosphere has skyrocketed since the start of the industrial revolution in 1750, from about 280 parts per million (PPM) to over 400 PPM in 2017. In oceans, CO2 pollution is making ocean water mor acidic and making it harder for fish and ocean life to grow and survive. Overall, global temperatures are rising steadily despite natural ups and downs, and 2016 was the hottest year on record. These global changes contributed to problems such as:

Poor air quality in Seattle;

Drought in Texas;

Hurricane in Puerto Rico;

Dust storm in Kenya;

Flooding in Pakistan.

Climate change is affecting our local communities

Here is how climate change is affecting King County:

Environmental impacts

Rising sea levels. Warmer temperatures are heating up the ocean and making ice and glaciers melt, causing the sea level to rise. This can blood coastal homes and communities.

More heavy rain.

More river flooding.

Hotter and drier summers.

Less snowpack in the mountains.

Wildfires.

Health impacts

More hot days. More high heat days can make people sick.

Bad air quality. Hotter summers can make air quality worse. This can harm people with asthma and heart problems.

Diseases. Warmer temperatures can create more bacteria in seafood and fresh water and could make people sick. Diseases from ticks and mosquitoes can increase.

Economic impacts - changes in environment will cost people more money and impact jobs:

Floods from rivers and the ocean can damage homes, neighborhoods and businesses.

Extreme weather like wind storms can damage homes and make places less safe.

Food. Crops can be damaged by heat, drought and insects. This can affect what food is sold in the market and how much it costs.

Working together to solve climate change

You and your community can help create a healthy and clean environment for families today and future generations.

Drive less

Take the bus, carpool, bike, and walk more instead of driving to cut CO2 pollution. Options include:

Save energy

Reduce CO2 pollution and save money by saving energy in your house and using less electricity.

Use energy efficient, "Energy Star" appliances and LED light bulbs.

Create less waste

Cut pollution by creating less trash. Recycle your waste and compost your unwanted food.

Start a community exchange to trade items you no longer need instead of throwing them away.

Buy local and seasonal foods

Buy local foods that are in season. This fights CO2 pollution because many foods in stores are shipped from places far away.

Working together to fight climate change

You and your community can help create a healthy and clean environment for families today and future generations.

Volunteer

Planting trees and other plants in your community can help fight pollution. Trees and plants clean the air and create shady places to escape the heat.

Be prepared

Be ready for extreme weather events before they happen. Check on elderly neighbors or those who have health conditions during hot summer days and other extreme weather events.

Make your voice heard

Make your voice heard by going to community meetings to talk about how climate change is impacting your family.

Tell others about climate change and work together to fight pollution.

King County climate action. Clean future. Strong communities.

King County provides services and resources to help communities support actions on climate change to reduce CO2 pollution and strengthen communities.

For more information about climate change please visit kingcounty.gov/climate.

Climate change materials were developed in partnership and collaboration with the following organizations: Chinese Information and Service Center, Latino Community Fund, Mother Africa, and UTOPIA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
climate change global warming anthropocene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore our infographics to learn how climate change affects people and places differently across the planet, how King County is addressing the climate issue and how individuals can be part of the climate change solution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech."

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war ("Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.").
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

# data[].attributes.headline
What You Need to Know About Hate Speech and Free Speech - What's protected by the First Amendment, and what isn't

# data[].attributes.subject
What You Need to Know About Hate Speech and Free Speech - What's protected by the First Amendment, and what isn't

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hate speech is when a person or a group of people is attacked based on factors such as their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. According to the Centers for Educational Justice & Community Engagement at the University of California Berkeley, hate speech includes written and verbal communication.

Of course, where the First Amendment becomes tricky is when it comes to people who have discriminatory ideologies against others, as they are also protected under the law. For example, one can vehemently disagree with the views of the Ku Klux Klan, which believes in white supremacy, but unless members of the Klan act on those words, their speech and right to assemble is protected under the Constitution.
When does hate speech become a crime?
Given that even hate speech is seen as a right, it's been largely protected in the courts. Some college campuses, for example, have tried to implement "speech codes," typically with good intentions of making campuses inclusive and ridding them of discriminatory language. In court, however, these acts have typically been found unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment and the right for people to speak freely.

While typically hate speech has to be acted on to turn into a crime, there is a special exception called the "fighting words" clause, which stipulates that if someone uses words to "incite an immediate breach of peace", then it's no longer protected. The example the ACLU gives is if a white student directed a racial slur at a black student, one could argue that the person did so as a means of racial harassment. This reasoning, however, hasn't been argued in the Supreme Court before, so it's hard to tell if it would be successful in the future.

Additionally, hate speech can violate certain freedom of speech laws like slander (trying to damage someone's reputation with false spoken words) or libel (trying to damage someone's reputation through writing). In some cases, hate speech could also violate rules as technical as copyright violations or non-disclosure agreements depending on how and where those opinions are articulated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Need to Know About Hate Speech and Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent protest at UC Berkeley against online troll Milo Yiannapoulos brought up questions concerning how hate speech differs from free speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill of Rights

During the summer of 1787, a group of politicians, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, gathered in Philadelphia to draft a new U.S. Constitution.

Antifederalists, led by the first governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the new constitution gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states. They further argued that the Constitution lacked protections for people's individual rights.

The debate over whether to ratify the Constitution in several states hinged on the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would safeguard basic civil rights under the law. Fearing defeat, pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists, promised a concession to the antifederalists-a Bill of Rights.

James Madison drafted most of the Bill of Rights. Madison was a Virginia representative who would later become the fourth president of the United States. He created the Bill of Rights during the 1st United States Congress, which met from 1789 to 1791 - the first two years that President George Washington was in office.

The Bill of Rights, which was introduced to Congress in 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment Text

The First Amendment text reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While the First Amendment protected freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition, subsequent amendments under the Bill of Rights dealt with the protection of other American values including the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference. It's the most basic component of freedom of expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech is protected. Legally, material labeled as obscene has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection, for example, but deciding what qualifies as obscene has been problematic. Speech provoking actions that would harm others-true incitement and/or threats-is also not protected, but again determining what words have qualified as true incitement has been decided on a case-by-case basis.

Freedom of the Press

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication.

There are certain limits to freedom of the press. False or defamatory statements-called libel-aren't protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, prohibits the government from establishing a "state" religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

Right to Assemble, Right to Petition

The First Amendment protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political or religious purposes. It also protects the right to protest the government.

The right to petition can mean signing a petition or even filing a lawsuit against the government.

First Amendment Court Cases

Here are landmark Supreme Court decisions related to the First Amendment.

Schenck v. United States, 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I.

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the "clear and present danger" standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson, 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas court's decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.
Freedom of Religion:
Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case upheld a federal law banning polygamy, testing the limits of religious liberty in America. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the "Lemon Test" for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clause-that's the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.
Right to Assemble & Right to Petition:
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): When Alabama Circuit Court ordered the NAACP to stop doing business in the state and subpoenaed the NAACP for records including their membership list, the NAACP brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, which Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing: "This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations."

Edwards v. South Carolina (1962): On March 2, 1961, 187 Black students marched from Zion Baptist Church to the South Carolina State House, where they were arrested and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to reverse the convictions, arguing that the state infringed on the free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition of the students.

Sources

The Bill of Rights; White House.
History of the First Amendment; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Schenck v. United States; C-Span.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government.

# data[].attributes.headline
September 15, 2008.         10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know 	By TOM JACOBS

# data[].attributes.subject
September 15, 2008.         10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know 	By TOM JACOBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nation’s highest court has had plenty to say about everything from free speech at school to teenagers’ rights in the legal system.

# data[].attributes.headline
Preface to "How Should the Right to Free Speech Apply to Corporations?"

# data[].attributes.subject
Preface to "How Should the Right to Free Speech Apply to Corporations?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Kristina Borjesson, ed. Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press. New York: Prometheus Books, 2002.

In February 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq, Stephen Downs, an Albany, New York-area lawyer, and his adult son went to a local mall wearing T-shirts that read "Peace On Earth," "Give Peace A Chance," and "No War With Iraq." By all appearances the father and son pair were seemingly exercising their constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression. As the two ate at the mall's food court, however, a security guard approached them and asked them to remove their shirts. The son complied, but the father refused on First Amendment grounds. The security guard contacted the police. The police asked the senior Downs to leave the mall and, when he refused, they arrested him and charged him with trespassing.

The point in question in this case was not whether Downs had the right to wear the shirt but whether he had the right to wear it on the mall's private property. Only a handful of states recognize the free speech rights of individuals on corporate-held private property, such as malls. New York state law protects the rights held by the owners of private property more than the rights of individuals who happen to be on that property. Notwithstanding the law's backing, when local activists protested Downs's arrest, the mall's management decided that it would be best to drop the charges against him. This case underscores a concern among civil libertarians: In an increasingly privatized, corporate environment, should the business interests of corporations trump a citizen's right to free expression?

