Discrimination against Minority Rights in USA

In the 1950s, the United States Supreme Court started to outlaw legislation that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. One of a nation’s most essential and difficult obligations is to treat minorities fairly [1, 2].
Governments are suspected of acting solely out of prejudice when they treat certain persons less favorably than others based on birth features. Social opposition to change is strong when target groups are a numerical minority or have distinguishing physical qualities. Generally accepted societal views determine how unfairly group categorization are seen [3, 4].
Daniel Frum In order to address a number of concerns impacting minorities and underprivileged groups, the U.S. has been forced to ask these kinds of questions. According to him, Kennedy and King contended that some types of discrimination are an insult to the idea of a free, democratic society [5, 6].
The United States Constitution established in 1787 that slaves would only be considered as three-fifths of a person when calculating each state’s population. Additionally, until 1808, no amendment or law limiting the immigration of slaves could be passed. After the Civil War, Congress approved and the states adopted a number of amendments designed to guarantee that former slaves liberated during the conflict would have full citizenship rights. The 14th Amendment’s main clause, which was enacted in 1868, states that no State should restrict the rights or privileges of American citizens [6, 7].
The Supreme Court upheld the right of states to impose racial segregation in both public and private facilities in Plessy v. Ferguson. Blacks and whites were equally impacted by segregation laws, and neither group was stigmatized as being less than the other. Sweatt v. Painter came to the conclusion that the all-white University of Texas law school was superior than a state law school for black students. African Americans registered to vote in record numbers in Southern states as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Congress took steps to end discrimination in the majority of housing transactions with the Fair Housing Act [8, 9].
Native Americans have experienced prejudice in the US, much like African Americans have. The Educational Amendments of 1972’s Title IX forbade discrimination against female students in educational institutions. In 1990, a group succeeded in persuading Congress to enact the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Even “quasi-suspect” age categories for employment have been rejected by the Supreme Court [10, 11].
Federal affirmative action programs should receive more judicial deference than their state and municipal counterparts, according to Justices Burger and Rehnquist. Justices have also found that districts having a majority of minorities are unconstitutional if they were created primarily for racial reasons in order to guarantee the victory of minority candidates. Critics said that they increased racial tensions and went against the idea of a “color-blind” Constitution [12, 13].
The battle to remove prejudice against minorities in the United States has mostly been fought in legal proceedings, Congress, and state legislatures. She cites rule of law and individual equality as the two reasons why efforts have been effective. The belief in individual equality compels Americans to confront their prejudices, she argues, even if they dislike certain groups. The nation is dedicated to eliminating all traces of its history of prejudice against certain groups, although Ghitis notes that this commitment has not yet been fully realized [14, 15].
In summary, The battle to eradicate discrimination against minorities in the US has mostly been fought in the courts, Congress, and state legislatures. Rule of law and individual equality, according to her, are the two reasons why efforts have been effective. Despite personal preferences, she argues that the American commitment to individual equality encourages people to confront their preconceptions. Although the nation has a history of discriminating against particular groups, Ghitis says that it is devoted to eliminating all traces of it.
[1] R. A. Posner, “The DeFunis case and the constitutionality of preferential treatment of racial minorities,” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 1974, pp. 1-32, 1974.
[2] J. Yinger, Closed doors, opportunities lost: The continuing costs of housing discrimination. Russell Sage Foundation, 1995.
[3] G. E. Simpson and J. M. Yinger, Racial and cultural minorities: An analysis of prejudice and discrimination. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[4] R. R. Banks, “Race-based suspect selection and colorblind equal protection doctrine and discourse,” UCLA L. Rev., vol. 48, p. 1075, 2000.
[5] R. L. Payton and M. P. Moody, Understanding philanthropy: Its meaning and mission. Indiana University Press, 2008.
[6] J. E. D. G. E. Gilmore and B. Simon, Jumpin’Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights. Princeton University Press, 2000.
[7] M. F. Berry, “Slavery, the constitution, and the founding fathers,” Update on L. Related Educ., vol. 12, p. 3, 1988.
[8] L. H. Pollak, “Racial Discrimination and Judicial Integrity: A Reply to Professor Wechsler,” U. Pa. L. Rev., vol. 108, p. 1, 1959.
[9] G. Orfield and C. Lee, “Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation,” 2006.
[10] C. L. Philip, R. Mahalingam, and R. M. Sellers, “Understanding East Indians’ attitudes toward African Americans: Do mainstream prejudicial attitudes transfer to immigrants?,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 651-671, 2010.
[11] S. Browne Graves, “Television and prejudice reduction: When does television as a vicarious experience make a difference?,” Journal of Social issues, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 707-727, 1999.
[12] J. L. McAlister, “A Pigment of the Imagination: Looking at Affirmative Action Through Justice Scalia’s Color-Blind Rule,” Marq. L. Rev., vol. 77, p. 327, 1993.
[13] R. S. Melnick, Between the lines: Interpreting welfare rights. Brookings Institution Press, 2010.
[14] J. V. Switzer, Disabled rights: American disability policy and the fight for equality. Georgetown University Press, 2003.
[15] R. B. Ginsburg, “Speaking in a judicial voice,” NYUL Rev., vol. 67, p. 1185, 1992.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.