{"id":269,"date":"2015-07-08T18:31:27","date_gmt":"2015-07-08T18:31:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/masteryusgovernment1x6xmaster\/?post_type=chapter&p=269"},"modified":"2017-04-06T21:04:23","modified_gmt":"2017-04-06T21:04:23","slug":"reading","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-americangovernment\/chapter\/reading\/","title":{"raw":"I. Reading: Other Minorities, Women, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Disabled","rendered":"I. Reading: Other Minorities, Women, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Disabled"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h2>\r\n

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. What civil rights challenges have Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans faced?<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. What is the Nineteenth Amendment?<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. What is the Equal Rights Amendment?<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. What is sexual harassment?<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. What political and legal challenges do lesbians and gay men face?<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. What is the Americans with Disabilities Act?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Other Minorities<\/h2>\r\n

    Policies protecting African Americans\u2019 civil rights automatically extend to other racial and ethnic minorities. Most prominent of these groups are Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. They all have civil rights concerns of their own.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Latinos<\/h3>\r\n

    Latinos have displaced African Americans as the largest minority group in the United States. They are disproportionately foreign-born, young, and poor. They can keep in touch with issues and their community through a burgeoning Spanish-language media. Daily newspapers and national television networks, such as Univisi\u00f3n, provide a mix of news and advocacy.<\/p>\r\n

    Politicians court Latinos as a growing bloc of voters.[footnote]Benjamin M\u00e1rquez, LULAC: The Evolution of a Mexican American Political Organization<\/em> (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993); David Rodr\u00edguez, Latino National Political Coalitions: Struggles and Challenges<\/em> (New York: Routledge, 2002).[\/footnote]<\/span> As a result, Latinos have had some success in pursuing civil rights, such as the use of Spanish in voting and teaching. After Latino groups claimed that voting rights were at risk for citizens not literate in English, the Voting Rights Act was amended to require ballots to be available in a language other than English in election districts where that language was spoken by 5 percent or more of the electorate. And the Supreme Court has ruled that school districts violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when students are taught in a language that they do not understand.[footnote]Lau v. Nichols<\/em>, 414 US 56 (1974).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Latino success has not carried over to immigration.[footnote]Rodolfo O. de la Garza et al., Latino Voices: Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban Perspectives on American Politics<\/em> (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992).[\/footnote]<\/span> Illegal immigrants pose vexing questions in terms of civil rights. If caught, should they be jailed and expelled? Should they be eligible to become citizens?<\/p>\r\n

    In 2006, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced legislation to change illegal immigration from a violation of civil law to a felony and to punish anyone who provided assistance to illegal immigrants, even church ministers. Hundreds of thousands rallied in cities across the country to voice their opposition. President George W. Bush pushed for a less punitive approach that would recognize illegal immigrants as \u201cguest workers\u201d but would still not allow them to become citizens.<\/p>\r\n

    Other politicians have proposed legislation. Mired in controversy, none of these proposals have become law. President Obama revisited one aspect of the subject in his 2011 State of the Union message:<\/p>\r\n

    Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation.\u2026It makes no sense.<\/p>\r\n

    Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws, and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time.[footnote]\u201cState of the Union 2011: President Obama\u2019s Full Speech<\/a>,\u201d ABC News, accessed February 3, 2011.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Link:\u00a0The National Council of La Raza<\/h3>\r\n

    To learn more about Latino civil rights, visit the National Council of La Raza online<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Asian Americans<\/h3>\r\n

    Many landmark cases on racial discrimination going back to the nineteenth century stemmed from suits by Asian Americans. World War II brought more discrimination out of an unjustified, if not irrational, fear that some Japanese Americans might be loyal to Japan and thus commit acts of sabotage against the United States: the federal government imposed curfews on them. Then after President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, roughly 120,000 Japanese Americans (62 percent of them US citizens) were forcibly moved from their homes to distant, desolate relocation camps. Ruling toward the end of the war, the Supreme Court did not strike down the internment policy, but it did hold that classifying people by race is unconstitutional.[footnote]Korematsu v. United States<\/em>, 323 US 214 (1944).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Japanese Americans who had been interred in camps later pressed for redress. Congress eventually responded with the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, whereby the US government apologized to and compensated camp survivors.[footnote]Leslie T. Hatamiya, Righting a Wrong: Japanese Americans and the Passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988<\/em> (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993); Mitchell T. Maki, Harry H. L. Kitano, and S. Megan Berthold, Achieving the Impossible Dream: How Japanese Americans Obtained Redress<\/em> (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Link:\u00a0Japanese Internment<\/h3>\r\n

    Learn more about Japanese internment here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"199\"]\"Black-and-white Los Angeles, California, 1942. Japanese Americans being shipped to internment camps during World War II.[\/caption]\r\n