An important legal precedent governs the relationship between corporations and free speech. In 1886, a headnote to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad contained the phrase, "Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ... which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Ever since then, corporations have sought the same constitutional protections enjoyed by natural persons in the United States. At one time it was inconceivable that a corporation, an artificial construct, could be granted the same rights as a living human being. But as corporations have become more powerful, laws regarding them have evolved. Corporations now have come to enjoy some of the rights that individuals enjoy, even the right to free speech. Just as with any two individuals, however, occasionally a private citizen and a corporation find their free speech rights in conflict. The case of Stephen Downs and the New York mall provides an apt example.

The chapter that follows seeks to address the rights of corporations regarding free speech. Authors debate not only what free speech rights corporations should be granted but also what limitations corporations can place on the free speech rights of individuals on their property.

Books

Kristina Borjesson, ed. Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press. New York: Prometheus Books, 2002.

James Bovard Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Paul S. Boyer Purity in Print. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002.

Michael Brenson Visionaries and Outcasts: The NEA, Congress, and the Place of the Visual Artist in America. New York: New Press, 2001.

Ronald Collins and David Skover The Trials of Lenny Bruce: The Fall and Rise of an American Icon. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks MediaFusion, 2002.

Michael Kent Curtis Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000.

Michaelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day Be Careful Who You Slap. Los Altos, CA: MoBeta, 2002.

Fiona Donson Legal Intimidation. London: Free Association Books, 2000.

Herbert N. Foerstel From Watergate to Monicagate: Ten Controversies in Modern Journalism and Media. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001.

Robert Justin Goldstein, ed. The War for the Public Mind: Political Censorship in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.

Robert Hargreaves The First Freedom. Stroud, UK: Sutton, 2002.

Philip D. Harvey The Government vs. Erotica: The Siege of Adam and Eve. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001.

Marjorie Heins Not in Front of the Children: 'Indecency,' Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth, New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.

Nat Hentoff The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003.

Richard T. Kaplar, ed. The First Amendment and the Media, 2001. Washington, DC: Media Institute, 2001.

Richard Leone and Greg Anrig, eds. The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. New York: Century Foundation, 2003.

David Lowenthal Present Dangers: Rediscovering the First Amendment. Dallas, TX: Spence, 2002.

Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004.

Linda R. Monk The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution. New York: Hyperion, 2003.

Aryeh Neier Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for Rights. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.

Robert S. Peck Libraries, the First Amendment, and Cyberspace. Chicago: American Library Association, 2002.

William H. Rehnquist All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime. New York: Vintage Books, 2000.

Lawrence Soley Censorship, Inc.: The Corporate Threat to Free Speech in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2002.

Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck Freedom of Speech in the United States. 4th Ed. State College, PA: Strata, 2001.

Tinsley E. Yarbrough The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Periodicals

Dell Champlin and Janet Knoedler "Operating in the Public Interest or in the Pursuit of Private Profits? News in the Age of Media Consolidation," Journal of Economic Issues, June 2002.

Robert Corn-Revere "Indecency, Television, and the First Amendment," Consumers Research, February 2004.

Sean R. Gallagher and Marianne N. Hallinan "Privacy Versus Freedom of Speech: Telemarketing and Government's Ability to Limit It," Colorado Lawyer, October 2004.

William Norman Grigg "Censoring America: An Attempt to Squelch Ads for a Controversial New Film Illustrates How 'Campaign Finance Reform Has Created a New Corps of Federal Speech Police," New American, July 26, 2004.

Nat Hentoff "Getting It Right," Editor & Publisher, November 5, 2001.

Pamela Taylor Jackson and James Ronald Stanfield "The Role of the Press in a Democracy: Heterodox Economics and the Propaganda Model," Journal of Economic Issues, June 2004.

Russell Jacoby "The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives," Nation, April 4, 2005.

Charles Levendosky "President Bush: Make Those Protesters Disappear," Humanist, January/February 2004.

Alexandra Marks "Kids on Internet: Controls or No Controls? A Philadelphia Court Case Weighs Whether Mandatory Computer Filters Curb Free Speech," Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2002.

Ian Marquand "All Free Speech Cases Affect Journalism," Quill, April 2003.

Jay Mathews "The Perils of Campus Candor," Washington Post, November 10, 2002.

Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols "Holding the Line at the FCC," Progressive, April 2003.

Roger Parloff "Can We Talk?" Fortune, September 2, 2002.

Elisabeth Sifton "The Battle over the Pledge," Nation, April 5, 2004.

Eugene Volokh "First Myths," National Review Online, January 5, 2004. www.nationalreview.com.

Lorraine Woellert "Will the Right to Pester Hold Up? The First Amendment Protects Marketers, but Spam May Shift the Equation," Business Week, November 10, 2003.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preface to "How Should the Right to Free Speech Apply to Corporations?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kristina Borjesson, ed. Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press. New York: Prometheus Books, 2002. In February 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq, Stephen Downs, an Albany, New York-area lawyer, and his adult son went to a local mall wearing T-shirts that read "Peace On Earth," "Give Peace A Chance," and "No War With Iraq."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Things You Should Know About Free Speech in Schools: Free Speech Rules (Episode 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does "Freedom of Speech" Mean in the U.S.? | History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food waste is food that people throw away or otherwise choose not to use. This food was created for humans to consume, but does not reach that purpose for some reason. Many steps are necessary to produce food for people, and food waste may occur at any one of these steps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Imagine nearly 40 million tons of food wasted each year in the US alone. Most of us don't realize the amount we're throwing away from uneaten leftovers to spoiled produce and canned goods that have expired. Here are some simple ways to reduce food waste, protect the environment, and save money. Plan your meals ahead of time. Make a shopping list. And only buy what you need for each recipe. Check your cabinets and your refrigerator to avoid buying ingredients you already have. For maximum freshness, make sure you know what produce goes on the counter and what needs to be refrigerated. Fresh fruit and veggies like lettuce, berries, asparagus and mushrooms should be placed in a clean refrigerator at 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Keep fruit and vegetables in separate bins and freeze or preserve any surplus before it goes bad. Same goes for bread and meats you won't be able to eat in time. Schedule a leftovers night each week or turn todays meal into tomorrows casserole or stir fry.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine nearly 40 million tons of food wasted each year in the US alone. Most of us don't realize the amount we're throwing away from uneaten leftovers to spoiled produce and canned goods that have expired. Here are some simple ways to reduce food waste, protect the environment, and save money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

According to the Food Recovery Hierarchy established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), preventing food waste at the source and recovering edible food for donation to people facing food insecurity are the most preferred methods of reducing food waste, as far as creating the greatest benefits for the environment, society, and the economy. For the food waste that is produced despite prevention and recovery efforts, however, recycling offers environmental and economic benefits. Since food scraps are biodegradable, they can be recycled by composting-a natural decomposition process that turns plant material into a nutrient-rich, environmentally sustainable, organic fertilizer called humus (or compost). Adding compost improves the quality of soil, reduces the need for chemical fertilizers, increases the health of plants, controls erosion, and eliminates soil contaminants.

Around half of all the garbage created by American households is compostable, including food scraps, grass clippings, and yard waste. Yet only 5 percent of household food scraps are recycled, and 29 million tons of food waste end up in landfills each year. Collecting, transporting, and disposing of municipal solid waste costs US cities millions of dollars annually, and many local landfills have limited space remaining to accommodate more garbage. In addition, the decomposition of organic material in landfills produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global climate change.

Composting and other forms of recycling food waste have the potential to divert 9.5 million tons of organic material from the nation's landfills annually, according to the nonprofit think tank Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data (ReFED). The organization posits that such reforms could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills by 4.8 million tons per year. Recycling could also create 2 million tons of compost annually, thus turning food waste into a valuable resource to support sustainable farming operations and environmental remediation projects. Critics of composting, on the other hand, argue that large-scale efforts are too costly in terms of land use requirements and investments in infrastructure for collecting, transporting, and processing organic waste.

Centralized Composting

Composting food waste can be accomplished on a large-scale, centralized basis by municipalities, or on a small-scale, decentralized basis by households, farms, schools, supermarkets, restaurants, and community gardens. Many communities already have composting facilities in place to recycle yard waste, manure, and other high-volume biodegradable materials. Although some of these facilities can be adapted to recycle food waste, only 10 percent of the approximately 5,000 composting facilities nationwide accepted food scraps in 2016.

Centralized composting faces a number of obstacles. The space required to accommodate large-scale composting operations can reach 20 acres per 50,000 tons of waste processed. Large cities may have only a limited number of sites of this size available, and they may face resistance from local residents concerned about the potential for noise, odors, pests, and traffic. In addition, industrialized composting operations involve high startup costs to develop the necessary infrastructure for collecting organic waste. As a result, many composting facilities tend to be smaller and decentralized, and therefore lack the economies of scale available to larger facilities.

