The History of Systematic Racism – This workshop will examine the history of racism and how it informs where we are today. Institutions such as the American educational system, federal laws and supreme court decisions, as well as how race is actualized in the United States will be covered. This engaging, interactive session will draw upon a range of sources and invite attendees to be active participants in the discussion.

• Readings: Please read the Introduction and Chapters 1-4, in the book How to Be An Antiracist, in preparation for the workshop session.

• Copies of How to Be an Antiracist are available for checkout at the library’s circulation desk through the Minuteman Network.

Please familiarize yourself with the materials bellow in the following order, it will take roughly 32 minutes to complete all videos and reading material.

1. Terminology
   1. Ableism – To privilege temporarily able-bodied people and disadvantage people with disabilities on individual, institutional, and cultural levels.
   2. Ethnoreligious – The coexistence of multiple identity categories of religion, ethnicity, race, and culture.
   3. Religious Oppression – When religion is used to maintain cultural and political domination and subordination; when religious institutions and culture interact with other social systems to maintain power and privilege, domination and subordination.
   4. Racialization – The process of ascribing ethnic or racial identities to a relationship, social practice, or group that did not identify itself as such.
   5. Religious Racialization – Extending racial meaning toward communities who identify themselves primarily as religious.

2. The United States Race Ideology During the 19^th Century:
   1. Proslavery writers maintained that each race was a separate species.
   2. Racism intensified rather than diminished after emancipation.
   3. Social Darwinism helped foster a new and more credible form of scientific racism that remained influential in the U.S. and Europe until World War II.
3. How 19^th Century Law Defined Race:
   1. In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, heard Dred Scott vs. Sanford and declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and permitted slavery in all of the country's territories.
   2. In May of 1896, the United States Supreme Court heard Plessy vs. Ferguson and declared separate-but-equal facilities constitutional on intrastate railroads, the Court ruled that the protections of 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights (like voting and jury service), not “social rights” (sitting in the railroad car of your choice).
   3. The Plessy vs. Ferguson verdict enshrined the doctrine of “separate but equal” as a constitutional justification for segregation, ensuring the survival of the Jim Crow South for the next half-century.

6. 20th Century Affirmative Action Cases and Laws:
   1. Regents of University of California vs. Bakke
      1. 1. Declared that race could not be the primary factor in college admissions and racial quotas are not okay.
      2. Background:
         1. Allan Bakke denied twice for admission to the University of California, Davis Medical School.
         2. School policy reserved 16/100 places for “highly qualified” minorities to promote diversity.
         3. In both attempts Bakke’s qualifications were higher than all of the minority students accepted.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. This was a violation of his 14th amendment equal protection right.
         2. Bakke wins 5-4 and must be admitted.
         3. Schools and other organizations can use race as a factor, but not the primary factor in making decisions and quotas are not okay.
   2. Proposition 209
      1. 1. A ballot referendum proposed in 1996 to ban the use of race, ethnicity, and gender in public education, contracting, and employment in California.
      2. Background:
         1. In 1978, the University of California was a party to the Supreme Court case that upheld Affirmative Action while ruling out the use of racial quotas.
         2. There were concerns whether institutions’ affirmative action efforts insinuate preferential treatment in both the admissions and financial aid process.
         3. In 1996, the 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the quota system that was once used by the UC Davis’ admission process for minority students unlawful and higher-level academic institutions were also prohibited from considering race in the admissions process.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. The ruling determined in Bakke acted as “a catalyst for voluntary affirmative action programs.”
         2. Proposition 209 remains law in California. Similar policies have been initiated in the states of Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska.
   3. Fisher vs. University of Texas
      1. 1. Affirmed that the use of race in college admissions may be applied under a standard of strict scrutiny that it is serving a “compelling governmental interest.”
      2. Background:
         1. Abigail Fisher, a white student, sued the University of Texas for denying her admission because race was taken into consideration and she was adversely affected.
         2. In 1997, the Texas legislature enacted a law requiring the University of Texas to admit all high school seniors who ranked in the top ten percent of their high school classes.
         3. In response to the racial makeup its undergraduate population and the state population, UT modified its race-neutral admissions policy to admit all in-state students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes, but race would be considered as an admission factor for the remainder of the in-state freshman class.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. Both the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decided in favor of UT.
         2. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment permits the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions only under a standard of strict judicial scrutiny where the policies are “precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest" of pursuing greater diversity.
   4. Gratz vs. Bollinger
      1. 1. Determined that race could not be the single largest factor guaranteeing preferential treatment in the admissions process. Individual consideration should be given to underrepresented minorities.
      2. Background:
         1. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, were denied admission to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) in 1995 and 1997, respectively.
         2. Under its admission policy from 1995 to 1998, the University admitted nearly every qualified “underrepresented minority” applicant.
         3. In 1998, the University shifted its policy to a point system where race was the single largest factor and points were automatically awarded if a student was a member of an underrepresented minority group, attended a predominantly minority or disadvantaged high school, or was recruited for athletics.
         4. Under the new system, all students who scored over 100 under the admission policy were automatically admitted.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. The court decided in favor of Gratz and Hamacher.
         2. The University’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
         3. Since the policy automatically awarded 20 points rather than provide individual consideration for underrepresented minorities, the court found that the admission policy was not narrowly tailored to achieve the University’s asserted interest in diversity, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause.