    Japanese Americans boarding a train bound for one of ten American concentration camps.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Asian Americans have united against discrimination. During the Vietnam era, Asian American students opposing the war highlighted its impact on Asian populations. Instead of slogans such as \u201cBring the GIs home,\u201d they chanted, \u201cStop killing our Asian brothers and sisters.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    These Asian American student groups\u2014and the periodicals they spawned\u2014provided the foundation for a unified Asian American identity and politics.[footnote]Yen Le Espiritu, Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities<\/em> (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992), chap. 2; Pei-Te Lien, The Making of Asian America Through Political Participation<\/em> (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), chap. 5.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    A dazzling array of Asian American nationalities, religions, and cultures has emerged since 1965, after restrictions on immigration from Asia were removed. Yet vestiges of discrimination remain. For example, Asian Americans are paid less than their high education would warrant.<\/span>[footnote]Mia Tuan, Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites. The Asian Experience Today<\/em> (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998).<\/span> They point to mass-media stereotypes as contributing to such discrimination.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Native Americans<\/h3>\r\n

    Native Americans represent many tribes with distinct languages, cultures, and traditions. Nowadays, they obtain protection against discrimination just as members of other racial and ethnic groups do. Specifically, the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 guaranteed them many civil rights, including equal protection under the law and due process; freedom of speech, press, and assembly; and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, and double jeopardy.<\/p>\r\n

    Native Americans\u2019 civil rights issues today center on tribal autonomy and self-government on Indian reservations. Thus some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, such as the separation of church and state, do not apply to tribes.[footnote]Talton v. Mayes<\/em>, 163 US 376 (1896).[\/footnote]<\/span> Reservations may also legally discriminate in favor of hiring Native Americans.<\/p>\r\n

    For much of history, Native Americans residing outside of reservations were in a legal limbo, being neither members of self-governing tribal nations nor US citizens. For example, in 1881, John Elk, a Native American living in Omaha, claimed that he was denied equal protection of the laws when he was prevented from voting. The Supreme Court ruled that since he was \u201cborn to an Indian nation,\u201d Elk was not a citizen and could not claim a right to vote.[footnote]Elk v. Wilkins<\/em>, 112 US 94 (1884).[\/footnote]<\/span> Nowadays, Native Americans living on or outside reservations vote as any other citizens.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Link:\u00a0The Native American Civil Rights Movement<\/h3>\r\n

    Read\u00a0more on the Native American Civil Rights movement<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Women<\/h2>\r\n

    Women constitute a majority of the population and of the electorate, but they have never spoken with a unified voice for civil rights, nor have they received the same degree of protection as racial and ethnic minorities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    The First Wave of Women\u2019s Rights<\/h3>\r\n

    In the American republic\u2019s first years, the right to vote was reserved for property owners, most of whom were male. The expansion of the franchise to \u201cuniversal white manhood suffrage\u201d served only to lock in women\u2019s disenfranchisement.<\/p>\r\n

    Women\u2019s activism arose in the campaign to abolish slavery. Women abolitionists argued that the case against slavery could not be made as long as women did not have political rights as well. In 1848, women and men active in the antislavery movement, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York, adopted a Declaration of Sentiments. Emulating the Declaration of Independence, it argued that \u201call men and women are created equal\u201d and catalogued \u201crepeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman.\u201d[footnote]Nancy Isenberg, Sex and Citizenship in Antebellum America<\/em> (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998); Susan Zaeske, Signatures of Citizenship: Petitioning, Antislavery, and Women\u2019s Political Identity<\/em> (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Link:\u00a0The Seneca Falls Convention<\/h3>\r\n

    Learn more about the Seneca Falls Convention here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    After the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped to be rewarded with the vote, but women were not included in the Fifteenth Amendment. In disgust, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, two prominent and ardent abolitionists, launched an independent women\u2019s movement.[footnote]Louise Michele Neuman, White Women\u2019s Rights: The Racial Origins of Feminism in the United States<\/em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).[\/footnote]<\/span> Anthony drafted a constitutional amendment to guarantee women\u2019s right to vote: \u201cThe right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.\u201d[footnote]Jean H. Baker, ed., Votes for Women: The Struggle for Suffrage Revisited<\/em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).[\/footnote]<\/span> Modeled on the Fifteenth Amendment, it was introduced in the Senate in 1878.<\/p>\r\n

    At first, the suffragists demurely petitioned and testified. By 1910, their patience was at an end. They campaigned against members of Congress and picketed the White House.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"550\"]\"Black-and-white Women picketing in front of the White House embarrassed President Woodrow Wilson during World War I. They pointed out that his promise \u201cto make the world safe for democracy\u201d did not include extending the vote to women. Wilson changed his position to one of support for the Nineteenth Amendment.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    They went to jail and engaged in hunger strikes. Such efforts, widely publicized in the news, eventually paid off in 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment<\/a><\/span> was added to the Constitution.[footnote]Lee Ann Banaszak, Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture, and the Struggle for Woman Suffrage<\/em> (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    The Second Wave of Women\u2019s Rights<\/h3>\r\n

    When the vote won, the women\u2019s movement lost its central focus. Women were split by a proposedEqual Rights Amendment (ERA)<\/a><\/span> to the Constitution, mandating equal treatment of men and women under the law. It was proposed in 1923 by well-to-do Republican working professional women but was opposed by women Democrats in labor unions, who had won \u201cspecific bills for specific ills\u201d\u2014minimum wage and maximum hours laws for working women. Meanwhile, women constituted an increasing proportion of voters and made inroads in party activism and holding office.[footnote]Cynthia Ellen Harrison, On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women\u2019s Issues, 1945\u20131968<\/em> (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Link:\u00a0The Equal Rights Amendment<\/h3>\r\n

