Constitutional colorblindness

Constitutional colorblindness is an aspect of United States Supreme Court case evaluation that began with Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Prior to this (and for a good while afterwards), the Supreme Court considered color as a determining factor in many landmark cases. Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color conscious" is presumptively unconstitutional regardless of whether its intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy discrimination. The concept, therefore, has been brought to bear both against vestiges of Jim Crow oppression, as well as remedial efforts aimed at overcoming such discrimination, such as affirmative action.

Color Blindness

The theory behind color blindness is that a person should have unlimited opportunities regardless of race. There is a big contemporary debate surrounding affirmative action; some believe that it's beneficial because a person's social class should be considered instead of their race. Others criticize color blindness because,“There are concerns that majority groups use color-blindness as a means of avoiding the discussion of racism and discrimination." This might diminish the hardships that minorities face in the public eye. Another thought that emerges from this concept is that, "color-blindness operates under the assumption that we are living in a world that is "post-race", where race no longer matters."[1]

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The Plessy v. Ferguson case is an example of how the Supreme Court was not colorblind in their decision which upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine that allowed segregation. While reviewing the case, the Supreme Court looked solely at the race of Plessy and decided that the railroad had every right to arrest him. The Supreme Court would then approve all laws that enforced racial segregation. Justice Harlan was the only person on the case who dissented and responded that the '"arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race"' was equivalent to imposing a '''badge of servitude"' on African Americans. He contended that the real intent of the law was not to provide equal accommodations but to compel African Americans to keep to themselves.This was intolerable because "our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."[2]


Jim Crow

The Jim Crow era was a time period where places in the South were legally allowed to segregate businesses and various other locations based upon race.Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.[3] The Supreme Court didn't object to segregation, but instead made it legal under the" separate but equal" law. Jim Crow, in fact created separate facilities that were highly unequal. Among the inequality, educational institutions for African Americans weren't well funded.[4] In addition to the eradication of civil and political rights, Jim Crow also prevented blacks from bettering themselves economically.[5] Many African Americans were forced to work and if they didn't, they were threatened with being arrested for vagrancy, the act of being unemployed and homeless.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is an act, policy, plan, or program designed to remedy the negative effects of wrongful discrimination. "Affirmative action" can remedy the perceived injustice of discrimination on the basis of a person's race, national origin, ethnicity, language, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or affiliation.[2] Also known as "positive discrimination", affirmative action is a law that was signed by John F. Kennedy in 1961 that helps and favors those who have to deal with discrimination; work or education related. As a civil rights policy affecting African Americans, "affirmative action" most often denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts undertaken by private entities and government officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education that many attribute to slavery, segregation, poverty, and racism.[2]

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

The Brown v. Board of Education was a turning point in the civil rights era and was a series of laws that worked to overturn segregation. This case was intended to allow black students to attend white schools. The plaintiffs explained that by being racially separated, black people were treated poorly and that the "separate but equal" doctrine didn't uphold in their favor because the services and accommodations they received were low quality. The Court unanimously decided in Brown that laws separating children by race in different schools violated the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, which provides that "[n]o state shall … deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws." In making its decision, the Court declared that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." [6] The decision in this case influenced the overturning of segregation in other cases that were dealing with separation on buses, trains, and many public places.

Arguments against affirmative action
  • Affirmative action is reverse discrimination. The past discrimination against certain minority groups does not justify present discrimination against non-minorities. All people are equal under the laws of the United States of America and should be treated accordingly.
  • It destroys the idea of a meritocracy and instead puts race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures. The best people for the position should be put there, regardless of race.
  • Students/workers who are put into a position through affirmative action often are not fully ready for the task. Not only is this not good for the university/company, but it is also not good for these students/workers as well because it lowers self-esteem.
  • Affirmative action reinforces stereotypes and racism because of the previous point. People given a position purely because of affirmative action often are not qualified, and the idea that all people of that race must be "stupid" is perpetuated. Also, it presupposes that all people of the same skin color are from the lower class, and therefore need help. This also reinforces stereotypes and even embeds them permanently into the system.
  • Simply having people of different races or ethnicity in the workplace/university does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion. People with the same skin color are not necessarily the same in opinion or even culture.[7]
gollark: Also, anyone want me to sign some code for potatOS?
gollark: Should I blacklist "AnonOS" in potatOS?
gollark: That's actually the opposite of how it works.
gollark: Only the best OSes, such as potatOS, are free of this curße.
gollark: Just useless GUIs.

References
  1. Ansell, Amy E. (March 2006). "Casting a Blind Eye: The Ironic Consequences of Color-Blindness in South Africa and the United States". Critical Sociology. 32 (2–3): 333–356. doi:10.1163/156916306777835349. ISSN 0896-9205.
  2. Millet, Michelle S. (2007-06-19). "Encyclopedia of African‐American Culture and History: The Black Experience in the Americas (2nd edition)2007245Editor‐in‐chief Colin A. Palmer. Encyclopedia of African‐American Culture and History: The Black Experience in the Americas (2nd edition). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference 2006. 6 vols., ISBN 978 0 02 865816 2 $730 Also available as an e‐book (ISBN 978 0 02 866071 4)". Reference Reviews. 21 (5): 51–52. doi:10.1108/09504120710755734. ISSN 0950-4125.
  3. "Jim Crow law | History & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2018-09-19.
  4. encyclopedia of African American culture and history.
  5. Collins, Brian (1994). "Critical Essays on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer ed. by Gary Scharnhorst". Western American Literature. 29 (1): 76–77. doi:10.1353/wal.1994.0053. ISSN 1948-7142.
  6. Wellburn, Peter (2009-09-18). "Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture (2nd ed.)2009349Editor‐in‐chief Jay Kinsbruner. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture (2nd ed.). Detroit, MI: Gale 2008. , ISBN 978 0 684 31270 5 $730 6 vols Also available as an e‐book (ISBN 978 0 684 31590 4)". Reference Reviews. 23 (7): 60–62. doi:10.1108/09504120910990542. ISSN 0950-4125.
  7. "Pros and Cons". www.mtholyoke.edu. Retrieved 2018-09-19.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.