Cities and communities can increase participation by creating laws and policies that establish incentives for composting and penalties for landfill usage. Five states-California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont-have passed laws that ban organic waste from entering landfills. Vermont state law has prohibited the disposal of mandatory recyclables in landfills since 2015; yard waste since 2016; and by 2020, food scraps will also be prohibited from landfills. The city of San Francisco's Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance, adopted in 2009, requires residents, property owners, and businesses to separate their trash into three bins for recycling, composting, or landfill disposal. Although collection services for the three types of materials are provided by the city at a flat rate, participants can reduce their costs by switching to a smaller landfill bin or arranging for less-frequent trash pickup. As of 2014, similar organic waste collection and composting programs served more than 2.8 million households throughout the United States. Around 40 percent of Massachusetts cities and towns have adopted pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) policies to encourage composting of organic waste. These pricing policies for waste management services charge customers based on the amount of trash consumers send to landfills.

Decentralized Composting

Decentralized composting operations range from food scrap collection bins under the kitchen sink to community drop-off locations and institutional or business-based sustainability initiatives. Many schools and restaurants separate uneaten or excess food from garbage and either recycle food scraps by composting or donate safe and nonperishable items to food banks and soup kitchens. At Pearl City High School in Hawaii, for instance, students collected uneaten food in the cafeteria and composted it on site. They succeeded in diverting more than 97 percent of food scraps, or nearly 35,000 pounds (15,875.73 kilograms) of food, from the school waste stream during the 2014-2015 academic year.

Consumer-facing businesses like grocery stores and restaurants account for up to 40 percent of all food waste in the United States, and an increasing number of these businesses, particularly supermarkets, are participating in food recycling programs. The New Seasons Market chain, which includes a dozen locally owned and operated grocery stores in Portland, Oregon, is one of over 800 businesses and institutions nationwide to participate in the EPA's Food Recovery Challenge. After conducting a waste audit to quantify and determine the main sources of waste, New Seasons Market management implemented a company-wide sustainability program to prevent, recover, and recycle food waste. This program reduced the company's total garbage production by 30 percent and increased the amount of organic material that was composted by 109 percent. The supermarket chain donated 1,040 tons of unsold, edible food to people in need and composted 2,410 tons of food waste in 2011.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to the Food Recovery Hierarchy established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), preventing food waste at the source and recovering edible food for donation to people facing food insecurity are the most preferred methods of reducing food waste, as far as creating the greatest benefits for the environment, society, and the economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

Food waste refers to edible food that is not consumed and is instead discarded by retailers or consumers. Food is considered wasted when it is thrown away or allowed to spoil by supermarkets, restaurants, or consumers. As reported by Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data (ReFED), a nonprofit think tank, food waste by consumer-facing businesses such as supermarkets, restaurants, and institutional foodservice vendors amounts to twenty-three million tons (roughly twenty-one million tonnes), or 28 percent of the total amount of food wasted in the United States each year. US households are responsible for about 39 percent of food waste, throwing out thirty million tons (about twenty-seven million tonnes) of edible food per year.

Food loss, which refers to decreased...
Read more

Search within results

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food Waste - Topic - Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food waste refers to edible food that is not consumed and is instead discarded by retailers or consumers. Food is considered wasted when it is thrown away or allowed to spoil by supermarkets, restaurants, or consumers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trash—How Much We Create and One Way to Reduce It

# data[].attributes.subject
Trash—How Much We Create and One Way to Reduce It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trash-How Much We Create and One Way to Reduce It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So, the problem and we were kind of talking about this a little bit earlier is that we throw away a lot of stuff here in the United States. On average, a person in the US throws away about four and a half pounds of waste a day.

# data[].attributes.headline
Food Waste - Iowa Waste Reduction Center

# data[].attributes.subject
Food Waste - Iowa Waste Reduction Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food Waste, Global Hunger & You | #StopTheWaste

# data[].attributes.body
The 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920, granting women the right to vote.

The founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of the democracy and perfect union they sought to create.

But women, African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans were systematically denied the right to vote for centuries.

Here's a look at how voting rights in America have evolved over the centuries, and what issues remain today.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Voting Rights Act 50 Years Later- Barack Obama

# data[].attributes.subject
The Voting Rights Act 50 Years Later- Barack Obama

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Voting Rights Act of 1965

The 1965 Enactment

By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act.

Congress determined that the existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to enforcement of the 15th Amendment. The legislative hearings showed that the Department of Justice's efforts to eliminate discriminatory election practices by litigation on a case-by-case basis had been unsuccessful in opening up the registration process; as soon as one discriminatory practice or procedure was proven to be unconstitutional and enjoined, a new one would be substituted in its place and litigation would have to commence anew.

President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. Section 2 of the Act, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis. Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place.

The Voting Rights Act had not included a provision prohibiting poll taxes, but had directed the Attorney General to challenge its use. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Between 1965 and 1969 the Supreme Court also issued several key decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 and affirming the broad range of voting practices that required Section 5 review. As the Supreme Court put it in its 1966 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Act:

Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966).

The 1970 and 1975 Amendments

Congress extended Section 5 for five years in 1970 and for seven years in 1975. With these extensions Congress validated the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the scope of Section 5. During the hearings on these extensions Congress heard extensive testimony concerning the ways in which voting electorates were manipulated through gerrymandering, annexations, adoption of at-large elections, and other structural changes to prevent newly-registered black voters from effectively using the ballot. Congress also heard extensive testimony about voting discrimination that had been suffered by Hispanic, Asian and Native American citizens, and the 1975 amendments added protections from voting discrimination for language minority citizens.

In 1973, the Supreme Court held certain legislative multi-member districts unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment on the ground that they systematically diluted the voting strength of minority citizens in Bexar County, Texas. This decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), strongly shaped litigation through the 1970s against at-large systems and gerrymandered redistricting plans. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove.

The 1982 Amendments

Congress renewed in 1982 the special provisions of the Act, triggered by coverage under Section 4 for twenty-five years. Congress also adopted a new standard, which went into effect in 1985, providing how jurisdictions could terminate (or "bail out" from) coverage under the provisions of Section 4. Furthermore, after extensive hearings, Congress amended Section 2 to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the Section without having to prove discriminatory purpose.

The 2006 Amendments

Congress renewed the special provisions of the Act in 2006 as part of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara Jordan, William Velazquez and Dr. Hector Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. The 2006 legislation eliminated the provision for voting examiners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this month, a Washington, D.C., city councilman proposed what hasn't been a widely embraced idea in recent years: lowering the voting age threshold in local and federal elections from 18 to 16.

Charles Allen had attempted to pass his bill once before, in 2015, but it died in committee. This time, he said, he thinks there's more support. Since the early 2010s, a handful of communities, mostly clustered in the suburbs of D.C., have already lowered the voting age to 16 for local elections, and other cities are considering similar legislation.

As young people across the country have staged protests and pressured their lawmakers for action on gun violence, largely in response to the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, the question of when teens ought to have an electoral voice has resurfaced.

Constitutional law expert Michael Morley said states, for the most part, are empowered to define their own electorates. States have broader power than Congress to set the voting age for state and local elections, though Congress regulates federal offices, he added.

Here's a look at the issue, and what it might mean for the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Why is the voting age 18?
In 1970, Congress passed a series of amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of which lowered the national voting age from 21 to 18. After the amendments passed, states had one of three options, Morley said. They could comply, they could ignore the new law and wait until then-Attorney General John Mitchell enforced the rule by suing the states, or they could do what Oregon chose to do: preemptively sue Mitchell on the grounds that the amendments were unconstitutional.

Later that year, the Supreme Court heard arguments for Oregon v. Mitchell, and ultimately mostly ruled in favor of the state; the Court said Congress only had the authority to legislate voting over previously passed amendments which regulated voting rights (the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, for example), and over federal elections. State and local elections, the Supreme Court said, were regulated solely by the states.

But nationally, a movement was growing in favor of lowering the voting age, Morley said. The nation had been embroiled in the Vietnam War for years, and the sentiment that began to emerge was that if young men (and women) were old enough to fight in the U.S. military, they were old enough to vote. In 1971, Congress proposed the 26th amendment, and it was ratified by three quarters of the states in a matter of months - the fastest ratification of an amendment to date, Morley said.
Who has lowered the voting age since then?
According to Brandon Klugman, campaign coordinator at Vote16USA, an organization which lobbies for lowering the voting age, currently four other cities have laws allowing 16- or 17-year-olds to vote: three Maryland cities - Takoma Park, Greenbelt, and Hyattsville - allow 16-year-olds to vote in local elections; and Berkeley, California, allows 16-year-olds to vote in school board elections only.

