Conclusion

Introductory Comments by James W. Riddlesperger, Jr., and Donald W. Jackson The Public, the President, and Civil Rights Presidents, Public Opinion, and Civil Rights: An Agenda-Setting Perspective by Jeffrey E. Cohen Presidential Rhetoric in Civil Rights Policymaking, 1953-1992 by Steven A. Shull and Albert C. Ringelstein Moving with the Grain of History: An Examination of Presidential Action in the Civil Rights Domain from 1892 to 1968 by Ronald E. Brown Institutions, the President, and Civil Rights Presidential Leadership Style and Civil Rights Legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by James D. King and James W. Riddlesperger, Jr. Affirmative Action and Business Deregulation: On the Reagan Administration's Failure to Revise Executive Order No. 11246 by Robert R. Detlefsen A Transformed Triangle: Court, Congress and Presidency in Civil Rights by Stephen L. Wasby Policy Arenas, the President, and Civil Rights Presidential Decision-Making in Two Desegregation Crises: Little Rock Central High School and the University of Mississippi by Mark Stern John F. Kennedy and the Politics of Civil Rights by Donald W. Jackson and James W. Riddlesperger, Jr. Decentralizing Fair Housing Enforcement During the Reagan Presidency by Charles M. Lamb and Jim Twombly Modeling Presidential Influence in the Civil Rights Policymaking Process by Steven A. Shull and Dennis W. Gleiber Bibliography Index

A New Approach to Education Affirmative Action

The civil rights movement has broken away from its religious roots which once provided it firm support and, indeed, it has become a threat to those roots. In fact, the past thirty years evidence two civil rights movements. The original civil rights movement promoted equal opportunity and presupposed a constrained vision of human possibilities compatible with Christianity, The revised civil rights agenda, which had replaced it by 1971, promoted preferential policies dubbed "affirmative action" based on an unconstrained vision incompatible with both Christianity and the American founding. The most visible threat to religious liberty is the expansion of civil rights protections to include homosexuals despite the overwhelming rejection of homosexuality as a lifestyle by the majority of Americans, including Christians.

Reviewed by: Constructing Affirmative Action: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity by David Hamilton Golland James C. Foster David Hamilton Golland. Constructing Affirmative Action: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2011. xiv + 248 pp. ISBN 978-0-8131-2997-6, $50.00 (cloth); 978-0-8131-2998-3, $50.00 (epub). Two persistent and pervasive misperceptions plague Americans’ attitudes toward civil rights. First, many believe that racial discrimination is largely confined to states of the former Confederacy. Second, many presume that affirmative action, in both employment and higher education, favors unqualified people of color over qualified whites. To these pernicious errors one can add a third—namely, many Americans assume that civil rights battles are behind us and, in this “post-racial society,” people of color have won. As Chief Justice John Roberts recently observed, justifying his opinion overturning the pivotal §4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: “Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.”1 David Golland’s tidy case study of how “affirmative action” evolved in the building trades dispels these inaccuracies. As such, Golland, a historian at Governors State University, has authored a work that exemplifies a distinction crucial to law and society scholarship between the “law in the books” and the “law in action.”2 Golland’s book might well be titled “Promises Made, Promises Broken.” In five chapters sandwiched between his introduction and a conclusion, he meticulously chronicles the tortured path of efforts to provide even a modicum of equal opportunity for skilled black workers in the building construction trades. His analysis is a litany of politicians’ perfidy, administrators’ inertia, and union leaders’ intransigence—all juxtaposed to and opposed by the dogged persistence of civil rights leaders and groups. The through-line is racism; the villain of this tale is Richard M. Nixon. “The popular imagination is right,” Golland notes pithily. “[A]t least when it came to civil rights, Nixon was ‘Tricky Dick’” (p. 4). By contrast, at the beginning of most chapters, Golland spotlights unsung heroes—mason Thomas Bailey; sheet metal worker James Ballard; steamfitters [End Page 464] George Rios, Eugene Jenkins, and Eric O. Lewis—who engaged in the mid–twentieth-century struggles to end employment discrimination and inequality. One comes away from reading Golland’s book convinced that efforts to integrate the building construction trades were akin to a ground game resembling trench warfare: “That is hard work” (p. 6). Hard work, indeed. Given slavery, Jim Crow, and “the New Jim Crow,”3 leaving their legacy of outright racial prejudice and go-to racial stereotypes embedded deeply in our national DNA and lodged stubbornly in our individual unconscious, it is no surprise that the episodes in constructing affirmative action that Golland recounts have a distinct Sisyphean feel to them. Chapter One is about diligent efforts, such as those of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Labor Director Herbert Hill, prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to pry open job opportunities for minority builders—efforts that resulted in inching federal contractors “from outright exclusion to tokenism in minority hiring” (p. 9). Chapter Two shifts the focus from official policy-making corridors in Washington, DC, to the streets. As Herbert Hill observed in 1963, “[T]he time has come for freedom rides in Pennsylvania” (p. 37). Northern urban riots in 1963 and 1964 did not put a dent in the statistic that “the national unemployment rate among black youths [was] nearly twice that of whites” (p. 64). Employment opportunity plans in San Francisco and Cleveland take center stage in Chapter Three, plans that Golland describes in his chapter title as “Grasping at Solutions” (pp. 65–101), solutions imperiled by a white “backlash [that] threatened to derail all the precious achievements of the previous decade” (p. 101). The Philadelphia Plan bridges Chapters Three and Four. Golland writes: [B]uilding on the discussion … in Chapter 3, [Chapter 4] shows decisively that the Philadelphia Plan was developed and implemented by Johnson-era officials … and that Nixon’s motive for pushing the plan was to enlarge his own political power by attempting to split two Democratic constituencies: organized labor and the...