    Learn more about the Equal Rights Amendment here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Then came an unexpected breakthrough: Conservative Southern House members, hoping to slow down passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, offered what they deemed frivolous amendments\u2014one of which expanded the act to protect women. Northern and Southern male legislators joined in derision and laughter. The small contingent of congresswomen berated their colleagues and allied with Southern conservatives to pass the amendment.<\/p>\r\n

    Thus the Civil Rights Act ended up also barring discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created to implement the act, decided that its resources were too limited to focus on anything but race.<\/p>\r\n

    In 1967, women activists reacted by forming the National Organization for Women<\/a> (NOW), which became the basis for a revived women\u2019s movement. NOW\u2019s first president was Betty Friedan, a freelance writer for women\u2019s magazines. Her 1963 best seller, The Feminine Mystique<\/em>, showed that confining women to the domestic roles of wife and mother squelched opportunities for middle-class, educated women.[footnote]On EEOC\u2019s initial implementation, see Hugh Davis Graham, The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy<\/em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), chap. 8; on the founding of NOW, see Jo Freeman, The Politics of Women\u2019s Liberation<\/em> (New York: Longman, 1975).[\/footnote]<\/span> Women\u2019s organizations adopted the slogan \u201cthe personal is political.\u201d They pointed out that even when men and women in a couple worked outside the home equally, housework and child care fell more heavily on wives, creating a \u201csecond shift\u201d limiting women\u2019s opportunity for political activism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Equality without the ERA<\/h3>\r\n

    By 1970, Democrats and Republicans alike backed the ERA and women\u2019s rights. One House member, Bella Abzug (D-NY), later exulted, \u201cWe put sex discrimination provisions into everything. There was no opposition. Who\u2019d be against equal rights for women?\u201d[footnote]Quoted in Christina Wolbrecht, The Politics of Women\u2019s Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change<\/em> (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 35.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Such laws could be far reaching. Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972, outlawing sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, prompted little debate when it was enacted. Today it is controversial. Some charge that it pushes funds to women\u2019s sports, endangering men\u2019s sports. Defenders respond that all of women\u2019s sports put together get less funding at universities than men\u2019s sports, such as basketball or football.[footnote]Joyce Gelb and Marian Lief Palley, Women and Public Policies: Reassessing Gender Politics<\/em>, rev. ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998), chap.5.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    NOW and other organizations focused on the ERA. It passed by huge bipartisan margins in the House in 1970 and the Senate in 1972; thirty of the thirty-eight states necessary to ratify approved it almost immediately. However, opposition to the ERA, led and generated by conservative women, arose among the general public, including women. While women working outside the home generally favored the ERA to fight job discrimination, housewives feared that the ERA would remove protection for them, such as the legal presumptions that women were more eligible than men for alimony after a divorce. The public\u2019s support of the ERA declined because of fears that it might allow military conscription of women and gay marriage. The political consensus crumbled, and in 1980, the Republican platform opposed ERA for the first time. ERA died in 1982 when the ratification process expired.[footnote]Jane S. Mansbridge, How We Lost the ERA<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Although women have made strides toward equality, they still fall behind on important measures. The United States is twenty-second among the thirty most developed nations in its proportion of women in Congress. The percentage of female state legislators and state elective officials is between 20 and 25 percent. The top twenty occupations of women are the same as they were fifty years ago: they work as secretaries, nurses, and grade school teachers and in other low-paid white-collar jobs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Sexual Harassment<\/h3>\r\n

    In 1980, the EEOC defined sexual harassment<\/a><\/span> as unwelcome sexual advances or sexual conduct, verbal or physical, that interferes with a person\u2019s performance or creates a hostile working environment. Such discrimination on the basis of sex is barred in the workplace by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in colleges and universities that receive federal funds by Title IX. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that employers are responsible for maintaining a harassment-free workplace. Some of the elements of a sexually hostile environment are lewd remarks and uninvited and offensive touching.[footnote]Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson<\/em>, 477 US 57 (1986); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.<\/em>, 510 US 17 (1993); Burlington Industries, Inc., v. Ellerth<\/em>, 524 US 742 (1998);Farragher v. City of Boca Raton<\/em>, 524 US 775 (1998); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.<\/em>, 523 US 75 (1998).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Schools may be held legally liable if they have tolerated sexual harassment.[footnote]Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education<\/em>, 526 US 629 (1999).[\/footnote]<\/span> Therefore, they establish codes and definitions of what is and is not permissible. The College of William and Mary, for example, sees a power difference between students and teachers and prohibits any and all sexual contact between them. Others, like Williams College, seek to ensure that teachers opt out of any supervisory relationship with a student with whom they are sexually involved. The news often minimizes the impact of sexual harassment by shifting focus away from a public issue of systematic discrimination to the question of personal responsibility, turning the issue into a private \u201che said, she said\u201d spat.[footnote]Mary Douglas Vavrus,Postfeminist News: Political Women in Media Culture<\/em> (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), chap. 2.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Lesbians and Gay Men<\/h2>\r\n

