Notes for Political Socialization/Interest Group lecture

Here are the notes for the two chapters we're covering this week:

American Politics

PUBLIC OPINION

Textbook definition: The aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs shared by some portion of the adult population

Now – nobody is ever going to be in 100% agreement. So public opinion can take several forms

CONSENSUS – general agreement among citizens on an issue

What do we have consensus on?

DIVISIVE OPINION – Public opinion that is POLARIZED on two different positions

Discuss polarization – intensity, degree, divisiveness, political implications

The book makes a distinction between PRIVATE and PUBLIC opinion – does such a difference really exist? Can you provide an example?

We’ll see the blurring of private and public domains throughout American politics – what’s to blame for this?

TV, internet, dirty campaigns

How is Public Opinion formed?

Through a process known as political socialization

The process through which people acquire political beliefs and attitudes

Now – political socialization is not synonymous with DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIZATION – in authoritarian regimes, people are conditioned to believe in authoritarian systems. But it’s still socialization.

In the US, who is responsible for this socialization?

Family

Family is the surest determinant of a person’s political stances (Republican, Dem)

Family shapes values, which in turn influences political views

Children always want to please their parents, and so will adopt those views

School/Education

Teachers also have a heavy influence on political socialization, which is why evolution vs. creationism is such a huge issue

But the state also makes sure that good citizenship is taught as well – pledge of allegiance, symbols, flags, etc. Reinforces idea of state unity, and it’s why countries are willing to finance public education

Also, the more educated people are, the more likely they are to vote, and be politically involved. Democracies cannot thrive without participation.

Peer Influence

Peer Group – a group of members sharing common characteristics

The idea is that “blood is thicker than water” – so they will vote together, and work together to attain political ideals

However – it’s easy to overstate as well. Not all African-Americans will vote the same way, and not all union members will vote for the same candidate

IMPACT OF THE MEDIA

Highly contentious nowadays, because of media’s pervasiveness

Definitely plays a role in agenda-setting: determining which public policy questions will be debated or considered

Ex: Rise in anti-welfare legislation, directly linked to “Welfare Queen” sensationalism in news stories

Political Events

May also shape political opinion

For instance – the assassinations of 1968 (MLK, RFK) solidified anti-violence

Left a generational effect

Political Preferences/Voting Behavior

Political scientists are always trying to tie a link to SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS and voting behavior

SES – the value assigned to a person due to occupation or income

It is thought that upper-class will always vote Republican, middle class will vote depending on how the economy is functioning, and poor will always go Democrat

Education – also plays a role

Generally thought that those without a higher degree are more likely to vote Republican

While those with advanced degrees are more likely to vote Democratic

However, MBAs, and PhDs in hard sciences also vote Republican

Even among poli sci PhDs, there’s a divergence in opinion

RELIGION

Interesting fact: According to the CNN exit polls of the 2004 elections, 78% of Evangelical Christians (born-again) voted for Bush

However – can we really decipher voting patterns through religion?

Used to be that Protestants voted Republican, Catholics and Jews voted Democratic

But that doesn’t hold anymore – many Protestants voted for Kerry, and as abortion has become more politicized, Catholics are embracing Republicans

Also – you can be a Christmas-and-Easter Catholic, or very devout. Calling yourself a Catholic doesn’t clarify your position any

Ethnic/Religious Determinants – do these labels encourage political consensus?

Gender Gap

Before the election of Ronald Reagan, it was thought that women and men had the same concerns. But as abortion, and other women’s issues, became more politicized, there grew a divide.

Now, it appears that women lean slightly towards the Democrats, though not overwhelmingly.

Their concerns may be different too – more focus on environmental effects, social welfare, extension of civil liberties as well

Why is there a difference? Some say it’s in marriage tendencies – in that the rising divorce rate makes men richer and women poorer.