During the early years of the Vietnam War, thousands of young African-American men eagerly enlisted in the armed forces because they believed the military afforded them educational and vocational opportunities in supposedly the most integrated institution in the United States. By the end of the 1960s, however, reports of the inherent racial bias in the draft, discriminatory treatment in the armed forces, and institutional racism in all branches of the services enraged and shocked African-Americans puncturing their longstanding belief that military service was a civil rights imperative. Anger over the second-class treatment of blacks in the military was a major reason for Martin Luther King Jr.’s , and other civil rights organizations’ break with the Johnson administration over the Vietnam War. In fact, debates over the Vietnam War divided African-Americans more than any other issue in American history. In the coming decades, bitterness over tragic black subtext of Vietnam lingered and informed their disdain for conservatives’ attempt to depict Vietnam as a “noble cause.” African-Americans’ bitter memory of the war and the continuing plight of African-Americans veterans also contributed to their overwhelming opposition to the use of military force against non-white countries in Latin America and Iraq and Afghanistan. For African-Americans, the legacy of Vietnam was “no more Vietnams.”

A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow. By David L. Chappell. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Pp. 344. Introduction, illustrations, conclusion, appendix, notes, sources, bibliographic essay, acknowledgments, index. $34.95.) In A Stone of Hope, David L. Chappell argues that religion provided many participants in the civil rights movement with the inspiration and hope necessary to initiate and sustain the struggle despite seemingly overpowering odds. Although southern whites overwhelmingly favored segregation, they divided over how best to preserve it and lacked the overriding commitment to the cause that civil rights activists showed to theirs. Many civil rights participants believed that God was working through the movement, and so, for them, religion legitimized the struggle. However, their white opponents found no religious support for Jim Crow from the leaders of the major white denominations, little from their clergymen, and only a small amount from a divided white laity. While religion had helped legitimize slavery and the Confederate cause among most white southerners during the Civil War, it did not provide a rationale or inspiration for preserving Jim Crow a century later, thereby substantially and even fatally weakening the segregationist cause. Based on extensive archival and manuscript research and oral history, Chappell's engagingly written study offers a provocative interpretation of the movement and its opponents. In the opening chapter, Chappell argues that northern white liberals, hamstrung by their commitment to education, persuasion, and gradualism, achieved little for African-American rights in the 1930s and 1940s. Mistakenly, such liberals expected that the South's economic and educational modernization would lead white southerners to abandon an irrational, obsolete segregationist tradition. Convinced of the power of reason and suasion, liberals lacked the zeal to inspire and lead an equal rights struggle. The alliance between northern liberals and the civil rights movement was essential to overturn legal discrimination in the South, but the movement derived its inspiration from an irrational faith that liberals lacked. Religion, Chappell argues, inspired many civil rights participants with the assurance to face violence and economic coercion, certain that God was on their side. The movement constituted a religious revival, the nation's Third Great Awakening, replete with participants' claims of miracles, conversion experiences, and God's presence. Like earlier Great Awakenings, the third changed society. Civil rights strategists and leaders lacked the liberals' faith in persuasion. Articulate civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. …

ABSTRACTThis article uses philosophical analysis to clarify the arguments and claims about racial discrimination brought forward in the recent legal challenges to affirmative action in higher education admissions. Affirmative action opponents have argued that elite institutions of higher education are using negative action against Asian American applicants, so they can admit other students of color instead by using race-conscious affirmative action. We examined the surrounding controversy, while positing that the portrayal of Asian Americans as a model minority in this debate foments a politics of resentment that divides racial groups. Our analysis centered on how key concepts such as racial discrimination and diversity may be central to this politics of resentment. Given persistent threats to access and equity in higher education, it is important to gain conceptual clarity about the racial politics of anti-affirmative action efforts.