    Gay people, lesbians and gay men, are at the forefront of controversial civil rights battles today. They have won civil rights in several areas but not in others.[footnote]Gary Mucciaroni, Same Sex, Different Politics: Success and Failure in the Struggle over Gay Rights<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008); and Paul Brewer, Value War: Public Opinion and the Politics of Gay Rights<\/em> (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Gay people face unique obstacles in attaining civil rights. Unlike race or gender, sexual orientation may or may not be an \u201caccident of birth\u201d that merits constitutional protection. The gay rights movement is opposed by religious conservatives, who see homosexuality as a flawed behavior, not an innate characteristic. Moreover, gay people are not \u201cborn into\u201d a visible community and identity into which they are socialized. A history of ostracism prompts many to conceal their identities. According to many surveys of gay people, they experience discrimination and violence, actual or threatened.<\/p>\r\n

    Election exit polls estimate that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals make up 4 percent of the voting public. When candidates disagree on gay rights, gays vote by a three-to-one margin for the more progay of the two.[footnote]Mark Hertzog, The Lavender Vote: Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals in American Electoral Politics<\/em> (New York: New York University Press, 1996).[\/footnote]<\/span> Some progay policies are politically powerful. For instance, the public overwhelmingly condemns discrimination against gay people in the workplace.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Gay Movements Emerge<\/h3>\r\n

    The anti-Communist scare in the early 1950s spilled into worries about \u201csexual perverts\u201d in government. Gay people faced harassment from city mayors and police departments pressured to \u201cclean up\u201d their cities of \u201cvice.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    The first gay rights movement, the small, often secretive Mattachine Society, emerged to respond to these threats. Mattachine\u2019s leaders argued that gay people, rather than adjust to society, should fight discrimination against them with collective identity and pride. Emulating the African American civil rights movement, they protested and confronted authorities.[footnote]John D\u2019Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority, 1940\u20131970<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). On news coverage of the early movement, see Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the Media<\/em> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    In June 1969, during a police raid at a gay bar in New York City\u2019s Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, customers fought back. Street protests and violent outbursts followed over several days and catalyzed a mass movement. The Stonewall riots were overlooked by network television and at best got only derisive coverage in the back pages of most newspapers. But discussion of the riot and the grievances of gay people blossomed in alternative newspapers such as The Village Voice<\/em> and emerging weeklies serving gay urban enclaves. By the mid-1970s, a national newsmagazine, The Advocate<\/em>, had been founded.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"200\"]\"Black-and-white Lesbian and gay activists picked up a cue from the African American civil rights movement by picketing in front of the White House in 1965\u2014in demure outfits\u2014to protest government discrimination. Drawing on this new openness, media discussion in both news and entertainment grew dramatically from the 1950s through the 1960s.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    By the early 1980s, the gay movement boasted national organizations to gather information, lobby government officials, fund electoral campaigns, and bring test cases to courts.[footnote]Craig A. Rimmerman, From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United States\u00a0<\/em>(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002), chaps. 2 and 3.[\/footnote]<\/span> The anniversary of the Stonewall riots is marked by \u201cgay pride\u201d marches and celebrations in cities across the country.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Political and Legal Efforts<\/h3>\r\n

    The gay rights movement\u2019s first political efforts were for laws to bar discrimination by sexual orientation in employment, the first of which were enacted in 1971.[footnote]James W. Button, Barbara A. Rienzo, and Kenneth D. Wald, Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles Over Gay Rights in American Communities<\/em> (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1997).[\/footnote]<\/span> President Bill Clinton issued an executive order in 1998 banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal government employment outside the military. By 2003, nondiscrimination laws had been enacted in 40 percent of American cities and towns.<\/p>\r\n

    The first legal victory for lesbian and gay rights occurred in 1965: a federal district court held that the federal government could not disqualify a job candidate simply for being gay.[footnote]Scott v. Macy<\/em>, 349 F. 2d 182 (1965).[\/footnote]<\/span> In 1996, the Supreme Court voided a 1992 Colorado ballot initiative that prevented the state from passing a law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The justices said the amendment was so sweeping that it could be explained only by \u201canimus toward the class\u201d of gay people\u2014a denial of equal protection.[footnote]Romer v. Evans<\/em>, 517 US 620 (1996) at 632.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    In 2003, the Court rejected a Texas law banning same-sex sexual contact on the grounds that it denied equal protection of the law and the right to privacy. The decision overturned a 1986 ruling that had upheld a similar law in Georgia.[footnote]Lawrence v. Texas<\/em>, 539 US 558 (2003) overturning Bowers v. Hardwick<\/em> 478 US 186 (1986).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    The Military Ban<\/h3>\r\n

    In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton endorsed lifting the ban on gay people serving openly in the military. In a postelection press conference, Clinton said he would sign an executive order to do so. The news media, seeing a dramatic and clear-cut story, kept after this issue, which became the top concern of Clinton\u2019s first days in office. The military and key members of Congress launched a public relations campaign against Clinton\u2019s stand, highlighted by a media event at which legislators toured cramped submarines and asked sailors on board how they felt about serving with gay people. Clinton ultimately supported a compromise that was closer to a surrender\u2014a \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell\u201d policy that has had the effect of substantially increasing the number of discharges from the military for homosexuality.[footnote]Craig A. Rimmerman, ed., Gay Rights, Military Wrongs: Political Perspectives on Lesbians and Gays in the Military<\/em> (New York: Garland Publishing, 1996).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Over years of discussion and debate, argument, and acrimony, opposition to the policy increased and support declined. President Obama urged repeal, as did his secretary of defense and leaders of the military. In December 2010, Congress passed and the president signed legislation repealing \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell.\u201d As the president put it in his 2011 State of the Union message, \u201cOur troops come from every corner of this country\u2014they are black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.\u201d[footnote]\u201cState of the Union 2011: President Obama\u2019s Full Speech<\/a>,\u201d ABC News, , accessed February 3, 2011.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Same-Sex Marriage<\/h3>\r\n

