Civil Rights (Pt. 3) — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:00civil-rights lecture part three. so you should  change the slide to putting discrimination to
2. 0:10the test. this in fact is going to be the topic of  the essay part of exam two. don't worry, we will
3. 0:19review. I will have additional videos where we  review this material. and I will provide you the
4. 0:26question in advanced but here is the first time  we at least will go through the material and it
5. 0:33is rooted in the three tests that I just reviewed  in part two of the civil rights lecture videos
6. 0:41that we use to determine whether a discriminatory  law is is legal or not. so if you if you change
7. 0:50the slide and you see the different hypotheticals;  remember we the three different tests the rational
8. 0:57basis test and that's used against a law that  discriminates against any group not based on
9. 1:04their sex or gender and not based on race or  ethnicity. then we have intermediate scrutiny okay
10. 1:11and that's the test that you apply to a law that  discriminates against a particular group based on
11. 1:18their sex or or gender. then you have strict  scrutiny which is the test we apply to a law
12. 1:26that discriminates against a group based on their  race or ethnicity. so you have three hypothetical
13. 1:33laws. so one law is a law that requires public  colleges to only accept applicants with a GPA
14. 1:41of 3.5 or better. okay the second law is a law  that prohibits pregnant women from from smoking.
15. 1:53the third law is a law that prohibits African  Americans from owning a firearm. then I asked
16. 2:02which test would be used to determine whether  each law is a lawful form of discrimination.
17. 2:11then I asked again what would the government  have to prove in each case to demonstrate
18. 2:18lawful discrimination. so in other words, I want  to make sure you understand these different tests,
19. 2:23where they apply, when they apply, and ultimately  what the rationale would or would not be that a
20. 2:31government would have to explain to demonstrate  that a discriminatory policy is legal or not. okay
21. 2:39so with the law that requires public colleges  to only accept applicants with the GPA of 3.5
22. 2:48or better. well what you want to ask to determine  which test applies is, who is being discriminated
23. 2:55against? in this case of the 3.5 law ,any student  any applicant with a GPA of lower than 3.5 is
24. 3:06being discriminated against here; of course, based  on this law, they wouldn't be able to get in to a
25. 3:11a public college. here we would use the rational  basis test all right because this law is not
26. 3:22discriminating against a particular gender or sex  group; it's not discriminating against a racial
27. 3:29or ethnic group; its discriminating against the  group of students with GPAs lower than 3.5. now
28. 3:36for this form of discrimination to be considered  legal where this is the lowest bar in terms of
29. 3:42the test that government would have to get over. I  imagine the government would argue that this would
30. 3:52allow the limited resources we have for public  colleges to go to the most deserving students.
31. 3:59the best students and I imagine the government  would argue that this would ultimately enhance
32. 4:08the government's objective for more effectively  funding and getting more bang for their buck in
33. 4:14terms of the students that they fund to get  through college. the the most likely students
34. 4:19to succeed bababababa now whether a court would  buy this or not I don't know. but that's what
35. 4:25I imagine at least the government would would  explain to justify the the policy. now the the
36. 4:35next law a law that prohibits against pregnant  women from from smoking. again what you want to
37. 4:41ask to determine which test applies, who is being  discriminated against? this law discriminates
38. 4:49against pregnant women. it specifically does  not allow pregnant women to to smoke. now as
39. 4:58you apply the the intermediate scrutiny test  okay and that's the test to apply for any law
40. 5:07or policy that discriminates based on sex or  gender. certainly this one does the you know
41. 5:14pregnant women can't smoke law certainly does that  right the government would have to explain that it
42. 5:21has write a compelling interest in this case to  have discriminatory law and policy. I imagine the
43. 5:27government's compelling interest would be the the  health of the unborn child and having as healthy
44. 5:36and successful of a pregnancy or pregnancies out  there throughout the country which then would
45. 5:43reduce all of the health care burden that would  hypothetically be put on our healthcare system
46. 5:51if we had a bunch of unhealthy babies born.  whether that would fly or not that would be
47. 6:01up to a court. but that would be the question  that would be asked to determine whether that
48. 6:06particular law law or policy is a legal form of  discrimination or not. and then finally a law that
49. 6:15prohibits African Americans from owning a fire  arm. now this law you know specifically; again,
50. 6:22the question you want to answer is, what type of  group is being discriminated against? you answer
51. 6:28that you should then know which test to apply.  this policy the african-americans can not have a
52. 6:34firearm law, discriminates against a racial group.  so in this case we would apply the strict scrutiny
53. 6:44test. now to pass the muster if you will, the  government would have to explain its compelling
54. 6:50interest for discriminating its african-americans  and their right to to own a firearm. I imagine it
55. 6:59would be to decrease violence, safety etc etc okay  now assuming that interest is compelling enough,
56. 7:07then the government would have to argue that  the law is narrowly tailored. okay now if you
57. 7:17I am just speculating I don't think a law  that excludes an entire group from owning a
58. 7:29fire arm would be considered narrowly tailored.  maybe if it went after just African American
59. 7:33felons, that would be at least more narrowly  tailored. I don't know that would be narrowly
60. 7:38tailored enough. I'm not a court or a judge but  I wouldn't see how that would pass. but assuming
61. 7:45that government came out with some justification  that it did pass the narrowly tailored rule,
62. 7:50then the government would have to explain that  this particular law is the least restrictive
63. 7:57way of achieving the goal of decreased violence  etc etc and again it would be up for court to
64. 8:04decide so what I expect you guys to understand  are the three tests okay the rational basis
65. 8:11test the intermediate scrutiny test the strict  scrutiny test under which occasions each applies
66. 8:19and generally the bar that government would  have to get over to justify legally speaking a
67. 8:27discriminatory policy depending on whether the  policy discriminates against a non-sex gender
68. 8:33race ethnic group and to rational basis test or if  the law or policy discriminates against a gender
69. 8:39or sex group hence intermediate scrutiny test  or if the law discriminates against a racial or
70. 8:45ethnic group hence intermediate scrutiny and  I can tell you we'll get more into detail of
71. 8:51this later but basically the essay part of exam  2 will be what you're looking at right here I'm
72. 8:57gonna give you three different types of laws  and then you're gonna have to answer you know
73. 9:02which test applies and then generally explain  what the government would have to demonstrate
74. 9:07in order to pass that test you're not going  to be in the courtroom and determine whether
75. 9:11the law is legal or not but I just you what  I would expect you guys to know is what the
76. 9:17standard that would be applied to determine  whether a discriminatory law is lawful or not