7. 20^th Century Educational Segregation
   1. Jonathan Kozol’s (1991) “Savage Inequalities”
      1. Children from poor families cheated out of a future
      2. Key Takeaways from visits to schools between 1988 and 1990
      3. Inequality persists in the American educational system.
      4. Funding varies dramatically between wealthy and poor school districts.
      5. Poorer school districts lack basic resources and acceptable building conditions.
      6. Higher dropout rates in poorer school districts and unequal funding.
   2. Racial and Income Equity in Education
      1. Racial segregation and educational inequities.

8. 20th Century Educational Segregation Cases and Laws
   1. Brown vs. Board of Education
      1. 1. Declared separate is not equal and segregation unconstitutional in all public and private forms.
      2. Background:
         1. Oliver Brown, an African American, wanted to send his daughter to a “white” school.
         2. He was denied and sued the school board.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. Brown wins.
         2. “Separate but equal” violates the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause.
         3. Separate is not equal. Legal segregation is unconstitutional.
         4. This applies to all public forums and private as well today.
   2. Sheff vs. O’Neill
      1. 1. Affirmed that racially, ethnically, and economically isolated schools violated Connecticut’s constitutional obligation to all schoolchildren and therefore established state funded magnet schools and an inter-district transfer program.
      2. Background:
         1. Continuing in the tradition of Brown v. Board, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, and others, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Black and Latino students in Hartford, Connecticut public schools who were being denied an education equal to that of students in suburban school districts due to the racial segregation and the economic disparities between Hartford schools and those in the nearby suburbs.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. Sheff wins.
         2. The Connecticut Supreme Court found that Hartford schools were in fact racially, ethnically, and economically isolated, in violation of Connecticut’s affirmative constitutional obligation to provide all schoolchildren with racially integrated and substantially equal educational opportunities.
         3. The state’s law requiring students to attend school in the town which they resided contributed to this violation.
         4. Over 20,000 suburban and Hartford students attend either one of the over 40 magnet schools or a suburban school through the Open Choice inter-district transfer program in an effort to increase racial diversity.
   3. Mendez, et al. v. Westminster School District of Orange County, et al. (1946)
      1. 1. Affirmed that the segregation of Mexican-American students in California public schools violated the U.S. Constitution, leading to the desegregation of schools and setting a legal precedent for challenging segregation.
      2. Background:
         1. In 1945, a group of Mexican-American families filed a lawsuit against four Orange County school districts in California that enforced segregation by separating Mexican-American students from white students. The plaintiffs argued that this segregation violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The case was supported by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. Mendez wins.
         2. The U.S. District Court ruled in 1946 that the segregation of Mexican-American children in separate schools was unconstitutional, as there was no state law mandating such segregation, and it violated the equal protection clause.
         3. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in 1947.
         4. This case laid the groundwork for later cases, including Brown v. Board of Education, by affirming that segregation based on race or ethnicity was unconstitutional, and it contributed to ending segregation in California schools.
   4. Tape v. Hurley (1885)
      1. 1. Affirmed that public schools could not deny admission to students based on their race or ancestry, specifically in the case of Chinese-American children in California. It challenged segregation laws and promoted equal access to education.
      2. Background:
         1. In 1884, the parents of Mamie Tape, a Chinese-American girl, sued the San Francisco Board of Education after their daughter was denied admission to a public school due to her Chinese heritage. The Tape family argued that this exclusion violated the California Political Code, which guaranteed all children the right to attend public schools.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. Tape wins.
         2. The California Superior Court ruled in 1885 that excluding Mamie Tape from the public-school system was illegal under California law, affirming that all children, regardless of race or ancestry, had the right to attend public schools.
         3. Although the court ruled in favor of the Tape family, the California legislature responded by passing a law that allowed for separate schools for Chinese children, leading to continued segregation.
         4. Despite the setback, the case was an important early challenge to racial segregation in education and laid the foundation for later civil rights cases.
   5. Meyers v. Board of Education (1994)
      1. 1. Affirmed that multiple governmental entities are responsible for providing educational services to Native American students at that live in a remote area of the Navajo nation.
      2. Background:
         1. Native American students residing in the remote Navajo Mountain area of the Navajo Indian Reservation lack access to secondary education facilities.
         2. The San Juan School District was sued by plaintiffs, including local students and their families, who argued that the District had a duty to provide educational services.
         3. The District argued that the responsibility lay with the federal government or the Navajo Nation.
      3. Decision/Precedent Set:
         1. The court ruled that the San Juan School District, State Board of Education, the Navajo Nation, and the federal government all have a shared responsibility to ensure appropriate educational opportunities at Navajo Mountain.
         2. No single entity is solely responsible; instead, the duty to provide education is distributed among multiple parties.