During Associate Justice William O. Douglas’s long tenure on the Supreme Court bench, from 1939 to 1975, a variety of cases came before the Court that affected American public life and the concepts of individual and civil rights. The mid-twentieth century was a tumultuous and pivotal time in American history that was marked by major international conflicts, such as World War II, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War, as well as major domestic movements, notably the civil rights movement. Douglas’s opinions demonstrate his judicial priorities—protection of civil and individual rights, including the right to privacy; near-absolute deference to the First Amendment; and environmental protection. Douglas addressed cases not just from within the narrow confines of case-law precedent but also from what he saw as the social ramifications of the particular questions contested in the cases. The Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut overturned the conviction of Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton for violating an 1879 Connecticut law that prohibited the provision of contraceptive devices, medicines, or advice—even to married couples. The case definitively established a constitutional right to privacy among married couples.

In a trio of cases handed down on the same day in 1950, the Supreme Court denied constitutional free speech protection to civil rights picketing and labor picketing. The civil rights case, Hughes v. Superior Court, has often been portrayed as an early test case about affirmative action, but it originated in repression of an alliance of radical labor and civil rights activists exasperated by the legislature's repeated failure to enact fair employment law. Seeking a people's law like the labor general strikers and sit-downers of the 1930s and the civil rights sit-inners of the 1960s, they insisted that the true meaning of free speech was the right to speak truth to power. Courts and Congress forced the labor movement to abandon direct action even as it became the defining feature of the civil rights movement. The free speech rights consciousness they invoked challenged the prevailing conservative conception of rights and law. Direct action was a form of legal argument, a subaltern law of solidarity. It was not, as civil rights protest is often portrayed, a form of civil disobedience. What happened during and after the case reveals how the subaltern law and formal law labor and civil rights began to diverge, along with the legal histories of the movements.

Civil Rights: An American HistoryyBook Introduction

Early in 1981, in the last days of the Carter administration, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights undertook a reevaluation of affirmative action. It released its conclusions in the report “Affirmative Action in the 1980s: Dismantling the Process of Discrimination.” The report came in the wake of several important Supreme Court decisions about the ways in which affirmative action was being used in the United States to establish equity between women and Black and other minority Americans on the one hand, and white male Americans on the other.

On Roe at Forty Laura Kalman (bio) Jack Balkin opens What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said with the observation that the most important difference between the 1954 decision of Brown v. Board of Education and the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade “is the degree of public acceptance each has enjoyed.” Like Roe, he says, Brown was “hotly contested in the first few years after it was decided.” But Congress ratified Brown in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Movement altered attitudes about race, and “Brown was transformed from a flashpoint of controversy into a hallowed icon” symbolizing the aspiration for equality and human rights. In fights about busing, affirmative action, and gender and sexual equality, Balkin writes, contestants conceded Brown’s correctness, competed for its mantle, and condemned their opponents for playing politics with its meaning. “The political debate was framed within the parameters set by Brown, rather than as a debate over the legitimacy of Brown.” Consequently, some said “gay is the new black” and same-sex marriage, the last frontier in the struggle for equality. Roe, Balkin insists, had a different trajectory. No Civil Rights Act of 1983 ratified Roe’s result, and Roe “energized” hostile conservative and religious groups and transformed politics. “In contrast to Brown, many Americans—and particularly many American politicians—continue to argue that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” Since Roe has not become “a hallowed icon like Brown”—there’s that phrase, “hallowed icon,” again—the debate over abortion rights has continually left Roe’s legitimacy up for grabs, with judicial nomination battles emphasizing its dubious vitality.1 As a cantankerous academic, I want to challenge this view, which is widely accepted, before addressing Roe’s reception and evaluating its “lessons” for us about the relationship between Supreme Court opinions and social change. I argue that Roe is doing better than conventional wisdom indicates and that Brown is doing worse. To be sure, if we restrict our discussion of public opinion to polling data, we would say that public opinion has remained more static about Roe over the last forty years than it has about Brown—although even here, we might challenge conventional wisdom by pointing to the consistent [End Page 756] majority support for Roe over time. In contrast, Gallup registered 55 percent of Americans approving of Brown in 1954, as opposed to 87 percent in 1994.2 Turn to more informed evaluations, though, and it becomes clear that the triumphal narrative of Brown, portraying it as “hallowed icon,” is in tatters. By the Brown at Forty and Fifty events, Brown, once the all-time feel-good decision, had become a total downer. Or, as Reva Siegel more eloquently put it, the narrative of redemption once spun about Brown was now one of betrayal. Not everyone embraces its most basic holding that states should not racially segregate primary and secondary school students. Some African Americans consider Brown racist. Justice Thomas implies that its contention that segregation stigmatizes African Americans assumes black inferiority; Derrick Bell questions the value of the integration he once championed; and Elizabeth Eckford says that she now appreciates blackness and no longer is happy that she braved white mobs to desegregate Little Rock’s Central High. Then there’s the fact that legal scholars have won fame by challenging the doctrinal foundations of Brown since the days that Herbert Wechsler declared that no “neutral principles” underlay the decision. Then there’s the debate about Brown’s consequences, with Michael Klarman contending that the decision sparked a backlash that halted the mellowing of Southern race relations and hardened white resistance; Gerald Rosenberg leading the chorus of disillusioned liberals who grieve that Brown spawned the “hollow hope” that the Supreme Court could remedy injustice; and critical legal scholars charging that Brown underscored the peril of the rights-consciousness it made possible. Then there are social scientists’ complaints that resegregation has replaced desegregation and that the relationship between academic achievement and desegregation always remained unclear, anyway. Add these criticisms up, and I think Earl Warren is hardly rejoicing that Brown is viewed as a “hallowed icon.” It’s far more likely that he...

