What was the Equal Access Act of 1984 Quizlet?
Equal Access Act of 1984 (1984) It was part of an ongoing effort by religious conservatives to secure a presence for religion in public schools in the wake of the Court’s decisions in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), forbidding school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading.
How can the government promote equal rights for all citizens?
The U.S. government has a public policy to promote equal rights for all citizens. One way to encourage this idea is to actively discourage discrimination against members of protected classes (such as racial minorities, women, and the disabled).
How does the government Prevent Discrimination in public accommodations?
To prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the government enacted certain laws at the federal, state, and sometimes local levels. Specifically, the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion.
What is the Equal Access Act?
The Equal Access Act of 1984 applies only to schools that allow students to form groups not specifically linked to the curriculum (a chess club, for example).
Why was the Equal Access Act passed?
Equal Access Act part of effort to secure presence for religion in public schools. Passed by 88 to 11 in the Senate and 337 to 77 in the House of Representatives, it was motivated by the Supreme Court ruling in Widmar v. Vincent (1981), which guaranteed these protections on public university campuses. It was part of an ongoing effort by religious ...
Why did the Equal Access Act of 1984 forbid public schools from receiving federal funds?
The Equal Access Act of 1984 forbids public schools from receiving federal funds if they deny students the First Amendment right to conduct meetings because of the “religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.”.
Why did the Equal Access Act of 1984 cause controversy?
Ironically, although the intent of the original promoters of the Equal Access Act of 1984 was to give Christian groups a presence on campus, the act has precipitated controversy because of the emergence of non-Christian groups such as Wiccans.
Which amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court?
Supreme Court upheld act against First Amendment challenge. Supporters of the Equal Access Act of 1984 promoted it as protection of the “free exercise” rights of students, whereas strict separationists voiced concerns about its use of public facilities for religious purposes.
What law forbids schools from receiving federal funds?
By Jane G. Rainey. Other articles in Laws and Proposed Laws, 1951-2007. The Equal Access Act of 1984 forbids public schools from receiving federal funds if they deny students the First Amendment right to conduct religious meetings. Some schools have sought to avoid controversial clubs to form by eliminating all non-curricular clubs.
What are prison officers forced to do?
In the prison environment, prison officers are often forced to tolerate minor rule violations, petty stealing, and making concessions to inmate leaders in order to. maintain power. Prison officers have a myriad of ways of retaliating against troublesome inmates, short of writing tickets for rule violations.
What is deliberate indifference?
Brennan (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "deliberate indifference resides on a continuum between mere negligence . . . [and] something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.".
What is the purpose of federal and state laws protecting designated groups from discrimination in places of public accommodations?
Federal and state laws protect designated groups from discrimination in places of public accommodations, based on the premise that everyone is entitled to enjoy the goods and services of the public accommodation on an equal basis.
What act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion?
Specifically, the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion. Thank you for subscribing!
What is the ADA?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability (or perceived disability) and requires equal accessibility in public accommodations to individuals with disabilities. To comply with the act, a public accommodation must conform to the ADA's standard for new construction and must remove barriers in existing buildings where it is can do so without much hardship or cost.
What are some examples of state laws?
For example, states including New Jersey have enacted anti-discrimination laws that specifically apply to private clubs, making it more difficult for the clubs to discriminate. Many states have enacted anti-discrimination laws for groups not protected by federal law. For example, states such as New York have explicit laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
What is the federal government's policy on public accommodations?
Public Accommodations at the Federal Level. Through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal government prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of the following: race, color, religion, national origin, and disability. The federal government does not prohibit discrimination on ...
What is public accommodation?
Public Accommodations and Equal Rights. A public accommodation is a place that offers goods and services to the general public such as a restaurant that is open to the public. Federal and state laws protect designated groups from discrimination in places of public accommodations, based on the premise that everyone is entitled to enjoy ...
Is a church considered a public accommodation?
Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations are generally not considered public accommodations. However; when these facilities are rented out to the public for non-religious purposes, they become public accommodations during that period of use. Also, "private clubs" -- clubs that require memberships -- or where members must pay dues are not considered public accommodations. Besides these exceptions, the law interprets most public accommodations to include almost any business that is open to the public, especially in the context of enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
How did African Americans experience discrimination?