    Same-sex couples brought suits in state courts on the grounds that preventing them from marrying was sex discrimination barred by their state constitutions. In 1996, Hawaii\u2019s state supreme court agreed. Many members of Congress, concerned that officials might be forced by the Constitution\u2019s \u201cfull faith and credit\u201d clause to recognize same-sex marriages from Hawaii, quickly passed a Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and denies same-sex couples federal benefits for married people. Many states followed suit, and Hawaii\u2019s court decision was nullified when the state\u2019s voters amended the state constitution before it could take effect.<\/p>\r\n

    In 2000, the highest state court in Vermont ruled that the state may not discriminate against same-sex couples and allowed the legislature to create civil unions<\/a><\/span>. These give same-sex couples \u201cmarriage lite\u201d benefits such as inheritance rights. Going further, in 2003, Massachusetts\u2019s highest state court allowed same-sex couples to legally wed. So did the California and Connecticut Supreme Courts in 2008.<\/p>\r\n

    Voters in thirty states, including California in 2008 (by 52 percent of the vote), passed amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage. President George W. Bush endorsed an amendment to the US Constitution restricting marriage and its benefits to opposite-sex couples. It received a majority of votes in the House, but not the two-thirds required.<\/p>\r\n

    In 2010, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California\u2019s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on the grounds that it discriminates against gay men and women. In 2011 New York allowed same-sex marriage. The legal battle is almost certain to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    People with Disabilities<\/h2>\r\n

    People with disabilities have sought and gained civil rights protections. When society does not accommodate their differences, they view this as discrimination. They have clout because, by U.S. Census estimates, over 19 percent of the population has some kind of disability.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    From Rehabilitation to Rights<\/h3>\r\n

    Early in the twentieth century, federal policy began seeking the integration of people with disabilities into society, starting with returning veterans of World War I. According to these policies, disabilities were viewed as medical problems; rehabilitation was stressed.<\/p>\r\n

    By the 1960s, Congress began shifting toward civil rights by enacting a law requiring new federal construction to be designed to allow entrance for people with disabilities. In 1972, Congress voted, without debate, that work and school programs receiving federal funds could not deny benefits to or discriminate against someone \u201csolely by reason of his handicap.\u201d[footnote]Richard K. Scotch, From Good Will to Civil Rights: Transforming Federal Disability Policy<\/em>, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), chap. 3.[\/footnote]<\/span> Civil servants in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare built on this language to create a principle of reasonable accommodation<\/a><\/span>. In the workplace, this means that facilities must be made accessible (e.g., by means of wheelchair ramps), responsibilities restructured, or policies altered so that someone with disabilities can do a job. At schools, it entails extra time for tests and assignments for those with learning disabilities.<\/p>\r\n

    The Americans with Disabilities Act<\/a> (ADA) passed Congress by a large margin and was signed into law in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. The act moves away from the \u201cmedical model\u201d by defining disability as including a physical or mental impairment that limits a \u201cmajor life activity.\u201d It gives the disabled a right of access to public building. It prohibits discrimination in employment against those who, given reasonable opportunity, could perform the essential functions of a job.<\/p>\r\n

    However, the courts interpreted the law and its definition of disability narrowly; for example, to exclude people with conditions that could be mitigated (e.g., by a hearing aid or artificial limb), controlled by medication, or were in remission.<\/p>\r\n

    In response, on September 29, 2008, President Bush signed legislation overturning the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions. It expanded the definition of disability to cover more physical and mental impairments and made it easier for workers to prove discrimination.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Depictions of Disabilities<\/h3>\r\n

    Disability activists fight to be respected and accepted as they are. They advocate for what they can<\/em> do when society does not discriminate against them and adapts to their needs. This effort is frustrated by the typical media frame presenting disabilities as terrible medical burdens to conquer. The mass media tend to present disabled people either as pitiable, helpless victims requiring a cure, or as what activists call \u201csupercrips\u201d: those courageously trying to \u201covercome\u201d their handicaps.[footnote]Charles A. Riley II,Disability and the Media: Prescriptions for Change<\/em> (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2005).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Comparing Content:\u00a0Christopher Reeve<\/h3>\r\n

    In 1995, the actor Christopher Reeve suffered a devastating fall in a horseback-riding accident, which paralyzed him from the neck down and forced him to use a ventilator to breathe. Reeve\u2014best known for playing the role of Superman in a series of movies\u2014would not be deterred. He became a film director and found award-winning acting roles, such as a television remake of the classic Rear Window<\/em>, in which the principal character has a broken leg.<\/p>\r\n