Many states also allow 17-year-olds to vote in state and presidential primary elections if they turn 18 before the general election, according to FairVote.
Why the D.C. campaign is complicated
D.C. is a unique case. Though it operates as a city, it's also a district under federal control. So, while the 50 states can change their individual voting age requirements, only D.C. is also under the watchful eye of Congress, which can overturn legislation from the city if it wants to, Morley said.
What supporters say
Allen has a laundry list of reasons he believes the voting age is too high. Among them: 16-year-olds should have a stake in laws which affect them, such as education policy; research suggests that a strong predictor for voting habits is a record of previous voting; and as student activists around the country have demonstrated, many teenagers, "have very well thought out positions and frankly, in many cases, they're leading the adults," Allen said.

For Allen, however, perhaps his greatest motivation is that many 16-year-olds are taxpayers who cannot vote for their own elected representation. That issue speaks strongly to a councilmember in D.C., which does not have voting representation in Congress.

Allen has re-introduced his bill at a time when a youth movement is unfolding across the country, with students and teenagers are participating in advocacy, activism, and even government itself.

The national voting rights advocacy group FairVote supports Allen's bill. "Sixteen and 17-year-olds are affected by the same policies or even policies in a different way than older voters are," said Dave O'Brien, legal fellow at FairVote. "Sometimes, they'll be affected by those policies longer," like the environment, the national debt, and decisions about war. "It seems only right that they should have some sort of input into it," he added.
What critics say
Some critics say 16-year-olds aren't mature enough or don't have enough life experience.

"The arguments for lowering the voting age to 18 don't entirely translate to lowering it to 16," Morley said, referring to the 1970 campaign. "You had the notion that 18 was already adulthood in several other contexts," such as facing the draft, establishing households, and starting families. But Morley doesn't necessarily think those arguments apply to 16-year-olds, who in most cases are still legally required to attend school and generally depend on parental support.

Allen doesn't see legal adulthood as relevant.

"I think that young people have a stake in election outcomes. At age 16 your relationship with the law changes dramatically, from being able to drive on city streets to having a job and paying taxes," he said.

"There are a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds that also walk around everyday with adult responsibilities," Allen said. "Not only are they having jobs, they're a part of helping run a family. Some of them may even have kids of their own. When you think about what those responsibilities are, why shouldn't they have a voice in helping shape that?"
Why it matters
Historically, political parties have struggled to get 18- to 24-year-olds to show up on Election Day. According to census data, 50.9 percent of the 18- to 24-year-old population voted in the 1964 presidential election. While turnout was similar in the subsequent presidential election, the percentage of voters in that age bracket hasn't been as high since. The percentage didn't crack 40 percent in the 2016 election.

Despite that history, Allen thinks young people are demonstrating a willingness to get engaged. He pointed to Takoma Park, Maryland, as one example. A FairVote analysis of the 2013 election in Takoma Park showed that about 17 percent of 16- and 17-year-old eligible voters cast a ballot in the local election. That's about double the 8.5 percent of eligible 18-year-olds.

"They've shown that they will vote, and they'll vote repeatedly which is good for civics. They're getting engaged now and becoming lifelong voters," Allen said.

At FairVote, O'Brien said that it's possible that allowing teens to vote could impact the voting decisions of the larger electorate. "There might be concerns that older voters might perceive younger voters, or at least that section of the electorate, as somehow less legitimate because they're too immature," O'Brien said. "But you have that same concern whenever a new group is a brought to the electorate, whether it's women or African-Americans."

Neither Allen nor O'Brien sees the issue as partisan - "there are young people who are going to be of all political persuasions," Allen said - but Morley isn't as convinced.

Given that data suggests today's youth tend to vote more Democratic, Morley says jurisdictions' efforts to lower the voting age "could be seen not so much as an attempt to rectify some injustice, but instead as a means of trying to stack the electoral deck" in favor of Democrats.
What's next?
Klugman at Vote16USA said many states are making a good effort to increase voter turnout among young people. Currently, 13 states and D.C. allow for voter pre-registration at age 16. In California, a new law will go into effect this month, in which 16 and 17-year-olds will be pre-registered to vote when they get a driver's license. They'll have to opt out if they don't want to register.

And Klugman said that state legislators in at least three other states - New York, Virginia and Minnesota - have introduced bills to lower the voting age in state and local elections, federal elections, or both.

The next step for the D.C. bill is a hearing at the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, which Allen chairs. He said since four of the five committee members co-introduced the bill, he anticipates it will be voted on fairly quickly this summer. It will then move to a vote before the entire city council, and, if successful, to Mayor Muriel Bowser's desk (Bowser's press secretary, LaToya Foster, said the mayor will support the bill).

By 2020, Allen hopes 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in both local and federal races.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this month, a Washington, D.C., city councilman proposed what hasn't been a widely embraced idea in recent years: lowering the voting age threshold in local and federal elections from 18 to 16.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 19th Amendment passed 100 years ago today. The evolution of American voting rights in 244 years shows how far we've come — and how far we still have to go

# data[].attributes.subject
The 19th Amendment passed 100 years ago today. The evolution of American voting rights in 244 years shows how far we've come — and how far we still have to go

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920, granting women the right to vote.

The founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of the democracy and perfect union they sought to create.

But women, African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans were systematically denied the right to vote for centuries.

Here's a look at how voting rights in America have evolved over the centuries, and what issues remain today.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Women won the right to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified 100 years ago on August 18, 1920.

Voting is one of America's most cherished democratic liberties, and it has a long and storied history. While the founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of the democracy and perfect union they sought to create, the right to vote was denied for many populations for centuries of US history.

In the beginning of the republic, voting was mainly restricted to property-owning white men, which would later be extended to all men. While the right to vote was eventually granted to women with the 19th Amendment in 1920, white women were the main beneficiaries.

Men and women of color would continue to fight to battle discriminatory voting practices for decades even after technically receiving the right to vote, culminating in the historic civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which led to landmark legislation that transformed American voting rights.

But even today, activists and civil rights groups are continuing to fight voting laws they argue are discriminatory.

Here's a look at how voting rights in America have evolved over the centuries, and what issues remain today:

In 1856, North Carolina became the last state to remove property ownership as a requirement for voting, meaning all white men could vote by this time.
Source: Constitutional Rights Foundation

After the Civil War and the end of slavery, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to extend citizenship to freed slaves. The amendment directs that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

This amendment gave freed African Americans citizenship, but they wouldn't get the right to vote for two more years. And even then, Southern states used a variety of tactics to suppress African American turnout for nearly a century afterwards.
Source: Library of Congress

Women's suffrage activist Susan B. Anthony was famously arrested along with 15 other women, and prosecuted for attempting to vote in the presidential election of 1872 in Rochester, New York. President Trump pardoned Susan B. Anthony on August 18, 2020.

In Detroit, former slave and fellow activist Sojourner Truth was similarly turned away when she demanded a ballot at her polling place.

The next several decades would see a surge in women's suffrage activism, including marches, lobbying, and more militant methods such as breaking windows of buildings during marches, and going on hunger strikes.
Source: History Channel

The United States has a long, painful, and complicated history with its treatment of Native Americans, and voting rights is no exception.

In 1876, a federal court ruled that Native Americans could not vote because they were not properly citizens under the 14th Amendment.

Ten years later, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which allowed Native Americans to gain citizenship if they renounced their tribal citizenship, and created a process for Native Americans to apply for naturalization in 1890.

Native Americans and other racial minority groups who had served in World War I were also granted citizenship and the right to vote in the late 1910s.

While Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans in 1924, many state-level discriminatory policies - such as banning people living on a reservation or enrolled in a tribe from voting, or instituting fees and "competency tests" - kept them from the polls for decades.
Source: Native American Voting Rights Fund

On many DC license plates you'll see the phrase "taxation without representation" - and it's because residents of the District of Columbia paid taxes, but couldn't vote in presidential elections until the early 1960s.

While DC is allotted three electoral votes in presidential election years, they have no representation in Congress. A 1978 amendment to give DC congressional representatives ultimately failed in Congress.
Source: Time

The NVRA streamlined the voter registration process by allowing people to register to vote while obtaining or renewing driver's licenses at Departments of Motor Vehicles or other public assistance centers instead of having to apply by mail.
Source: US Department of Justice

While voting rights in America have come a long way toward ensuring equal ballot access for all, many scholars and activists argue that the overtly racist Jim Crow laws of the past have given way to discriminatory policies, like voter ID laws, cuts to early voting, polling place closures, and limits to pre-registration.

Strict voter ID laws and other restrictions enacted by Texas and North Carolina in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder were struck down in federal court, with one federal appeals court finding that North Carolina's law targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision."

Among voting issues and controversies in recent years, in 2018, former Georgia Secretary of State and current Governor Brian Kemp was accused of putting 53,000 voter registration applications "on hold" for mismatched names, and incorrectly purging 340,000 voters from the rolls.

In North Dakota, where most Native Americans who reside on reservations only have a PO box, the US Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring voters to bring an ID to the polls with a residential address. The ruling left Native communities scrambling to obtain proper IDs just weeks before the election.