One last determinant – Party Identification does not mean a surefire vote

Decline in party discipline and cohesiveness

Now, politics is PERSONALIZED – you vote for individual candidates, and party affiliation comes in second

The election of Ronald Reagan was also a benchmark in this development

Growing media and lack of party discipline contribute to this

POLITICAL POLLS

How do they take polls? Where do they find their samplings? A variety of ways

Representative Samplings

If they want to measure how a specific group feels regarding same-sex marriage, you would divide it among the following:

Gays and lesbians

African-Americans

White Protestants

White Catholics

White Jews

Hispanics

And come up with percentages from there. So if 15/20 GLBT said Yes, that would be 75% of the gay community supports it. If 2 out of 20 in the Hispanic community supported it, that would be 10% of the community.

Random polling

Just select 1000 people and ask…and hope that it’ll give you an accurate picture. However, if you choose everybody from one town, that’s not very diverse ethnically or religiously, you could skew your results.

So – PROBLEMS WITH POLLING

It’s always a problem when you assume that a small pool is representative of a larger population. Can you really multiply those results?

Sampling Errors – difference between sampler’s results and the actual reality of what would be recorded if the entire population was interviewed

This is why polls now have “Margin of errors” – (3 to 5%)

Also, the WAY they ask the question is pivotal

If they’re trying to gauge support for the Iraq war, one poll might ask, “Do you believe our nation has the right to defend itself?”

And of course, you’re going to get “Yes.”

If you skew it the other way: “Do you believe we should have to send our 19-year old sons to fight in a war that has no bearing on the so-called war on terrorism?”

Well of course you’re going to get “No.”

Also – some people might not be able to answer with a simple Y or N, and that makes it difficult to gauge the real political feeling

Exit polls – taken during election day

There’s been some argument that these actually prevent people from voting

How would you think that would happen?

If candidate is so far ahead, supporters might think, oh well he’s got it in the bag, and not vote

While the opponents’ supporters vote in droves

They’re worried about that in the Spitzer campaign

Different forms of Polling

Telephone polls – talk about Marist Institute for Public Opinion

Much quicker to do it over the phone instead of walking door-to-door

Also much safer

But – never easy to verify who you’re REALLY talking to (are they really registered to vote? Will they vote? Are they who they say they are?)

Also – are they telling the truth?

Internet Polling

Can reach more and more people, and have a much higher response rate

But again….can we depend on them?

Read the section on polling and its impact on policymaking – we’re going to jump to interest groups now

Interest Group: an organized group of individuals sharing common objectives who actively attempt to influence policymakers

Usually, they hire a LOBBYIST – attempts to influence legislation and the administrative decisions of government (got that term because they used to wait in the lobby for the delegates to leave the floor)

One way for organizations to influence govt decisions is by DIRECT LOBBYING.

Personal contact with political officials, try to convince them

Just an overview: According to the Center for Public Integrity, lobbyists have spent nearly $13 bn since 1998 to influence Congress and ed officials on legislation and regulations

Also – revolving door idea – 250 former members of Congress are now lobbyists, and 2000 lobbyists were former govt officials

Top 5 companies that spend most on lobbying: Verizon, GE

Top issues lobbied: Federal budget and appropriations, Health issues, defense, taxation & internal revenue code, transportation

How does lobbying work?

Can’t contact everybody – so lobbyists focus on the KEY DECISION MAKERS, those that can persuade others

Example: sugar distributors, when price of sugar raised, lobbied House and Senate Agricultural Committees

Not all lobbyists are successful. Depends on: 1. expertise of lobbyist, 2. the lobbyist’s connections

1. Expertise

Needs to have KNOWLEDGE of the topic

Ex: lobbyist who was more familiar with tax code actually made them change it to look better

Ex: “1995 bill to roll back protections for endangered species introduced by Wash. Senator Slade Gorton was written by lobbyists hired by Idaho Power Company, Chevron, and Kaiser Aluminum, all companies interested in reducing species protection and opening up lands for mining, logging, or commercial development.”

So…are lobbyists unelected politicians? Should they have this much influence on public policy?

Expertise is critical in having a successful lobby, so many companies and other interests often hire professional lobbying firms.

Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.	$265 million
WPP Group plc	$170 million
Patton Boggs	$145 million
Piper Rudnick	$125 million
Akin Gump	$120 million

2. Access to high-ranking officials

Without CONNECTIONS, lobbyists will not succeed

One of the reasons that so many former members of Congress become lobbyists is because they have many friends in high places, and have an easier time accessing them then people who have not worked on Capitol Hill

Bob Dole - $800,000 to lobby for Verner Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand

GRASSROOTS LOBBYING –

Not just concerned with people in high places

Aims to convince the LARGER public to support its mission

How? Mail ads, television spots, internet, email, etc

National Restaurant Association – didn’t like tax reform that would give tax deductions for restaurant meals, so engineered a campaign spot with a sob story about a waitress, and ran it in four states – Arkansas, North Dakota, Maine, Louisiana – because Senators from these states were on the Senate Finance Committee

Grassroots lobbyists also hire professional firms – example of the call in campaign to change security law – people would call in, computer would search their local representatives/senators, then would write a letter on their behalf and send it to the official

Reality or illusion? Is there accountability here? What about with the issue of the “greedy lawyer” campaign in Mississippi?

Also – foreign countries do this as well. They don’t want to be perceived as publicly embracing lobbyists, so they hire other firms to do it for them

“Citizens for a Free Kuwait” – drove up advertising to get the US to kick Iraq out of Kuwait

Lobbying is not the only recourse for interest groups to have their say – they are also INVOLVED IN CAMPAIGNS

Can help register voters who will support candidates, advise candidates on policy positions, and make campaign contributions

NAACP – to try to influence 1996 elections, registered nearly 1 million people

Jimmy Carter received the nomination as presidential candidate partly due to the influence of the National Education Association

Different ways of garnering candidate support:

Outright endorsement – which could be tricky, because some voters who might otherwise have supported a candidate might not like the group (NRA is always a flashpoint)

Also can be done by “Grading” candidates – often done by Sierra Club and

NRDC

Can also promote favoring one candidate over another

Members of the interest group can also join the party, move up the ranks, and become a candidate for election

Christian Coalition and the Republican Party – very successful in this aim, have had several candidates stand for election

Another way to influence candidates: GIVE THEM MONEY

Has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years

Two forms of contributions:

Direct contributions: contributions given directly to candidates to use how they please

Independent expenditures: money spent on behalf of candidates, but not given directly to them

Ex: political ads “paid for by friends of Eliot Spitzer”

Difference between “hard money” (direct contributions) and “soft money” (indirect assistance)

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES

PACs are a little different from PIGs – PIGs just want to influence outcomes, PACs are more about ELECTING or DEFEATING candidates to further legislation they support

1. EMILY's List $22,767,521 (female pro-choice candidates)
2. Service Employees International Union $12,899,352
3. American Federation of Teachers $12,789,296
4. American Medical Association $11,901,542
5. National Rifle Association $11,173,358
6. Teamsters Union $11,128,729
7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,819,724
8. National Education Association $10,521,538
9. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees $9,882,022
10. Laborers' International Union of North America $9,523,837

Just a handful of more interesting PACs – MoveOn.org, Godless Americans PAC, Extraterrestrial Phenomena PAC – targets politics of UFO phenomena and govt embargo on confirming UFO evidence, Marijuana Policy Project

PACs, under current law, are the ONLY groups who can make LEGAL, DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS to political candidates

Favor incumbents, because they win 90% of the time – however, not uncommon to give money to both candidates, to be on good terms

Ex: Trent Lott’s New Republican Majority Fund PAC – gave 1.3 mill to House and Senate candidates for 1996 elections

BUNDLING – combine numerous individual contributions together to make a single large contribution – sidestepped legislation saying, only so many contributions can be made

This way – politicians can claim they take no money from PACs – just because it’s not traceable

History of campaign finance laws – Congress regulated hard money contributions, but not soft money

Soft money: used for party-building programs, voter registration, ads

All of these factors – soft money contributions, bundling, PAC involvement, has allowed campaign spending to SKYROCKET throughout the years.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 – aka McCain-Feingold Bill

Major provisions:

• A wholesale prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to national political parties -- unlimited donations nominally made for non-campaign purposes, but potentially used to influence federal elections.
• A prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to state and local political parties, with a few limited exceptions.
• Federal candidates and officeholders prohibited from accepting or spending soft money.
• A ban on supposedly non-partisan "issue ads" funded by soft money from corporations and labor unions - those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat -- in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.
• Disclosure of sources of finance for "electioneering communications" in excess of $10,000 per year.
• A political party spending money in a general election campaign must choose between making coordinated expenditures on behalf of its candidate, or independent expenditures on behalf of its candidate, but not both. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
• Minors are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and political parties. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
• Hard money legal limits raised:
• Limit for individual contributions per candidate per election increased from $1,000 to $2,000.
• Limit for individual contributions to National Party Committees increased from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.
• Limit for individual contributions to state and local party committees increased from $5,000 to $10,000

Other provisions (incomplete):

• Fundraising on federal property is prohibited.

