| Description |
pages cm |
|
text txt rdacontent |
|
unmediated n rdamedia |
|
volume nc rdacarrier |
| Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
| Contents |
Legitimacy and minority rights -- The group antipathy theory of Supreme Court legitimacy -- Under siege : gay rights and immigration at the Supreme Court -- Opening the floodgates : big business, citizens united, and evaluations -- Experimental tests of the group antipathy model -- How citizens use groups to evaluate judicial preferences -- Group antipathy and strategic behavior on the Supreme Court. |
| Summary |
"The morning of April 3, 1968 was fraught with tension. Nearly a decade and a half after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), racial integration had proved elusive. At first the resistance was overt and powerful, echoing the words of a Mississippi judge who had taunted, "it will take an army of one hundred million men" to enforce desegregation (see Brandenburg 2004; Klarman 2006; Ross 2002; Sunstein 2004). But as time passed segregation became a more insidious problem. Most southern districts adopted "freedom of choice" plans that offered minorities a say in the schools they would attend. But theory was not matched by reality. In one Virginia county, for example, 85% of African American students - and zero whites - attended the once all-black school (Stancil 2018). Against this backdrop, attorney Samuel W. Tucker stepped before the U.S. Supreme Court. Tucker represented the petitioners challenging Virginia's "part white part Negro" system of "dual schooling." The case was Green v. New Kent County (1968). Free choice plans, Tucker argued, had little practical effect. Schools remained overwhelmingly segregated by race. He called on the justices to address the problem. One month later, a unanimous Supreme Court offered one of the strongest frameworks for protecting minority rights ever endorsed by the U.S. judiciary (Stancil 2018). Its ruling called for the "dismantling" of dual systems. It was not enough to simply offer school choice, the Court found. The government had a responsibility to proactively bring about integration"-- Provided by publisher. |
| Subject |
Minorities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- United States.
|
|
Minorities -- Civil rights -- United States.
|
|
United States. Supreme Court -- Public opinion.
|
|
Legitimacy of governments -- United States.
|
|
School integration -- Law and legislation -- United States.
|
|
Aversion -- Political aspects -- United States.
|
| Other Form: |
Online version: Zilis, Michael A. The rights paradox New York : Cambridge University Press, [2020?] 9781108937764 (DLC) 2020046838 |
| ISBN |
9781108832090 (hardback) |
|
9781108927697 (paperback) |
|
9781108937764 (epub) |
|
