This course is about inequalities in society and the ways in which various groups in the United States have attempted to use law to mitigate them. In constitutional law, inequalities based on race have historically been the overriding concern, and reflecting that, much of the course will be concerned with the civil rights movement and the law of racial discrimination. The second biggest section of the course will consider the feminist movement and the law of gender discrimination. Smaller segments will be devoted to sexual orientation, disability, alienage and poverty law. (Unfortunately, given Wellesley's short semester, we don't get a chance to explore other kinds of anti-discrimination law, governing such attributes as age and religion.)

The course has three major objectives. First, as one might expect in a law course, we will be observing how judges and lawyers in the United States have argued about inequality, and through this observation developing our own skills in legal reasoning and argument. Second we will learn about the history of the feminist and civil rights movements, which have provided the intellectual and moral bases for other struggles against inequality in society. Third, we will assess the effects of law on society, in this case the capacity of anti-discrimination laws to ameliorate inequalities.


Course Materials

The readings reflect this mixture of goals. Most of the reading consists of Supreme Court opinions from landmark cases in constitutional and civil rights law. The opinions are heavily edited, so that you only read the highlights of the cases. Even so, these are dense, difficult readings which you will likely have to go over several times in order to figure out. Welcome to the law!

Besides the opinions, we will also read articles and books which put the cases in a deeper social context. Each student will be assigned a book on race or gender relations to review and discuss with the class.

Two books are required for all students in the course. Simple Justice is a beautifully written (albeit massive) history of the legal struggle for civil rights. The Law of Sex Discrimination is a casebook of readings and cases. All of the other readings will be on electronic reserve at the library, where you will be able to print them out at your convenience (and for free!)

Besides the readings, we will also watch videos on the civil rights, disability and welfare rights movements.

Requirements

The main duty of students in this course is to keep up on the readings and come to class ready to participate in the discussion. I will not lecture in this course, so the quality of this seminar will depend largely on the your level of preparation and participation.

Because this is a legal seminar, I reserve the right to call on students during discussion of cases. I find that this helps to ensure a high level of preparedness. In addition, for those planning to go to law school, this will be a friendly introduction to a technique that will be far more terrifying when practiced in a 100-student auditorium class.

I realize that some students are shy and find it hard to talk in front of a group. If you are shy I urge you to use this course to help get over your shyness. I don't expect every student to participate with equal vigor, but I want everyone to make a contribution. I find that when shy students get the courage to speak up, they often have better, more well-thought out ideas than those students who talk all the time. In any case, don't think that you have to have a brilliant idea to talk in class, and don't worry that you'll be penalized for saying something dumb--you won't. (I say dumb, wrong things all the time, as you'll soon learn.)

Grading is based on four aspects of the course: participation in discussion (10%), discussion memos (30%), two short papers (20% each) and in-class presentations based on the papers (10% each).

Discussion Memos

Discussion memos are 2-3 page notes in which you comment on the week's reading or something connected to it. I will assign topics for each week, but you will have the freedom to write about whatever you wish. For instance, you might attach a newspaper or magazine article that you think is related to the readings and explain the connection. Or you might take issue with something one of the authors or judicial opinion-writers has said that really angers you.

Eight memos are required. Since there are eleven weeks of readings, you can skip the memo for three sessions.

At the end of the semester you will resubmit the three memos you think were your best; each will be worth 10% of the course grade. If at the end of the semester you have not turned in the required eight memos, a deduction of one-third grade (from A- to B+, for example) will be made in your memo grade.

Discussion memos are due at the Political Science Department office by noon each Tuesday. Memos turned in after noon Tuesday will not be counted towards the eight-memo minimum. Some weeks I may xerox off your memo and hand it out as part of the discussion.

There is a second way to submit a memo which I heartily encourage. The class will have its own electronic bulletin board ("PS320"), and you will be able to submit your memo and any other comments to this medium rather than by paper. This is a wonderful way to share your thoughts with the rest of the class in advance of the seminar meeting, so I suggest you try it for at least a couple of sessions. (I will also stipulate that bulletin memos needn't be more than a couple of paragraphs.) If you choose this route, however, you need to submit the memo earlier in order to give your classmates time to read it. Thus memos submitted to the bulletin after noon on Monday will not be counted towards the eight-memo minimum.

Book Report

Each student will sign up to review a book on race or gender relations and to share her review with the class. A list of books will be handed out in the first class; those who wish to review a book not on the list should propose this to the instructor. The review will be 5-7 pages long, due on March 17, the last class before spring break. You will also be asked to give a 5-10 minute presentation on the book you have chosen. I will hand out some instructions for the presentation and for the paper. Note that two of the presentations are scheduled for the third class of the semester, on February 24th, so some students will have to get started on their books quickly.