BEYOND CONGRESS, HOW CAN PACS SECURE THEIR INTERESTS?

Judicial Branch

Amicus Curae Briefs: Literally, “friends of the court”

Brief filed by a group that is not actually party to the case – ex. Not a litigant

However, when case may have broader social implications, the court will allow statement of opinion from concerned groups

Ex: American Civil Liberties Union

Case: Edwards vs. Aguillard

Creationism in Louisiana – Governor vs. Teacher who wanted to teach Evolution

72 Nobel Laureates were allowed to submit amicus curiae to give weight to Aguillard’s argument

PROTEST – pickets, demonstrations, etc

Global Exchange protested against Nike – for sweatshops in Vietnam and Indonesia

PETA – very high profile campaigns against animal cruelty

Interest Groups Compared: Democracies

Lobbying exists in the European Union

EU – overarching democratic government determining the public policy of 25 member states

Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium

Last count – 15,000 lobbyists representing 1400 companies and interest groups

Interest group pluralism – a variety of viewpoints and perspectives are presented on the national stage

Benefits: represent a variety of ideologies and policy preferences – and citizens can support whichever it is that they want

Negative Outcomes:

Too many demands on government, being pulled in too many directions

Public interest demands may be too narrow, and may not be in the best interest of the larger population

Not all groups have the same access to money and power, and therefore tend to get crowded out and ignored

So what’s the alternative?

DEMOCRATIC CORPORATISM – when the government works with interest group CORPORATIONS to enact policy

Prevalent in Scandinavia, Austria, and Germany

Interest groups become CORPORATIONS – meaning they merge and consolidate, and form one body to represent all their interests. It is this one body that will then negotiate with the government and create policy.

Swedish example: Business groups, under one umbrella organization, will negotiate with labor groups, under one umbrella organization, to enact wage reform and labor policies.

Usually, this ensures EQUALITY OF ACCESS to seats of government and a healthy negotiating climate.

Other states COMBINE interest group pluralism and democratic corporatism – Germany, Britain, Japan, France, Switzerland

Sometimes – doesn’t always work. For example – German doctors are now on strike because their wages have been falling for 10 years.

Occasionally, government will reserve the right to create policies independent of interest group pluralism or democratic corporatism.

STATE AUTONOMY – state decides on its own to initiate legislation

Currently – France: more riots, but why?

De Villepin’s government has decided to initiate the “First Employment Contract”

Essentially, he’s trying to create more jobs for youth by dropping employment safeguards.

But students and others are protesting vehemently, saying it endangers their rights.

Throughout countries, interest groups may differ in how they are formed, whether they are official or not, etc

Discussion Question

The Padilla case is an excellent point of reference to talk about order vs liberty.

Mr Padilla, arrested as he stepped off a flight from Pakistan, was initially held on suspicion of planning a so-called "dirty bomb" attack inside the US.

However the November 2005 indictment makes no mention of that allegation.

Instead Mr Padilla, 35, is charged with aiding terrorists and conspiracy to murder US nationals overseas.

He is still in custody, and has not been allowed to consult with any legal counsel.

What do you think? Did the US government do the right thing?

Civil Liberties

Thanks for the great discussion today!

Now for the notes on Civil Liberties...

Civil Liberties – what are they?

