EOTO #4 Reflection

In class, there was a mock trial covering the 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and following that there were the EOTO presentations. A variety of topics were covered included the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., the Fair Housing Act, Shirley Chisolm, the Boston Busing Violence and many more. While all the presentations were extremely informative, there were a few topics that stood out to me in particular. 

One topic I was entirely unfamiliar with that I learned about was the 1974 Boston Busing Violence. During this time, schools were beginning to desegregate, finally allowing both African American and White students to go to school together. In putting students together in schools, the districts had to establish a bus system to get students of all demographics to and from school from wherever they lived. This sparked an outrage amongst White parents who wanted their children to continue to go to segregated schools. On the first day of school, buses were attacked with bricks, glass and other destructive items. African American children were targeted by White parents who spat in their face and screamed racial slurs at them. Police were forced to intervene due to extreme violence, where protests and riots were growing to be very violent. Children were terrified to go to school, fearing immensely for their safety. Even through the violence and the hatred that originally surrounded this situation, the desegregation of schools was a key part of our nation’s history. I had never even heard about this issue so I was really interested to learn about it and saddened to know that this was not the only case of violent, racially motivated riots. 

Another specific topic discussed that I found interesting was learning about Shirley Chisholm. She was a very powerful, influential African American woman who was highly invested in benefitting the communities of both women and African Americans. She was one of two African American women who served for the legislature in Albany, New York. In 1969, Chisholm was elected as the first African American congresswoman. She served for seven consecutive terms. She also ran for president, unfortunately not being elected, though that did not surprise me, especially with the societal norms of the 60s and 70s. Her strong stance and political voice helped pave the way for those two communities at the time, both seen as still extremely disadvantaged. Her determination to speak up and be heard to help the people around her was both admirable and important in history. I had never prior heard of Shirley Chisholm nor was I aware of all that she did during her time. It was really interesting to me to see a woman of color so confidently leading during this time, blatantly pushing aside any oppositions or negativities she may have faced. All in all, she was an extremely commendable individual.

 

While there were many informational topics discussed, these were the ones that I was completely unaware of that I found to be most interesting. In learning about all of these topics, the forefront of my thinking relied upon Martin Luther King Jr. A lot of the things happening in society during this time were all things he was ferociously working towards avoiding and achieving. I wonder just how much would be different if he were still alive. I firmly believe he would not be as proud of society as he had hoped, and believe he would have made a world of a difference alongside all of the influential leaders he worked with.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner

    In Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, the film introduces the idea of interracial marriage and the disparities that surrounded those attempting to accomplish during the 1960s. Joanna Drayton, a white woman, becomes engaged to a black doctor, John Prentice. During this time, there was a significant issue of race in society as there were clear cultural, social, ethical and moral inequities. The Drayton’s have a really hard time understanding the difference in status between the couple, even more so the fact that Prentice is African American. The Prentice family shared similar shocks and worries, especially being the family of a son marrying a White woman. 

It is no secret that since John is a doctor, he is well educated and has become quite successful. Because of the current societal norms, though changing and progressing, John was used to mistreatment and being seen as “less than”. Due to the changing times, many were growing to adjust and adapt to the idea of interracial couples becoming more of a norm in society. I was really surprised that both sets of parents were as disapproving of the relationship as they were, but in reality this was simply normal at the time. White and African American people in our nation's views were not equal and as such could not be together in marriage. 

As the movie progresses, both families begin to adjust to the idea of the two being together. The Drayton’s grow to actually be really charmed and impressed by Prentice, and very proud of who he is and what he has accomplished. This part was surprising to me because I had gotten so used to seeing White citizens being entirely unaccepting of African Americans and firm with their views. The Prentice family ended up sharing similar views, which I was not as surprised about, but it was shocking to me to see these two families cohabiting so well. 

Another thing that was interesting to me was the couple's commitment to each other and their happiness. More specifically, their fierce ignorance to opposition and hate that they may encounter just for being together as two individuals of a different race. The relationship as a whole moved rather quickly, which was another interesting component to me. The way in which society viewed interracial marriage made for a great challenge in being together, yet that never seemed to slow them down or deter them.

Overall, the societal progress shown in this movie, I feel, was an accurate representation of the current era. It is unbelievable for me to think that we once lived in a society even more segregated and enveloped in racism than even the 60s. I really appreciated the approach the filmmakers took in delivering this message. Even more so, I have much appreciated watching the progression of society through film in this class as it has been extremely informative and eye opening to me as to our nation's history.

EOTO/Mock Trial: Board of Regents v. Bakke

The argument I am presenting to you today is in favor of Mr. Bakke illustrates the violation of his constitutional and fundamental rights as a US citizen applying to college. As we already know, this was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1978 that was set to uphold affirmative action stating race could now be a factor for the college admission policy. Allan Bakke was rejected from medical school even after proving to have an exceedingly impressive resume to present to the college board. The University California at Davis enacted a rule that stated white applicants would compete for 84 out of the 100 spots for applicants and color applicants would compete for the remaining 16 spots Bakke decided to take the decision he had been given and try to fight it, only failing in passing reassessment for entry. Mr. Bakke should be able to attend the University of his choice and under no circumstance should his admission decision be made on the basis of race, age, status or any other discriminatory factor.

In implementing this system, this rigid quota system violates the 14th amendment, the Equal Protection Clause And the rights that fall under that through the United States Constitution, also a violation under Title VI (9) under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing”. Title VI states that “public funds to which all taxpayers of all races, (colors and national origins) contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination” (JFK, 1963). This already proves the point that they are unable to discriminate just because he does not help them to meet efforts of diversity and the school. Further, under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, it is not allowed that you deny citizens equal protection of laws. The school is using their personal benefit and gain as means for admission at this point in going for those who help them to fulfill quotas of diversity.

Though during this time, it was generally more of a commonality for white individuals to be receiving a college education, that does not mean we can discriminate just to promote a more diverse school. The University needs to uphold standards and admit based on the criteria of GPA, test scores, class rank and items of that nature, and off of no personal or individual gain. The idea that the university should accept more colored students and integrate minorities is a progressive and beneficial one, however it cannot be used to eliminate all prior criteria for admission. That is unfair and unjust. Those seeking higher education should be able to do so without fear or rejection or retribution for doing so just based on the color of their skin.

 In following the points set forth by the 14th amendment of our constitution, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The University of California at Davis should be unable to void Mr. Bakke of his admission on the basis of race because it clearly violates his rights under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Sources:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regents_of_the_university_of_california_v_bakke_(1978)#:~:text=Primary%20tabs-,Regents%20of%20the%20University%20of%20California%20v.,Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of%201964

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI-Overview

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/statutes/civil-rights-act-of-1964#:~:text=The%20Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of%201964%20prohibits%20discrimination%20on%20the,hiring%2C%20promoting%2C%20and%20firing.