Along with the predominately non-white citizens of American territories like Guam and American Samoa, almost 6 million taxpaying Americans with felony convictions were barred from voting in the 2018 midterms due to state-level felon disenfranchisement laws.

In November 2018, voters in Florida approved a constitutional amendment overturning the state's disenfranchisement law for good, allowing around 1 million formerly disenfranchised residents to vote. The following year, the Florida Legislature passed a law that requires people with felony convictions to pay off any court fines and fees before they can register to vote, which critics say discriminates against poorer residents who cannot afford to do so. In July 2020, the Supreme Court allowed Florida to keep this law in place - it continues to be appealed.
Sources: Brennan Center for Justice, Business Insider, Brennan Center for Justice, Rolling Stone, Associated Press, The New York Times

Voting 2018 Midterm Elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 19th Amendment passed 100 years ago today. The evolution of American voting rights in 244 years shows how far we've come - and how far we still have to go

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of democracy, they only granted the right to vote to white, male property owners.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Fight to Vote: America's Turbulent Voting Rights History [Interactive Timeline]

# data[].attributes.subject
The Fight to Vote: America's Turbulent Voting Rights History [Interactive Timeline]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fight to Vote: America’s Turbulent Voting Rights History [Interactive Timeline] | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States prides itself as a beacon of democracy on the world stage. But universal suffrage has been elusive throughout its history. Teach with the Lowdown Nonfiction analysis, writing/discussion prompts and multimedia projects. Browse our entire lesson plan collection here. Voting rights history lesson plan (PDF) From the early years of the republic, when voting

# data[].attributes.headline
Nonvoters Have Valid Criticisms of the United States Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Nonvoters Have Valid Criticisms of the United States Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The system isn't in place where we can vote for our liberation. It's in place to reform itself for the better domestically. We don't demand more from the system because the system was never designed to help everyone in the first place," Ebony Short, a black 22-year-old cofounder of Georgia State University Panthers for Black Feminism, tells Teen Vogue, speaking about how the U.S. electoral system, built in the 18th century, was created to protect the interests of states with large slave populations.

"Choosing not to vote, as I have done in the past and will do now, is the active decision to control - in some part - how I am engaging (or [not engaging]) a system I never opted to be a part of," explains Da'Shaun Harrison, a 22-year-old black organizer, writer, and former student at Morehouse College. "There are ways to be civically engaged without legitimizing this two-party system, so choosing to take ownership of my right to not legitimize this system via electoral politics is a moral and just - morally just - decision."

These young folks have valid reasons for deciding not to play further into U.S. capitalism, imperialism, and white supremacy. Many feel as if voting for legislation, initiatives, or policies that have proven to be inefficient for those on the margins is a vote for a continued system of disenfranchisement. These young black and brown folks are aware of the forces of white supremacy that they must experience, and have chosen the act of not voting as a means to make space to fight for a new and better world.

Some of those who abstain from voting donate their vote to incarcerated or undocumented folks, doing so with an understanding that the electoral system is one that is rooted in a need to protect state interests by keeping these vulnerable populations from having a voice. They find other ways to engage with their communities, outside of the voting booth.

"Nonvoters are behind the free-food drives, hurricane relief efforts, political education meetings, and more. Voting has an impact, but the people have the power," Gayla Tillman, a black 21-year-old organizer from Atlanta, and a student at Georgia State, tells Teen Vogue.

These decisions aren't made without an understanding of very real voter-suppression tactics at play throughout the country and the privilege that comes with being a U.S. citizen who can vote. These are black and brown young folks who have grown up in the Black Lives Matter era, who are looking to socialism and communism for answers about what a new social and economic reality could look like. They are people whose political identities and beliefs range outside the mainstream: Some are prison abolitionists, Marxist-Leninists, and anarchists. Many are young folks who have been on the front lines of social change and protests and refuse to compromise their politics for the sake of liberalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"It's a System I Never Opted to Be a Part Of": Young People Tell Us Why They Didn't Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an op-ed for "Teen Vogue," Clarissa Brooks looks at how imperialism, white supremacy, and other issues factor into decisions not to vote in elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation metadata

Document controls

Main content

Voting

In modern times, voting is one of the fundamental rights of citizens in countries around the world. Voting is the cornerstone of democratic government and assures that citizens have a say in the functions of their governments. It is such an important power that millions of people have struggled or even died to secure it. However important, voting in the modern world is a relatively new invention. In many cases, people are still reviewing and revising voting laws to ensure that they are fair to all eligible voters.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Fast Facts

In 574 BCE, limited voting rights were included in the Athenian constitution. However, they were reserved only for some citizens.

In the United States, voting is considered a right. It is not mandatory, although many people consider it a duty of citizens.

The secret ballot allows people to vote in private. This is a modern invention as most early voting took place in public.

Background

Voting is closely linked with the democratic form of government. In this type of government, citizens have the power to choose their own leaders and to influence laws and policies. Voting and democracy were both very rare in the ancient world, but they did exist. Some tribal-based societies allowed people to choose their own leaders. The first known large-scale experiments with democracy occurred in ancient Greece.

Some of the Greek city-states allowed citizens to participate in debates and decisions regarding leadership as well as, in some cases, issues such as crime and war. This voting was limited, however. Laws typically reserved the right for adult male taxpayers of the upper classes. Females, foreigners, enslaved people, and others could not vote. In this way, the ancient system was not completely democratic. The idea of voting fell into obscurity for centuries afterward. However, the early voting of the Greeks created important precedents for the future.

Voting Rights in the United States

The next large-scale emergence of democracy appeared in North America. There, in the 1770s and 1780s, colonies revolted against their British overlords and ultimately established the United States. The United States was based on democratic ideals, heavily inspired by those of ancient times. Voting became a symbol of the power of citizens to craft their own destinies.

However, for much of US history, lawmakers observed the ancient idea that voting was a limited right. From the establishment of the United States through the twentieth century, voting rights were reserved for certain citizens. In general, these citizens were educated European American men who owned property. Anyone who did not match that description was most likely disenfranchised.

Racial Voting Rights

Much of US history revolves around the work of reformers seeking universal voting rights. These rights only came gradually, after much work, debate, and, often, conflict. Following the abolition of slavery in 1865, formerly enslaved African Americans gained the legal right to vote through the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. This rule, accepted in 1870, granted the right to vote to all male citizens, regardless of their racial background.

Although this right was officially federal law, many people sought to sabotage it. Particularly in the Southern states, many leaders and citizens wanted to prevent African Americans from voting. They used restrictive policies, often termed Jim Crow laws. Some also used intimidation or even violence. A series of further measures, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1875, increased protections. These slowly cut down on unfair tactics toward voters.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Connections: The Poll Tax

Many tactics arose that limited the right to vote. One practice was to require a payment from all voters. This poll tax had the effect of keeping people with little money away from polls. Often, this meant that impoverished African Americans could not cast a ballot. The Twenty-fourth Amendment and other legislation in the 1960s put an end to poll taxes.

Gender and Age Voting Rights

Voting rights for male citizens had been legally established for decades while women still could not vote. Starting in the mid-1800s, reformers began pushing for female suffrage. Their work persisted for generations, slowly gaining support. They spread the word via speeches, marches, and protests. In 1920, this effort reached its goal in the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. This amendment ended the practice of excluding people from voting based on their sex. Subsequently, voting was open to practically all Americans who were twenty-one or older.

Another important step in voting rights was the Twenty-sixth Amendment of 1971. This addition to the Constitution lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. During this time, many young men were being drafted into the armed forces to serve in the Vietnam War. The draft began at the age of 18, before these men were even allowed to vote. The lowering of the voting age to 18 was intended to give young people a greater say in the direction of their country.

Modern Questions and Challenges

In the 2010s, some officials began revisiting questions about voter protections. The 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder reduced federal ability to oversee state voting practices. Critics of this ruling believed this opened the door to restrictive policies. In particular, they stated that changing rules to make voting more difficult could have a disproportionately negative effect on voters of color.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread lockdowns and quarantines. Before this, voting was primarily an in-person activity. Confusion and disagreement arose over how to safely allow voters to cast ballots without violating social distancing rules. In the coming years, citizens and lawmakers disagreed on whether to change or end these rules. Critics have leveled many charges, including that these practices may increase corruption or impede upon voting rights.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Words to Know

disenfranchised

Not allowed to vote.

suffrage

The right to vote.

universal

Held by all people.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|WLZLLS769176513

Google Drive™

OneDrive™

Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting In modern times, voting is one of the fundamental rights of citizens in countries around the world. Voting is the cornerstone of democratic government and assures that citizens have a say in the functions of their governments. It is such an important power that millions of people have struggled or even died to secure it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting Rights for Women | Kids Discover Online

# data[].attributes.headline
Triumph and Tragedy in the Mid-1960s from CIVIL RIGHTS 

# data[].attributes.subject
Triumph and Tragedy in the Mid-1960s from CIVIL RIGHTS 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Triumph and Tragedy in the Mid-1960s | Kids Discover Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation metadata

Document controls

Main content

Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York

The women's suffrage movement was the struggle for women to win the right to vote. Such efforts were already underway in other parts of the world when the women' suffrage movement began in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century. The American fight for women's suffrage came to an end on August 26, 1920. This is when the US Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment and granted women the right to vote. The women's suffrage movement inspired generations to fight for equal rights for women in many other areas of society.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Fast Facts

New Zealand was the first country to grant women the right to vote.