Vs. Civil Rights

n Civil liberties adhere to individuals rather than groups

n Negative vs Positive freedom:

o Civil Liberties are about what gov’t must NOT do, civil rights are largely about what gov’t must do

Types of Civil Liberties

n “Congress Shall make no law” – abridging

o Freedom of speech

o Freedom of the press

o Freedom to bear arms (disputed)

n Legal Rights, Due Process

o Against unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, etc

o Property rights

§ Due process

§ Just compensation

§ Now: Eminent Domain: the right of the gov’t to seize private property for public use (to build housing, roads, schools, etc)

n Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

o Established equal protection under the laws

§ Extension of the bill of rights to the states

· No state shall deny anyone equal protection under the laws

n Civil Liberties: Absolute or Competing claims?

o Competing claims

§ Individual rights vs general welfare

§ Competing rights – right of the press vs right of public officials

o Trends (to 9/11)

§ Trend has been towards EXPANSION of the definition and scope of civil liberties

§ Fewer gov’t actions on behalf of general interest can justify limiting civil liberties

§ More and more issues redefined as competing rights claims – the legalization of politics

n Legalization of politics – the implications

o Positive aspects of legalization

§ Offers access

§ Not based on public opinion

o Negative aspects

§ Constrains general welfare

§ Atomizing (making issues much smaller)

§ Style of politics

· Adversarial

· Not prone to compromise

n Security and Civil Liberties – an altered balance post 9/11

o Order/security vs individual liberty

o Immediate gov’t reaction to 9/11

§ Detention of citizens without laying charges

§ Order that solicitor-client privilege would not be honored by Justice Department

§ Refusing to provide name, location of detention or number of those arrested

o Overwhelming public support

§ 86% viewing gov’t action as appropriate (Newsweek)

o USA Patriot Act

§ Ratification of Ashcroft response

· Broadened gov’t ability to implement wiretapping

· Surveillance of emails and computers

· Power to detain and deport foreigners

· Increased power to detect money laundering

§ Received overwhelming support in House and Senate

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

There is danger that, if the [Supreme Court] does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.--Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)

• Which is more important, providing domestic security against terrorism or preserving the civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? Why?
• How would you feel if you were directly affected by some of the new powers granted under the USA PATRIOT Act (i.e. wiretaps, access to personal records)?

What about ethnic profiling?

"As far as ethnic profiling; it's very troubling. It pains me to say this, but some of it may have to be done. We just have to recognize that we cannot bend over backwards in our innate American fairness to overlook that there are some people trying to hurt us." – Warren B. Rudman, NH (Chairman of pres’ fed advisory board)

Civil Rights Notes

Hi class!

I'll be posting the notes on this website from now on, so if you missed something, you can always check here.

Also, if you want to print them up for your own references, I suggest you highlight the notes, then copy and paste it into Microsoft Word, where you can then fiddle with margins and font sizes to make it take up less space.

Enjoy!

Prof J

Civil Liberties/Civil Rights

Let’s start with Civil Rights

14^th Amendment – EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

In US – it’s the right of minority groups to be free of discrimination and unfair treatment

In this class, we’ll focus on the African-American experience

Let’s jump right into Dred Scott vs Sanford (1857)

Dred Scott was the name of a slave, lived in Missouri under his master, who was in the Army.

His master then moved to Illinois (a free state), where they lived for a long time. The Army ordered his master to go back to MO, where he then died.

Dred Scott then sued for his freedom, claiming he had lived on free soil for many years and could not be taken back into slavery.

What did the Supreme Court say in 1857?

The court ruled, 7-2, that Scott was still considered a slave.

Why? Determined that as a slave, Scott was PROPERTY, which the court could not take from slaveholders

In addition, they ruled that because Dred Scott was a “Negro,” not just a slave, that he was not a citizen of the US, and could never BECOME a citizen of the US.

In effect – the SC decision said that not only are slaves not US citizens, but free blacks in the north are also not citizens.

Also, SC said there are no distinctions between a slave and property, according to the constitution

This decision really propelled the US towards Civil War – Northerners saw this as a moment of revelation, and that drastic action needed to be taken, while the South, while they had “won” in the decision, realized that the Court did have the power to change this reality of slavery.