    Above all, Reeve resolved he would walk again. He began to campaign for a cure for spinal injuries, sponsoring television specials and raising money through a newly formed foundation. He gave countless speeches, including one to the Democratic National Convention in 2000. Reeve\u2019s efforts won praise in the media, which monitored his landmarks, such as breathing without a ventilator. A Time<\/em> magazine headline in September 2002 was typical: \u201cAgainst All the Odds: Christopher Reeve, in a visit with TIME<\/em>, tells how he is regaining control of his body, one finger at a time.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"200\"]\"Photo Actor Christopher Reeve was adored by the news media\u2014and politicians\u2014for his committed fight to regain the use of his body after a horseback-riding accident.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    The media attention lavished on Reeve until his death in 2004 irked many people with disabilities. They saw the massive publicity he received as undermining their struggle for civil rights and equal treatment. In magazines aimed at serving people with disabilities, such as Ability Magazine<\/em> and Ragged Edge<\/em>, writers blasted Reeve for presenting himself as, in their words, \u201cincomplete\u201d or \u201cdecayed.\u201d Chet Cooper, editor of Ability Magazine<\/em>, confronted Reeve in a 1998 interview. Cooper began, \u201cPromoting civil rights for people with disabilities would involve encouraging people to accept and respect people with disabilities just as they are\u2026Their concept is \u2018I don\u2019t need to walk to be a whole human being. I am able to lead a fully functional life, independent of walking.\u2019\u201d Reeve answered, \u201cWe were not born to be living in wheelchairs. We were meant to be walking upright with all of our body systems fully functional and I\u2019d like to have that back.\u201d[footnote]Christopher Reeve and Fred Fay, \u201cThe Road I Have Taken: Christopher Reeve and the Cure<\/a>,\u201d interview by Chet Cooper, Ability Magazine<\/em>, 1998.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Key Takeaways<\/h2>\r\n

    In this section, we addressed the civil rights challenges facing Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, as well as women, lesbians and gays, and individuals with disabilities. Latinos have gained language but not immigration rights. After the horror of relocation inflicted on Japanese Americans, Asian Americans have obtained their rights, although vestiges of discrimination remain. Rights issues for Native Americans concern tribal autonomy and self-government. Women have gained less civil rights protection, in part because of policy disagreements among women and because of fear of undermining men\u2019s and women\u2019s traditional roles. Gay people have won protections against discrimination in states and localities and through the courts, but have been denied equality in marriage. People with disabilities have won civil rights protections through national legislative and executive action.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

    \n

    Learning Objectives<\/h2>\n

    After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. What civil rights challenges have Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans faced?<\/li>\n
    2. What is the Nineteenth Amendment?<\/li>\n
    3. What is the Equal Rights Amendment?<\/li>\n
    4. What is sexual harassment?<\/li>\n
    5. What political and legal challenges do lesbians and gay men face?<\/li>\n
    6. What is the Americans with Disabilities Act?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

      Other Minorities<\/h2>\n

      Policies protecting African Americans\u2019 civil rights automatically extend to other racial and ethnic minorities. Most prominent of these groups are Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. They all have civil rights concerns of their own.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Latinos<\/h3>\n

      Latinos have displaced African Americans as the largest minority group in the United States. They are disproportionately foreign-born, young, and poor. They can keep in touch with issues and their community through a burgeoning Spanish-language media. Daily newspapers and national television networks, such as Univisi\u00f3n, provide a mix of news and advocacy.<\/p>\n

      Politicians court Latinos as a growing bloc of voters.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> As a result, Latinos have had some success in pursuing civil rights, such as the use of Spanish in voting and teaching. After Latino groups claimed that voting rights were at risk for citizens not literate in English, the Voting Rights Act was amended to require ballots to be available in a language other than English in election districts where that language was spoken by 5 percent or more of the electorate. And the Supreme Court has ruled that school districts violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when students are taught in a language that they do not understand.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Latino success has not carried over to immigration.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Illegal immigrants pose vexing questions in terms of civil rights. If caught, should they be jailed and expelled? Should they be eligible to become citizens?<\/p>\n

      In 2006, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced legislation to change illegal immigration from a violation of civil law to a felony and to punish anyone who provided assistance to illegal immigrants, even church ministers. Hundreds of thousands rallied in cities across the country to voice their opposition. President George W. Bush pushed for a less punitive approach that would recognize illegal immigrants as \u201cguest workers\u201d but would still not allow them to become citizens.<\/p>\n

      Other politicians have proposed legislation. Mired in controversy, none of these proposals have become law. President Obama revisited one aspect of the subject in his 2011 State of the Union message:<\/p>\n

      Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation.\u2026It makes no sense.<\/p>\n

      Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws, and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time.[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Link:\u00a0The National Council of La Raza<\/h3>\n

      To learn more about Latino civil rights, visit the National Council of La Raza online<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Asian Americans<\/h3>\n

      Many landmark cases on racial discrimination going back to the nineteenth century stemmed from suits by Asian Americans. World War II brought more discrimination out of an unjustified, if not irrational, fear that some Japanese Americans might be loyal to Japan and thus commit acts of sabotage against the United States: the federal government imposed curfews on them. Then after President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, roughly 120,000 Japanese Americans (62 percent of them US citizens) were forcibly moved from their homes to distant, desolate relocation camps. Ruling toward the end of the war, the Supreme Court did not strike down the internment policy, but it did hold that classifying people by race is unconstitutional.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Japanese Americans who had been interred in camps later pressed for redress. Congress eventually responded with the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, whereby the US government apologized to and compensated camp survivors.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Link:\u00a0Japanese Internment<\/h3>\n