Following the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, more than eight million American women voted in the November elections for the first time.

Several countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain, did not grant women the right to vote until the twenty-first century.

Background

The women's suffrage movement began in the United States in the decades prior to the American Civil War (1861-1865). By the 1830s, many US states had given all white men the right to vote regardless of their wealth or the property they owned. This right was not extended to white women, however.

At the time, many women were expected to be dutiful wives or mothers. This female ideal was known as the Cult of True Womanhood. This narrow view of women' lives did not suit all women, however. Many women were deeply involved in social activist movements such as those for the abolition of slavery. A number of reform groups were established or organized by women. Without the right to vote, however, women had no part in the political process that could initiate real change.

Early Suffragettes

Two of the earliest proponents of women's suffrage were social reformers Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. In 1848, Stanton and Mott organized an event in Seneca Falls, New York. It was known as the Seneca Falls Convention. This gathering brought together hundreds of male and female abolitionists from across the country. Nearly all of them agreed that women deserved the right to vote.

Those who attended the convention composed the Declaration of Sentiments. This document argued that all men and women are born with a set of natural rights. One of these rights is to be treated equally. The Declaration of Sentiments marked the beginning of the women's suffrage movement.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Connections: Alice Paul's National Women's Party

In 1913, Alice Paul formed a radical group of suffragists known as the National Women's Party (NWP). The NWP engaged in hunger strikes and marched outside the White House to try to bring attention to the women's suffrage movement. Paul had participated in women's suffrage activities in England. She adopted several styles of English protest for her campaigns. They included picketing and rallying. Paul also drafted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). This called for a federal law guaranteeing equal rights to all American citizens regardless of gender. The ERA was brought before Congress multiple times in the decades to follow. As of 2019, however, it had not been passed.

The women's suffrage movement began with much hope and enthusiasm. However, the beginning of the Civil War halted progress. Women had to focus on the war effort. The movement picked up again after the war. In 1869, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony founded the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA). A separate group of suffragists formed the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA).

These groups differed in their opinions of the Fifteenth Amendment. If passed, it would grant black male citizens the right to vote. NWSA focused on getting Congress to enact legislation extending suffrage to all citizens. It hoped to tack women's suffrage onto the Fifteenth Amendment and refused to support the law unless women's suffrage was added. The AWSA did not want to jeopardize black enfranchisement by tying it to the unpopular women's suffrage movement.

A Change of Message Sees Progress

After the Fifteenth Amendment was passed, both groups eventually merged in 1890 to become the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Stanton served as the organization's first president. During this period of women's suffrage, activists decided to change the message of the movement. Originally women's suffrage focused on the idea that men and women were created equal and deserved equal rights. The reworked message focused on male and female differences, taking pride in women's ability to bring a stronger sense of morality to the political process. This platform earned the support of other social reform groups, such as the temperance movement. It also gained the support of less desirable individuals. These included white supremacists hoping to add more white voices to the voting process.

With growing support, the women's suffrage movement made headway in several states. By the end of the nineteenth century, Idaho and Utah had extended voting rights to women. Several western states granted suffrage to women at the start of the 1900s. Many eastern and southern states did not budge, however.

World War I (1914-1918) did not hinder the women's suffrage movement the way that the Civil War did. Suffragists were able to use the event to point out how important women were to the war effort. This could only mean that women were just as deserving of the rights of citizenship afforded to men. In 1916, NAWSA president Carrie Chapman Catt organized a massive campaign across the country. She hoped to convince reluctant states to support women's suffrage. Four years later, the women's suffrage movement was victorious with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment on August 20, 1920.

The women's suffrage movement quickly spread to other parts of the world. It also inspired future generations of women to fight for equal rights in other areas of society. Women's suffrage was part of the first wave of the feminist movement. This is a movement that continues to campaign for the equality of the sexes in every facet of life.

Sidebar: Hide Show

Words to Know

abolish

To bring about the end of a practice such as slavery.

enfranchisement

A citizen's right to vote.

suffrage

The right to vote.

temperance

Total refusal to drink alcohol.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|YRRHXO773317827

Google Drive™

OneDrive™

Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York The women's suffrage movement was the struggle for women to win the right to vote. Such efforts were already underway in other parts of the world when the women' suffrage movement began in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why Voting Rights Matter

The right to vote is one of the most basic promises of our democracy. In a democratic government, every person is considered equal and is empowered to both participate in their government and speak on the issues that impact their daily lives. Through our votes, we're able to express our values around concerns like health care, climate change, criminal justice, taxes, and so much more.

And yet our voting rights are under attack. Bills that make voting harder for women and Black and brown Americans, wealthy special interest groups that influence elections, and district maps that don't reflect our communities - these obstacles threaten our democracy. That's where the League's work comes in.

What We're Doing

For more than 100 years, the League has fought to protect the rights of voters and expand access for those who've been left out of our democratic process. We do so through a combination of advocacy, litigation, education, partnerships, and grassroots efforts.

VOTE411

Our free, digital election resource provides state-by-state voter guides, registration information, candidate positions on issues, and more in both English and Spanish. In 2020, over 6 million people used VOTE411 to find information on over 22,000 different races.

Voter Registration

Hundreds of Leagues across the country work within their communities to register voters, particularly those who've been historically disempowered in our democracy. At a national level, we've partnered with nonprofits like the American Library Association and companies like Target and Nando's to raise awareness around voting rules and resources.

Litigation

We're at the forefront of some of our nation's most consequential voting rights legal cases. In the courts, we work to secure and protect the right to early and mail-in voting, fight for fair representation in district maps, and push back against discriminatory laws and practices. In 2020, we protected over 25 million voters through litigation alone.

Advocacy

LWV supports grassroots efforts to empower voters across the country. From expanding voter education to passing pro-voter laws, we raise our voices and use our influence to strengthen the freedom to vote and build a fairer democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting is a fundamental principle, and all Americans deserve the equal opportunity to make their voices heard in our democracy. We are dedicated to using advocacy, litigation, and resources like VOTE411 to include more voters, expand and protect voter access, and ensure that elections remain fair and accessible.

# data[].attributes.headline
The History of Voting Rights in the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
The History of Voting Rights in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History of Voting Rights in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

The right to vote is a tenet of representative democracy. Despite its fundamental importance, the right to vote was historically restricted to certain populations in the United States and continues to face threats in the twenty-first century. Article 1 of the US Constitution grants states the responsibility of overseeing elections. The right of individuals to vote first appears in the US Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that if the right to vote for president, vice president, congressional representatives, or senators is denied to any male citizens of at least twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in "rebellion, or other crime," then that state will lose proportional representation in the US Congress. In 1870 Congress ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, which made it illegal to restrict a citizen's right to vote based on their race, color, or "previous condition of servitude." This amendment was intended to give formerly enslaved men the right to vote as full American citizens. However, because state governments oversee elections, many Southern states enacted laws that discouraged or blocked Black citizens from voting in the decades following the amendment's ratification. Nearly fifty years later, in 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment declared that the right to vote could not be restricted because of a person's sex. In 1971 the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 enforced the Fifteenth Amendment by banning the use of literacy tests (deliberately unanswerable tests given by white poll workers) and other voting restrictions that were used to disenfranchise Black voters. The VRA also required certain jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting practices to obtain clearance from the federal government before changing any voting laws. In 2013, however, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that the federal government could not continue to enforce this requirement unless Congress updated the criteria and developed a new formula for identifying targeted counties or states. Since the decision, several states have passed or introduced new voter identification laws, purged voter rolls, reduced the number of polling stations, and taken other measures that would have triggered the federal enforcement mechanism. In 2019 the House of Representatives passed the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would reinforce voting protections and reestablish federal oversight. Though introduced in the Senate in July 2020, it did not receive a vote and, as of August 2021, has not been reintroduced. Also, in 2019 the House passed the For the People Act to address campaign spending, election security, and other issues. However, repeated attempts to pass the bill in the Senate have met with Republican opposition, including a filibuster that defeated the bill in 2021. The contentious 2020 elections further compounded concerns about voting rights as Donald Trump and his supporters promoted false claims about voter fraud and election malfeasance after his loss to President Joe Biden. Several lawmakers have used the fear and uncertainty caused by these claims to advance bills that critics contend target specific groups of voters and would result in lower voter participation.