So, the Civil War comes and goes - North wins decisively, resolves the slavery issue once and for all – 13^th, 14^th, 15^th Amendments

Civil Rights Acts of 1865 to 1875

Civil Rights Act of 1866 – all individuals born in the US are citizens, including blacks

AND President is allowed to enforce the law with special forces

Enforcement Act of 1870 ­– criminal sanctioned for interfering with the right to vote

Civil Rights Act of 1872 ­– aka the Anti-Ku Klux Klan Act – federal crime to provide anyone of their rights

Second Civil Rights Act – 1875 – everyone is entitled to use public institutions and accommodations

Civil Rights Cases – these were separate cases that were consolidated into one case for the US SC to decide.

1875 – Court nullified the Civil Rights Act of 1875, saying it was unconstitutional

Why? According to Justice Bradley, the 14^th Amendment does not give Congress the authority to enforce these measures – it’s a state matter

Also said that the Thirteenth Amendment just outlaws the holding of slaves – does not regulate how people should treat freed blacks

However, Justice Harlan did not agree, and wrote a famous passage:

"My brethren say that when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficient legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen, or a man, are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected. It is, I submit, scarcely just to say that the colored race has been the special favorite of the laws. What the nation, through congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is, what had already been done in every state in the Union for the white race, to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens; nothing more. The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. The difficulty has been to compel a recognition of their legal right to take that rank, and to secure the enjoyment of privileges belonging, under the law, to them as a component part of the people for whose welfare and happiness government is ordained."

Harlan’s dissent would be used in future SC cases, which we’ll discuss

So you can see that the idea of equal protection under the law wasn’t totally established for a really long time

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) – another landmark case

Challenged segregation in public facilities (in this case, a train)

Homer Plessy – 1/8 black

Intentionally traveled in the white car in Louisiana to challenge the law

Court decided 7-1 that Plessy did not have the right to sit in a ‘white’ car

“Separate but equal” doctrine – saw nothing wrong with separation of the races, and did not perceive any inferior treatment of former slaves

Ex: no difference in the quality of the cars

However, there were MONUMENTAL differences in the state of public toilets, educational facilities, theatres, etc etc

Some court justices still uphold that Plessy was the correct ruling.

William Rehnquist, who was the Chief Justice until 2004 (when he died) wrote this:

"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed."

Basically, ruling let racial discrimination run rampant throughout the US for decades

JIM CROW LAWS

Re-enforced public segregation between races in Southern states

How?

White primaries – state primary election that restricts voting to whites only

Grandfather Clause – said only those whose grandfathers could vote before 1867, could vote now – ensured only whites could vote

Poll tax – special pax to pay while voting.

LITERACY TESTS – even if blacks passed it, white voting operators wouldn’t let them vote anyway

So, now you know why the federal gov’t allowed Jim Crow laws to exist for so long – due to the SC decision in the Civil Rights Cases decision

THIS EXISTED FOR 60 YEARS.

What changed it?

BROWN VS BOARD OF EDUCATION

1954

Landmark decision of the Warren Court

1951 – class-action suit was brought against the Board of Ed of Topeka, Kansas for refusing to allow black children to attend the same schools as white children

Wanted to reverse racial segregation in education

It actually combined four cases – Briggs v. Elliott (filed in SC), Davis v County School Board of Prince Edward County (VA), Gebhart v. Belton (Delaware)

NAACP sponsored each of these cases

THE DECISION WAS UNANIMOUS – “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”

Declared educational segregation to be legally unconstitutional, and called for the desegregation of all schools in America

Did not rule on public segregation other areas, like fountains or bathrooms

Brown II – 1955 – the conclusion to the Brown I decision – said that the desegregation of schools should proceed “with all deliberate speed” – which really angered many people

And now the impetus for the civil rights movement began

Reactions to Brown decision –

Arkansas governor called in the nat’l guard to prevent blacks from entering Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957

Universities remained segregated

Federal gov’t: Busing policies

Court-ordered busing: Recognizing that neighborhoods were already racially segregated, the courts wanted to ensure that every effort to desegregate schools was followed, and so forced states and towns to bus children from different areas into different schools

Particularly disastrous in Boston – lots of racial flare-ups

"Sometimes when I look out this window," White reportedly said to an aide during one hellish day at the office, "I see Belfast out there." Police had to escort and unload buses at several Boston high schools every morning and afternoon while snipers stood guard on the surrounding rooftops. Metal detectors were installed and troopers patrolled the cafeterias, hallways, and stairwells, and still racial brawls broke out daily. Garrity also ordered equal numbers of black and white police officers to guard the schools, provoking racial hostility even within the police force. "It’ll be lucky if the Boston police don’t kill each other before the day is out," said one state trooper at the time. For three years, as many as 300 state police officers a day patrolled South Boston High. One teacher compared the school to a prison: "We can’t leave school, we can’t come early or on the weekends to do preparatory work. We are like prisoners. Everyday when I get up, it’s like getting up to go to prison."