      Learn more about Japanese internment here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n
      \"Black-and-white<\/p>\n

      Los Angeles, California, 1942. Japanese Americans being shipped to internment camps during World War II.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Japanese Americans boarding a train bound for one of ten American concentration camps.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Asian Americans have united against discrimination. During the Vietnam era, Asian American students opposing the war highlighted its impact on Asian populations. Instead of slogans such as \u201cBring the GIs home,\u201d they chanted, \u201cStop killing our Asian brothers and sisters.\u201d<\/p>\n

      These Asian American student groups\u2014and the periodicals they spawned\u2014provided the foundation for a unified Asian American identity and politics.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      A dazzling array of Asian American nationalities, religions, and cultures has emerged since 1965, after restrictions on immigration from Asia were removed. Yet vestiges of discrimination remain. For example, Asian Americans are paid less than their high education would warrant.<\/span>[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Native Americans<\/h3>\n

      Native Americans represent many tribes with distinct languages, cultures, and traditions. Nowadays, they obtain protection against discrimination just as members of other racial and ethnic groups do. Specifically, the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 guaranteed them many civil rights, including equal protection under the law and due process; freedom of speech, press, and assembly; and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, and double jeopardy.<\/p>\n

      Native Americans\u2019 civil rights issues today center on tribal autonomy and self-government on Indian reservations. Thus some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, such as the separation of church and state, do not apply to tribes.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Reservations may also legally discriminate in favor of hiring Native Americans.<\/p>\n

      For much of history, Native Americans residing outside of reservations were in a legal limbo, being neither members of self-governing tribal nations nor US citizens. For example, in 1881, John Elk, a Native American living in Omaha, claimed that he was denied equal protection of the laws when he was prevented from voting. The Supreme Court ruled that since he was \u201cborn to an Indian nation,\u201d Elk was not a citizen and could not claim a right to vote.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Nowadays, Native Americans living on or outside reservations vote as any other citizens.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Link:\u00a0The Native American Civil Rights Movement<\/h3>\n

      Read\u00a0more on the Native American Civil Rights movement<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Women<\/h2>\n

      Women constitute a majority of the population and of the electorate, but they have never spoken with a unified voice for civil rights, nor have they received the same degree of protection as racial and ethnic minorities.<\/p>\n

      \n

      The First Wave of Women\u2019s Rights<\/h3>\n

      In the American republic\u2019s first years, the right to vote was reserved for property owners, most of whom were male. The expansion of the franchise to \u201cuniversal white manhood suffrage\u201d served only to lock in women\u2019s disenfranchisement.<\/p>\n

      Women\u2019s activism arose in the campaign to abolish slavery. Women abolitionists argued that the case against slavery could not be made as long as women did not have political rights as well. In 1848, women and men active in the antislavery movement, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York, adopted a Declaration of Sentiments. Emulating the Declaration of Independence, it argued that \u201call men and women are created equal\u201d and catalogued \u201crepeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Link:\u00a0The Seneca Falls Convention<\/h3>\n

      Learn more about the Seneca Falls Convention here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      After the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped to be rewarded with the vote, but women were not included in the Fifteenth Amendment. In disgust, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, two prominent and ardent abolitionists, launched an independent women\u2019s movement.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Anthony drafted a constitutional amendment to guarantee women\u2019s right to vote: \u201cThe right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Modeled on the Fifteenth Amendment, it was introduced in the Senate in 1878.<\/p>\n

      At first, the suffragists demurely petitioned and testified. By 1910, their patience was at an end. They campaigned against members of Congress and picketed the White House.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Black-and-white<\/p>\n

      Women picketing in front of the White House embarrassed President Woodrow Wilson during World War I. They pointed out that his promise \u201cto make the world safe for democracy\u201d did not include extending the vote to women. Wilson changed his position to one of support for the Nineteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      They went to jail and engaged in hunger strikes. Such efforts, widely publicized in the news, eventually paid off in 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment<\/a><\/span> was added to the Constitution.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      The Second Wave of Women\u2019s Rights<\/h3>\n

      When the vote won, the women\u2019s movement lost its central focus. Women were split by a proposedEqual Rights Amendment (ERA)<\/a><\/span> to the Constitution, mandating equal treatment of men and women under the law. It was proposed in 1923 by well-to-do Republican working professional women but was opposed by women Democrats in labor unions, who had won \u201cspecific bills for specific ills\u201d\u2014minimum wage and maximum hours laws for working women. Meanwhile, women constituted an increasing proportion of voters and made inroads in party activism and holding office.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Link:\u00a0The Equal Rights Amendment<\/h3>\n

      Learn more about the Equal Rights Amendment here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Then came an unexpected breakthrough: Conservative Southern House members, hoping to slow down passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, offered what they deemed frivolous amendments\u2014one of which expanded the act to protect women. Northern and Southern male legislators joined in derision and laughter. The small contingent of congresswomen berated their colleagues and allied with Southern conservatives to pass the amendment.<\/p>\n

      Thus the Civil Rights Act ended up also barring discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created to implement the act, decided that its resources were too limited to focus on anything but race.<\/p>\n