This study explores the relationship between the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and corporate sustainability (CS) through a business and human rights (BHR) lens. It affirms established guidance that companies must show respect for human rights. As a new factor, the study considers how corporations recognise civil rights. The authors examine annual reports and other material of five Fortune Global 500 multinational enterprises (MNEs) from five sectors to establish their relationship with UNGPs, SDGs and civil rights. They also review policies and reports to determine the MNEs management system(s) (MS) and system certifications. While the sample is too small to make correlations, the authors find that the sample MNEs do recognise civil rights under the guise of human rights. They appear to address civil rights issues that trend globally, not necessarily the problems that occur on the national or local level. Although the sample countries contribute to SDGs, this engagement seems connected to the MNEs business strategy. Their SDGs involvement can change from one fiscal year to the next, depending on the business strategy. In the study, the authors focus on corporate management systems (MSs) and seek to identify elements of a good MS. They recommend that companies expose their MSs to audit and certification processes to ensure that respect for civil and human rights are embedded in their systems.

Data sources Medline, Popline, ExtraMed, Embase and Info Latino Americo were searched for the period 1 January 1970–31 December 2000. Keywords used were “dental caries” and names of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Reference lists from retrieved articles were also examined for more studies. Study selection For inclusion an article had to have clearly-defined ages within the groups (5–6, 11–13 years); use the World Health Organization caries diagnostic criteria; the sample had to be reasonably representative of the general population and contain at least 30 individuals; and examiners had to be calibrated. Data extraction and synthesis For each of the two age-groupings, the caries prevalence and caries severity data were plotted against the year of study. A nonlinear regression curve was fitted to each group of results, and a linear regression analysis was done to look for a significant departure from zero of the caries-rate trend with statistical significance set at P<0.05. This was done separately for the 21 countries in Latin America and 12 countries in the Caribbean. Results The search identified 438 articles: 172 were epidemiological studies, of which 30 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 16 countries were represented. Over the last 30 years, there has been a significant decrease in caries prevalence for 11–13-year-old children in Latin America. There was also a significant decrease in caries severity for 5–6-year-olds in Latin America, and for 11–13-year-olds in Latin America and the Caribbean. Conclusions This study showed some statistically significant downward trends in dental caries between 1970 and 2000 in 16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The objective of this article is to identify in the scientific literature affirmative care actions for the black population. This is an integrative review of the literature carried out in April 2017 at the Virtual Health Library (BVS), using LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences) and the Nursing Database (BDENF). Ten papers explored and shown in synoptic tables were used and analyzed through an instrument after taking into account the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Nine affirmative actions were listed to promote healthcare for the black population following the study of the papers. It is necessary, in both care and training spaces, to question the main demands against the context in which the black population is inserted, as well as the affirmative care actions for the black population to implement the principles of universality and integrality in health services to their full extent.