Recognized difference between De Jure Segregation and De Facto Segregation

De Facto Segregation: occurred due to past social/economic conditions and residential patterns – so slums were majority black, suburbs majority white

De Jure Segregation – racial segregation occurred because laws had decreed that it should occur

Has integration worked? Open up for discussion

Resurgence of Minority Schools

CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Movement for greater INTEGRATION through NON VIOLENCE

Martin Luther King Jr –

Was a Baptist minister in Alabama who got his PhD in divinity from Harvard

Did not set out to become the leader of the civil rights movement, but after the movement to boycott the buses in Birmingham, he became a figurehead

Was greatly influenced by Gandhi – and his approach of non-violence

NON VIOLENCE – denounces violence as a legitimate means to bring about political change

Prefers civil disobedience and persuasion

Why? Sometimes, for religious reasons

There is a practical element to it as well - Among these is the idea that the power of rulers depends on the consent of the populace. Without a bureaucracy, an army or a police force to carry out his or her wishes, the ruler is powerless. Power, nonviolence teaches us, depends on the co-operation of others. Nonviolence undermines the power of rulers through the deliberate withdrawal of this co-operation

Involve the following: hunger strikes, pickets, vigils, petitions, sit-ins, tax refusal, go-slows, blockades, demonstrations

Civil rights movement used all of these

Famous “March on Washington”

Do you feel it was the best way to go? Was it quick enough? Did it really accomplish all it intended to?

The civil rights movement "had a different experience in each place," Robert J. Norrell observed in Reaping the Whirlwind: The Civil Rights Movement in Tuskegee. Because of the differences in each community's experience, there wasn't a single civil rights movement. There were, instead, civil rights "movements" all across the South.

Not everybody wanted INTEGRATION

BLACK POWER MOVEMENT –

They did not want to integrate

They figured, they wanted to expel us, and even now, we’re still being oppressed, so let’s just create our own parallel society and advance amongst ourselves

They believed in “separate but equal” – and were determined to make it equal

SNCC – Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee were major partners

But Black Power/Panther movement was not as convinced that non-violence was the route to go – were very militant and forceful in their positions

STOKELY CARMICHAEL - "It is a call for black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, to build a sense of community. It is a call for black people to define their own goals, to lead their own organizations."

Stokely Carmichael is credited for coining the phrase institutional racism. Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) is a form of racism that occurs in institutions such as public bodies and corporations, including universities. In the late 1960s he defined the term as "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".^[

After all this pressure continually builds, LBJ passes significant civil rights legislation

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Really JFK’s legislation, but he had since been assassinated (conspiracy theory)

However, LBJ was also committed to civil rights, despite his earlier record in TX

Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U. S. Attorney General to file suits to force desegregation.

Title VI of the Act prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funding. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency can lose its federal funding.

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of Title 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., outlaws discrimination in employment in any business on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

Created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to ensure equality

Important implication of CRA – also applied to WOMEN, and banned discrimination of WOMEN

Voting Rights Act – 1965

Got rid of the poll tax, grandfather clause, literacy tests – effectively abolished Jim Crow legislation

Urban Riots – swept the nation in the 60s….

“Long hot summer” of 1967

Riots in 32 cities, death of 100 African-Americans

But in reality – there were a series of long, hot summers:

Burn, baby, burn!" That was the exultant cry first heard in the Los Angeles district of Watts. It marked a historic shift from the era of sit-ins and nonviolent marches, of songs and prayers, to the era of ghetto rioting. The worst outbreaks: New York City, July 1964. At a rally held in Harlem to protest the killing of a black youth by a white off-duty police officer, black leaders denounced the police and called for community action. When the crowd marched to a Harlem police station, scuffles with police erupted into a riot that lasted six days and also broke out in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. The final toll: one dead, 143 injured, 461 arrested.