Main Ideas

Constitutional amendments and congressional legislation define and protect the voting rights of US citizens.

Though states are required to follow federal mandates related to voter registration and the voting process, state laws directly affect the registration process and determine the ballot options.

Voter turnout rates depend on the election. Nearly 70 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2020 presidential election, a substantial increase over the 2016 election.

Allegations of voter fraud have led several states to require registered voters to produce photo IDs to cast their ballots. Studies reveal that voter fraud is an extremely rare occurrence in the United States.

Researchers have determined that closing large numbers of polling stations, mandating photo IDs, and purging voter rolls disproportionately affect Black communities.

Following Republican president Donald Trump's defeat in the 2020 election and his unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud, Republican lawmakers in many states began introducing laws that critics characterized as attacks on voting rights.

Voter Registration and Turnout

According to the US Census Bureau, 68.8 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots during the 2020 presidential election, an increase from 61.4 percent during the 2016 presidential election. Between these presidential elections, activists from across the political spectrum sought to increase voter registrations. Exit polls in 2020 indicated that about 13 percent of voters were doing so for the first time. Each state decides its own laws about who can vote and how and when they may register and vote. The rates of registration and voting are directly correlated and vary by state. Some states have sought to make registration easier, while others have maintained barriers that can deter registration.

To encourage voter registration in federal elections, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993. Commonly referred to as the "Motor Voter Act," the NVRA requires states to give residents the opportunity to register to vote in federal elections when they apply for their drivers' licenses or renewal. The act mandates states offer voter registration at offices that provide public assistance and programs for people with disabilities and enables citizens to mail in their voter registration at least thirty days before an election. Six states were exempt from the NVRA because they offered Election Day registration for federal elections or did not have a voter registration requirement at the time the NVRA was enacted.

Some states have sought to remove barriers to registering and voting. Same-day voter registration was available in twenty states and the District of Columbia as of May 2021. The National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) reports that same-day registration can result in a 3 to 5 percent increase in voter numbers. NCSL also reports that absentee ballots are available in all states by request to certain voters, like those with disabilities or illnesses, people serving in the military, college students who attend schools outside of their home county, and those who cannot vote without assistance at the polls. Two-thirds of states allow voters to request an absentee ballot without providing a reason, referred to as a "no-excuse" absentee ballot. As of 2021, seven states and the District of Columbia conduct elections using all-mail voting systems in which all voters automatically receive mail-in ballots.

Polling Sites and Voter Rolls

Though some states have sought to increase voter registration and voter turnout, others have increased barriers to voting by reducing the number of polling sites and purging voting rolls. The Leadership Conference Education Fund noted that thirteen states closed 1,688 polling sites between 2012 to 2018, with the highest closure rates in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona. State governments characterize these closures as necessary consolidations resulting from decreases in funding, lack of volunteer poll workers, changes in population, or increased use of absentee ballots and mail-in voting options.

Voting rights advocates note that these closures can cause hardship for voters who have to travel farther and wait longer to vote. They assert that the closures disproportionately affect communities that have faced historic voter discrimination, including voters of color and those with disabilities. The Brennan Center for Justice reported on the effects of the consolidation of polling sites in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential primary election. Milwaukee reduced the number of voting locations from 182 to 5, disproportionately affecting communities with significant populations of Black voters. Despite a surge of requests for absentee ballots, the reduction in voting sites statewide depressed voter turnout by 9 percent.

States are required under NVRA to keep their voter registration rolls current by removing people who have died, moved out of state, or become ineligible to vote. States may deactivate voter registration if a voter skipped several elections and did not respond to a letter requesting confirmation of address. The American Bar Association has expressed concern that election officials in several states use the "use it or lose it" practice to unfairly purge voting rolls to gain a political advantage.

Removing voters from rolls for inactivity renders them ineligible if they attempt to cast their ballots. The Brennan Center for Justice tallied the removal of sixteen million registered voters from state rolls between 2014 and 2016, using processes that it deemed were "often-flawed." The US Supreme Court upheld Ohio's voter-roll purging practice in 2018. Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group, filed lawsuits against North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Colorado in 2020, alleging the states were violating NVRA by failing to clean voter rolls. As of August 2021, federal courts have dismissed at least one of these lawsuits. Judicial Watch has previously attracted controversy for making unsubstantiated claims, including its support for Trump's false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Voter Identification

Many efforts to tighten voting laws are motivated by concerns over alleged voter fraud. Voter fraud can include impersonating another voter, casting a vote under the name of a deceased person, voting when ineligible, or voting multiple times in the same election. Trump signed an executive order in May 2017 to create the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, alleging massive voter fraud in the 2016 elections. Trump dissolved the commission in January 2018, and a subsequent analysis found that the commission failed to produce evidence to back up its claims. A study by the Brennan Center for Justice published in 2020 reported that illegal voting is "extremely rare" in US elections. Despite this mounting evidence to the contrary, Trump has continued to allege widespread voter fraud after leaving office.

Proposed and existing state voter identification (ID) requirements have also stirred controversy. Alabama passed a law in 2011 requiring voters to produce ID to cast a ballot in person or by mail. The law recognizes several types of IDs as valid, and the state offered free IDs for voters. The law went into effect in 2014. State officials asserted this would prevent voter fraud in the state. Civil rights groups, however, claimed that the law suppressed the rights of voters of color and discriminated based on race. A federal judge ruled in 2018 that the law was not discriminatory, and the ruling was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2020.

Thirty-six states have laws requiring identification at the polls as of August 2021 (though North Carolina's law was under injunction as of early 2021). Seven states require photo ID. To verify that these laws resulted in racial disparity in voting, political scientists from Tufts University and Harvard University confirmed in 2017 that registered Black voters were less likely to have the required IDs that would allow them to legally cast their ballots. However, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a working paper on a decade-long, nationwide study in 2019 (and revised in May 2021) that concluded strict voter ID laws "have no effect on fraud-actual or perceived" but also did not reduce voter registrations or election turnout.

Critical Thinking Questions

In what ways do voting laws protect the integrity of elections? Which laws do you think are most necessary?

How have voting laws contributed to racial inequality in the United States? What changes to voting laws, if any, do you think would help reduce racial inequality?

In your opinion, what type of voting would result in increased voter turnout? Explain your answer.

Efforts to Advance and Restrict Voting Rights

Activists and policy makers have launched efforts at the national, state, and local levels to advance voting rights. The Voting Rights Advancement Act would amend the criteria deemed outdated by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). If adopted into law, the act would expand voting rights by reasserting federal oversight of and authority over local voting laws. The act would allow the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to send election observers to jurisdictions with repeated complaints of voter suppression. The act would also enable the DOJ to address cases of racial profiling used in gerrymandering, which refers to the redrawing of political districts to favor one political party over another. Following the death of Representative John Lewis (D-GA), subsequent versions of the bill have been introduced as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to honor the politician's life-long commitment to voting rights beginning with his activism and leadership during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the For The People Act seeks to address disparities affecting electoral integrity. The bill aims to expand voting access to several voting groups, including people with disabilities and people living in US territories. It also targets specific threats to voting rights, including limits on registration and voter-roll purges. In 2021, Senate Republicans blocked the bill's advancement despite repeated attempts by Democrats to force a vote before Congress took recess. Republican lawmakers, including Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (KY) and Senator Ted Cruz (TX), have characterized the bill as a power grab by the Democrats, though the bill specifically aims to reduce partisanship in election policy by eliminating partisan gerrymandering with nonpartisan redistricting efforts and nonpartisan campaign financing reforms.

Political campaigns mobilize staff and volunteers to increase voter turnout. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties led large voter registration campaigns prior to the 2020 election. Democratic organizers worked to identify and reach out to voters who have been purged from voter rolls or were marked as inactive. Organizations like Fair Fight push for election reform and voter engagement. Fair Fight was founded by political activist Stacey Abrams in the wake of a voter purge that removed some 560,000 registered voters from the state's rolls leading up to the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia in which she was a candidate. Her opponent, Brian Kemp, served as Georgia's secretary of state at the time and directly oversaw the purge prior to the election. He narrowly won the election.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic created additional complications for the 2020 national elections. Public health concerns led to increased support for expanding access to early voting and mail-in absentee ballots, including drop boxes set up in public places. Many states already allowed for these practices, while other states made allowances to varying degrees. Following the election, states that adopted the practice during the pandemic debated whether to retain these voting options.

President Trump's repeated and contested claims about election fraud and other malfeasance emboldened Republican lawmakers in several states to push for voting restrictions. In March 2021, for example, Kemp signed a sweeping voting law, passed by Georgia's Republican-majority legislature, that placed new restrictions on voting. The bill was justified as a defense against election fraud. In the first five months of 2021, seventeen states enacted restrictive voting laws. Opponents of such laws decried the bills as voter suppression laws meant to make it more difficult for marginalized voters to exercise their right to vote. Critics of these laws have referred to them as "Jim Crow. 2.0," a reference to racially discriminatory laws passed in Southern states after the Civil War (1861-1865) that remained in many places until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the VRA in 1965.