African Americans have suffered discrimination on grounds of race, initially through the system of slavery, and then through a pattern of exclusion and segregation, both informal and formal, in the shape of legislation and court decisions that have historically endorsed overt racial dis-crimination. From the time of the inception of slavery in the early 17th century until 1865, slaves were considered the property of their masters based on a view that they were naturally unequal and inferior people. They were subjected to slave codes, which prohibited the possession of any rights or freedoms enjoyed by whites; experienced brutal and inhumane treatment of an extrale-gal nature; and were exploited for their labor. Following the Civil War, amendments to the Bill of Rights prohibited slavery and granted all persons, regardless of race, a right to equal protection. However, despite these legal statements of freedom, patterns of discrimination persisted after the war because many states passed Jim Crow laws, which had the effect of maintaining forms of dis-crimination in legal, social, and economic forums. For example, African Americans were denied the right to vote or to enter into contracts, and the doctrine of separate but equal was applied to keep the races separate.
How does racial origin affect police?
Racial origin may sometimes influence police decisions about making an arrest. In the case of suspected juvenile offenses, research has shown that for minor offenses, police officers may take into account the demeanor of a juvenile in deciding whether to make an arrest (Black and Reiss 1970; Piliavin and Briar 1964). If the police perceive the suspected offender as showing them disrespect, this may increase the likelihood of an arrest. Along with racial origin, Douglas Smith (1986) found that the context of a particular neighborhood also influenced police decisions about arrest or use of force, because police were more likely to arrest, threaten, or use force against suspects in racially mixed or minority neighborhoods.
Does racial discrimination occur in the criminal justice system?
One report suggests that racial discrimination does occur at some points in the criminal justice system. Following the Rodney King incident, the report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (also called the Christopher Commission) (1991) found that there was excessive use of force by LAPD officers and that this was compounded by racism and bias. One quarter of the 960 LAPD officers surveyed by the commission agreed that officers held a racial bias toward minorities, and more than one quarter agreed that this racial bias could lead to the use of excessive force. The commission also reviewed radio transmissions within the LAPD, which revealed disturbing and recurrent racial remarks, often made in the context of discussing vehicle pursuits or beating suspects. Testimony from witnesses depicted the LAPD as an organi-zation whose practices and procedures tolerated discriminatory treatment, and witnesses repeat-edly testified about LAPD officers who verbally harassed minorities, detained African American and Latino men who fit generalized descriptions of subjects, and employed invasive and humili-ating tactics against minorities in minority neighborhoods. As well as racism in relations with the public, racial bias was also reflected in conduct directed at fellow officers who were members of racial or ethnic minority groups. These officers were subjected to racial slurs and comments in radio messages and to discriminatory treatment within the department.
Is discrimination based on race a violation of the equality principle?
It is generally agreed that discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin is morally wrong and a violation of the principle of equality. The equality principle requires that those who are equal be treated equally based on similarities, and that race not be a relevant consideration in that assess-ment (May and Sharratt 1994: 317). In other words, it is only possible to justify treating people differently if there exists some factual difference between them that justifies such difference in treatment (Rachels 1999: 94). Equality is a nonspecific term that means nothing until applied to a particular context. Thus, in a political context, equality means equal access to public office and equal treatment under the law, and equal treatment extends to equality in terms of job hiring, promotion, and pay.
Is there any evidence of racial discrimination in the jury selection process?
Is there any evidence of racial discrimination in the jury selection process? Historically, laws have tried to entrench racial discrimination into the process of jury selection. In Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), the court struck down a statute that limited jury service to white men on the grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. However, this ruling did not prevent some states from attempting to preserve the lawfulness of an all-white jury by other means. For example, in Delaware, jury selection was drawn from lists of taxpayers, and jury members were required to be “sober and judicious.” Although African Americans were eligible for selection under this rule, they were seldom if ever selected, because the state authorities argued that few African Americans in the state were intelligent, experienced, or moral enough to serve as jurors (Walker et al. 2000: 156). The Supreme Court subsequently ruled this practice in Delaware as unconstitutional.Since the mid-1930s, the Supreme Court has ruled on jury selection issues in a way that has made it difficult for court systems to practice racial discrimination in jury selection. For example, the Court has ruled it unconstitutional to put the names of white potential jurors on white cards and the names of African American potential jurors on yellow cards and then to supposedly make a random draw of cards to determine who would be summoned for jury duty (Walker et al. 2000: 157). Walker et al. argue that many states still practice discriminatory procedures in selecting jury pools. For example, obtaining the names of potential jurors from registered voters, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or property tax rolls seems to be an objective process, but in some jurisdictions, racial minorities are less likely to be registered voters, own automobiles, or own taxable property (p. 157). The effect, therefore, is to stack the jury pool with middle-class white persons and to marginalize minorities.