Los Angeles, August 1965. A minor incident on a hot summer night turned into six days of rioting, arson, looting and sniping by an estimated 10,000 blacks. Of the 34 people killed, 28 were black. By the sixth day, 12,000 National Guardsmen and 2,500 city and county police were patrolling 46 square miles and had arrested 4,000 people. Some 200 buildings were completely destroyed, with property losses estimated at $40 million.

Cleveland, July 1966. Again a minor incident—this time in a neighborhood bar in the black section of Hough—turned into widespread shooting and fire bombing. In six days, four blacks were killed and 50 injured. A grand jury later blamed "trained professionals."

Newark, July 1967. Violence exploded when blacks heard and believed a false rumor that the police had killed a black taxi driver. As the rioting spread, exaggerated reports of black snipers prompted the intervention of the National Guard. In six days of rioting, 26 were killed, 1,500 injured, and damage reached $30 million.

Detroit, July 1967. The worst riot of the decade erupted on a muggy night when police raided an after-hours drinking club. At the height of the violence, President Lyndon Johnson sent in the U.S. Army, and the National Guard fired machine guns from Sherman tanks. The seven-day toll: 43 killed, 2,000 injured, 7,000 arrested and 5,000 left homeless.

Washington, D.C., April 1968.

After the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in Memphis, Stokely Carmichael led a march down 14th Street that swelled into a riot. In four days, nine died, 1,000 were injured and 6,000 arrested.

The "long hot summer" had become an annual event in America's cities when the rioting suddenly stopped. One reason was a series of reforms: more political power for blacks, police review boards, a variety of job programs. Another was the realization that ghetto blacks were the chief victims of ghetto violence—burned-out areas of Detroit and Newark are still in ruins today. But as Miami demonstrated, the elements that created the history of ghetto rioting still exist.

Civil Rights Act of 1968 – prohibited discrimination in housing

How?

The Civil Right Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of discrimination:

1. Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin

2. Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.

3. Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.

4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.

But – HAD NO FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT

Consequences of Civil Rights Legislation

Expanded African-American political involvement

In 1980, 55.8 percent of African-Americans were registered – still seems kinda low

8500 black elected officials

Will we ever have a black president? What about Barack Obama?

Encouraged other minorities to stand up for their rights – galvanized Hispanic Americans and Native Americans to push for greater government responsiveness and further protection against discriminatory practices

But – still problems

Economic disparities – have not disappeared. Black leaders, like King and Jesse Jackson, recognized that poverty is not primarily a minority issue, and have attempted to call attention to this

FYI – Most people don’t realize this, but King was also a harsh critic of the capitalist system and believed communism to be a much better alternative

Are we all caught up now in the civil rights department? Do we still have work to do? What do we need to do to make the country more equal?

Women’s Liberation Movement

Really got started with the abolitionist movement in the 1840s – for the first time, women found a political sphere where they could have significant influence, and became very involved in the movement

Seneca Falls Convention – July 19, 1848

Organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (first American saint)

Discussed social, religious, civic rights of women

Adopted a Declaration of Sentiment, which adapted the Declaration of Independence to better reflect women’s rights

Women’s movement picked up steam after this

Focused on women’s suffrage at first – women’s freedom to vote

Was a world wide movement – in 1897, New Zealand granted women the right to vote, followed by Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Canada…so US was not first

Also used civil disobedience – large scale marches and jailings, hunger strikes, etc

Finally, women granted suffrage in 1920, under the leadership of Susan B. Anthony

Modern women’s movement – FEMINISM

Feminism – the movement that supports political, economic, and social equality for women

The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan –

Attacked idea that women could only find fulfillment through marriage and children

Says women are expected to find their identity through a husband and their children, and Friedan said women are forced to relinquish their own identities this way

Founded the National Organization for Women – (NOW) – sought to fully equalize the status of women in American society

Greater push for women’s rights occurred during the time of the Vietnam War – feminist issues were tied up with anti-war issues, and generally made for a time of upheaval