In July 2021 Republican lawmakers in Texas tried to fast-track a voting bill that would, among other things, expand the rights of partisan poll watchers, which critics warn would lead to voter intimidation, and impose criminal penalties on people who assist others in voting, such as taking someone who is not a relative to the polls. An earlier version of the bill introduced in May 2021 would have also prohibited voting on Sundays and allowed local election officials to cite fraud allegations to overturn election results. In response to the Republican effort, Democratic lawmakers left the state during legislative sessions on the bill to prevent a quorum so that it could not be passed. However, with a Republican majority in the legislature, and no action taken at the federal level, the legislation eventually passed.

In July voting rights supporters also decried the US Supreme Court's decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) to uphold two Arizona laws, one limiting the collection of absentee ballots and one disqualifying ballots cast outside their assigned precinct. Critics allege the laws seek to address minimal or nonexistent threats of ineligible votes while reducing the likelihood that eligible voters can exercise their rights. As voting rights continue to come under fire, critics contend, the need for Congress to pass clear and comprehensive voting rights legislation becomes increasingly apparent.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The right to vote is a tenet of representative democracy. Despite its fundamental importance, the right to vote was historically restricted to certain populations in the United States and continues to face threats in the twenty-first century. Article 1 of the US Constitution grants states the responsibility of overseeing elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Byline: Deborah Barfield Berry, Doug Caruso, Javonte Anderson and Wenei Philimon, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - Sixty years after civil rights activists launched voter registration drives across the South and the Voting Rights Act promised protections for all voters, stubborn gaps between Black and white voter participation persist in federal electoral contests, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

The gap shrank only a handful of times, the analysis found, such as when election changes made it easier to register to vote; Black candidates, including Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson, were on the ballot; and social justice issues became pressing national debates, as with police reform in the 2020 election.

Legal battles over redistricting and gerrymandering, as well as get-out-the-vote efforts, were also key factors in the ebb and flow of Black voter turnout, which never topped 58.5% between 1964 and 2000 during presidential elections, according to the USA TODAY review. It went as high as 70.7% for white voters during that period.

Black voter participation increased to 62% in 2012 with Obama's second term before dropping to just below 56% in 2016 and then hitting nearly 60% in 2020, the analysis showed.

"We were voting in 2020 because it was about life and death issues like COVID, issues like what was happening with George Floyd," said Melanie Campbell, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. "There was enough at stake to show up and to take our lives in our hands and show up in the middle of a pandemic."

USA TODAY analyzed gaps in voter participation using U.S. census survey data from the 1960s through 2020. Reporters also reviewed historic census data kept by the University of Minnesota's National Historic Geographic Information System to examine congressional redistricting patterns after the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The USA TODAY analysis comes after some Republicans challenged the integrity of the election process in 2020 and as more than 19 states this year have passed laws advocates say restrict voter access.

Many of those states are in the South, where most Black people live.

Election laws have often shaped if and when Americans vote.

At the heart of many civil rights organizations' efforts in Mississippi was to increase Black voter participation, said Robert E. Luckett, an associate history professor at Jackson State University. By the 1960s, Black people made up half the state's population, but only 6% were registered to vote, he said.

"The right to vote was crucial and really cutting the legs out from underneath Jim Crow power structure built around political disenfranchisement,'' he said.

After the Voting Rights Act was passed to help protect against discriminatory laws that required Black voters to pass literacy tests or pay poll taxes to vote, Black Americans did not cast ballots at the same rate as white Americans.

The gap between Black and white voter participation rates was the highest at 15 percentage points in 1966, the analysis found. It hovered around 12 points during much of the 1970s and fluctuated in subsequent decades.

In 2008, Black voter participation was higher than white voter participation, the USA TODAY analysis found. That also happened in 2012 when Obama ran for reelection.

"Black politics in America changed after Jackson's two runs," said David Bositis, a researcher on voting rights and redistricting. "After he ran, it became clear that Black voters were essential to any Democratic nomination."

The voting gap between white and Black voters was at one of its narrowest points in 2000 at 3.3 percentage points, the review found. The close 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore saw low turnout for both Black and white voters.

The election, which was marred by confusion over ballots and discrepancies in the counting of votes, ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court and led to significant changes, including more federal funds to update machines, same-day registration in some places and more early voting, including polls open on Sunday in some states.

"What happened after that had lots to do with making it easier for people to vote, correcting some of the problems, the barriers," Campbell said.

Two years after Obama's first win, some Southern states adopted redistricting plans that created supermajority Republican legislatures and diluted the strength of Black voters, said the Rev. William Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign and a national voting rights advocate.

Barber said research shows those measures could also disproportionately hurt other people of color and low-income white voters.

"This is actually Jim and Jane Crow, Esquire," he said. "It's not just race. It's also class and economics."

The Brennan Center tracked more than 425 bills in 49 states in the 2021 legislative session that include restrictive provisions, such as reducing early voting hours, imposing stricter ID requirements and limiting the number of mail ballot drop boxes. Republicans said the bills protect against voter fraud.

Many states proposed more restrictive laws soon after the U.S. Supreme Court Shelby v. Holder ruling in 2013 eliminated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before making election changes.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said some gains made after the Voting Rights Act could be at jeopardy if states succeed in limiting voter access.

More Black candidates appearing on ballots as viable challengers

Experts attribute the increases in Black voter turnout in some years in part to the emergence of more Black candidates up and down the ballot, including Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost her 2018 bid for governor in Georgia. In Georgia, Black voter registration jumped by more than 100,000 between October 2016 and October 2020, according to the Pew Research Center.

Experts also point to historic campaigns, such as the bid of then Sen. Kamala Harris to become the first woman of African American and Asian American descent to run for vice president.

Many Black candidates, including Democratic Reps. Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Lucy McBath of Georgia, were active in their communities and campaigned on issues important to voters, said Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights, which works to expand Black women's political power.

Carr said Black voters, particularly Black women, often vote for candidates who support issues and values they care about.

"It creates enthusiasm for them to organize and prepare to vote and over-perform at the booth," Carr said.

'It's a basket of horribles'

How legislative districts are drawn can suppress or drive the Black vote, advocates and experts said. Restricting, the redrawing of those maps, happens after each census.

With discriminatory practices banned under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Southern states in the years following the law began configuring voting districts that diluted the Black vote, experts said.

Black voters were often spread across districts, leaving too few to elect their preferred candidate, said Bernard Fraga, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta.

Historic census data shows that 10 of 435 congressional districts had populations that were majority Black in 1969, but only one was located in the South, where the majority of Black people live.

"They had to find new ways, other than outright denying the vote, if they wanted to continue to make sure Black voters didn't have political power," Fraga said.

In 1982, Black citizens in North Carolina challenged the state's redistricting plan, arguing it diluted the power of Black voters. By 1983, there were 15 majority Black districts, including four in Southern states - Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi and Tennessee, the USA TODAY analysis found.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 in Thornburg v. Gingles that five of North Carolina's new districts discriminated against Black voters. Experts said the ruling laid the groundwork for more majority-minority districts.

By 1993, the number of majority Black districts increased to 32 nationally, according to the USA TODAY review. The increase in majority-minority districts fueled a growth in Black politicians elected to Congress, especially in the South. There were six Black congressmen in 1965 - most from Northern states. By 1993, the number increased to 41, including 21 from the South.

Some advocates worry about efforts to prevent further gains.

Last week, the Justice Department sued Texas over its redistricting plan, arguing it dilutes the votes of Black and Latino residents. Despite a growth in the number of people of color in the state, justice officials said the proposed map reduced the number of majority-minority districts.

Advocates are concerned legislatures in places like Texas and Georgia will not only use redistricting maps to dilute the strength of Black voters, but also continue to adopt restrictive election laws.

"We're seeing that these legislators aren't going after just one thing. They're just going for everything,'' said Marcia Johnson-Blanco, co-director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "It's a basket of horribles that these legislators are throwing at voters."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Byline: Deborah Barfield Berry, Doug Caruso, Javonte Anderson and Wenei Philimon, USA TODAY WASHINGTON - Sixty years after civil rights activists launched voter registration drives across the South and the Voting Rights Act promised protections for all voters, stubborn gaps between Black and white voter participation persist in federal electoral contests, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

# data[].attributes.headline
The First Principles of Visual Note Taking

# data[].attributes.subject
The First Principles of Visual Note Taking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First Principles of Visual Note-Taking

# data[].attributes.headline
15 Minute TED Talk about - Sketch Note Taking

# data[].attributes.subject
15 Minute TED Talk about - Sketch Note Taking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sketch Noting: Using Listening and Drawing to Change the World | Sherrill Knezel | TEDxMarquetteU