Moot Court

Each student, along with a partner, will write a brief and argue a case currently pending before the Supreme Court. The cases involve fascinating, cutting-edge legal issues: affirmative action, same-sex sexual harassment, and discrimination against HIV-positive individuals. Each team's brief, limited to ten pages, will be due on May 5. Instead of the regularly scheduled meeting on that date, we will have a special evening session, dinner provided, at which each team will argue its case before the rest of us.

Schedule

January 27--Introduction to course

(Sign up for book to review)

February 3--Equality in Theory and Practice

Simple Justice 1-104, 315-424, 543-616
Oakland Schools Hypothetical
("How to Brief a Case"--handout)

February 10--The Birth and Death of "Separate But Equal"

Simple Justice 616-747
Grossman and Wells, "The Supreme Court and Racial Equality,"
Plessy v. Ferguson, Gong Lum v. Rice, Korematsu v. U.S., Sweatt v. Painter, Brown v. Board of Education I, and Bolling v. Sharpe (in Simple Justice 779-787), Loving v. Virginia

February 17--School Desegregation

Simple Justice 748-778
Brown v. Board of Education II

School Desegregation (from Gunther): Green v. County School Board, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Keyes v. School District, Milliken v. Bradley, Missouri v. Jenkins, Board of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, Freeman v. Pitts, U.S. v Fordice, Missouri v. Jenkins
Derrick Bell, "Serving Two Masters"; Gary Orfield, "The Growth of Segregation"; Jennifer Hochschild, "Is School Desegregation Still Viable?"
Book Reviews--Massey, Orfield

February 24--State Action, the Civil Rights Act and the Issue of Purpose v. Impact

State Action: Shelley v. Kramer, Burton v. Wilmington, Moose Lodge v. Irvis
The 1964 Civil Rights Act: Heart of Atlanta Motel
Gunther, "Purpose versus Impact": Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Palmer v. Thompson, Griggs v. Duke Power, Washington v. Davis, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing
Impact under the 1964 Civil Rights Act (as amended by the 1991 Civil Rights Act): Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta
Book Reviews--Wirt, Patterson, Bell, D'Souza

March 3--Affirmative Action

Gunther, "The Benign Use of Racial Criteria"--Regents Of UC v. Bakke, Wygant v. Jackson, Fullilove v. Klutznick, Richmond v. Croson, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, Adarand v. Pena
Hopwood v. Texas (handout)
Thernstrom, "Racial Disparities Still Loom Large"
Kane and Dickens, "Racial and Ethnic Preference in College Admissions"
Book Reviews--Hacker, Sniderman, Thernstrom, Carter, Williams

March 10--The Women's Movement and Early Equal Protection Cases

Lindgren and Taub, 6-7, 21-42, 47-90
Book Reviews--Faludi, Rhode, Kaminer

Book Review Paper Due


March 17--Gender, Difference, Equality, Education and the Law

Lindgren and Taub, 108-9, 118-130, 144-147, 150-156, 264-295
Single-Sex Education: U.S. v. Virginia (handout)
Book Reviews--Hooks, Wolfe, MacKinnon (assign moot courts)

March 31--Gender: Workplace, Family and Sexual Violence Issues

Lindgren and Taub, 201-248, 346-372, 480-502

April 7--Poverty, Welfare, Alienage and "Fundamental Interests"

Feeley and Krislov, "Suspect Classifications: Wealth" and "Fundamental Rights"
Fundamental Interests: Shapiro v. Thompson, San Antonio v. Rodriguez
Gunther, "Refusals to Expand Fundamental Interests Analysis to Redress of Economic Inequalities"--Dandridge v. Williams, Normet v. Lindsey
Fundamental Interests: Maher v. Roe; Alienage: Plyler v. Doe

April 14--Sexual Orientation

"Michael Hardwick v. Michael Bowers," in Peter Irons, The Courage of Their Convictions
Bowers v. Hardwick
Romer v. Evans
Baehr v. Lewin, in Lindgren and Taub, 407-409
Andrew Sullivan, "The Liberals," (from Virtually Normal)

April 28--Disability

Funk, "From Caste to Class"
Burke, "On the Rights Track"
Vande Zande v. Wisconsin
Cook v. State of Rhode Island
Scoles v. Mercy Health
Infertility as a disability: Pacourek v. Inland Steel, Zatarain v. WDSU and Krauel v. Iowa Methodist

May 5--Moot Court (Brief Due)