      In 1967, women activists reacted by forming the National Organization for Women<\/a> (NOW), which became the basis for a revived women\u2019s movement. NOW\u2019s first president was Betty Friedan, a freelance writer for women\u2019s magazines. Her 1963 best seller, The Feminine Mystique<\/em>, showed that confining women to the domestic roles of wife and mother squelched opportunities for middle-class, educated women.[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Women\u2019s organizations adopted the slogan \u201cthe personal is political.\u201d They pointed out that even when men and women in a couple worked outside the home equally, housework and child care fell more heavily on wives, creating a \u201csecond shift\u201d limiting women\u2019s opportunity for political activism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Equality without the ERA<\/h3>\n

      By 1970, Democrats and Republicans alike backed the ERA and women\u2019s rights. One House member, Bella Abzug (D-NY), later exulted, \u201cWe put sex discrimination provisions into everything. There was no opposition. Who\u2019d be against equal rights for women?\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Such laws could be far reaching. Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972, outlawing sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, prompted little debate when it was enacted. Today it is controversial. Some charge that it pushes funds to women\u2019s sports, endangering men\u2019s sports. Defenders respond that all of women\u2019s sports put together get less funding at universities than men\u2019s sports, such as basketball or football.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      NOW and other organizations focused on the ERA. It passed by huge bipartisan margins in the House in 1970 and the Senate in 1972; thirty of the thirty-eight states necessary to ratify approved it almost immediately. However, opposition to the ERA, led and generated by conservative women, arose among the general public, including women. While women working outside the home generally favored the ERA to fight job discrimination, housewives feared that the ERA would remove protection for them, such as the legal presumptions that women were more eligible than men for alimony after a divorce. The public\u2019s support of the ERA declined because of fears that it might allow military conscription of women and gay marriage. The political consensus crumbled, and in 1980, the Republican platform opposed ERA for the first time. ERA died in 1982 when the ratification process expired.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Although women have made strides toward equality, they still fall behind on important measures. The United States is twenty-second among the thirty most developed nations in its proportion of women in Congress. The percentage of female state legislators and state elective officials is between 20 and 25 percent. The top twenty occupations of women are the same as they were fifty years ago: they work as secretaries, nurses, and grade school teachers and in other low-paid white-collar jobs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Sexual Harassment<\/h3>\n

      In 1980, the EEOC defined sexual harassment<\/a><\/span> as unwelcome sexual advances or sexual conduct, verbal or physical, that interferes with a person\u2019s performance or creates a hostile working environment. Such discrimination on the basis of sex is barred in the workplace by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in colleges and universities that receive federal funds by Title IX. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that employers are responsible for maintaining a harassment-free workplace. Some of the elements of a sexually hostile environment are lewd remarks and uninvited and offensive touching.[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Schools may be held legally liable if they have tolerated sexual harassment.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Therefore, they establish codes and definitions of what is and is not permissible. The College of William and Mary, for example, sees a power difference between students and teachers and prohibits any and all sexual contact between them. Others, like Williams College, seek to ensure that teachers opt out of any supervisory relationship with a student with whom they are sexually involved. The news often minimizes the impact of sexual harassment by shifting focus away from a public issue of systematic discrimination to the question of personal responsibility, turning the issue into a private \u201che said, she said\u201d spat.[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Lesbians and Gay Men<\/h2>\n

      Gay people, lesbians and gay men, are at the forefront of controversial civil rights battles today. They have won civil rights in several areas but not in others.[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Gay people face unique obstacles in attaining civil rights. Unlike race or gender, sexual orientation may or may not be an \u201caccident of birth\u201d that merits constitutional protection. The gay rights movement is opposed by religious conservatives, who see homosexuality as a flawed behavior, not an innate characteristic. Moreover, gay people are not \u201cborn into\u201d a visible community and identity into which they are socialized. A history of ostracism prompts many to conceal their identities. According to many surveys of gay people, they experience discrimination and violence, actual or threatened.<\/p>\n

      Election exit polls estimate that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals make up 4 percent of the voting public. When candidates disagree on gay rights, gays vote by a three-to-one margin for the more progay of the two.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Some progay policies are politically powerful. For instance, the public overwhelmingly condemns discrimination against gay people in the workplace.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Gay Movements Emerge<\/h3>\n

      The anti-Communist scare in the early 1950s spilled into worries about \u201csexual perverts\u201d in government. Gay people faced harassment from city mayors and police departments pressured to \u201cclean up\u201d their cities of \u201cvice.\u201d<\/p>\n

      The first gay rights movement, the small, often secretive Mattachine Society, emerged to respond to these threats. Mattachine\u2019s leaders argued that gay people, rather than adjust to society, should fight discrimination against them with collective identity and pride. Emulating the African American civil rights movement, they protested and confronted authorities.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      In June 1969, during a police raid at a gay bar in New York City\u2019s Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, customers fought back. Street protests and violent outbursts followed over several days and catalyzed a mass movement. The Stonewall riots were overlooked by network television and at best got only derisive coverage in the back pages of most newspapers. But discussion of the riot and the grievances of gay people blossomed in alternative newspapers such as The Village Voice<\/em> and emerging weeklies serving gay urban enclaves. By the mid-1970s, a national newsmagazine, The Advocate<\/em>, had been founded.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Black-and-white<\/p>\n

      Lesbian and gay activists picked up a cue from the African American civil rights movement by picketing in front of the White House in 1965\u2014in demure outfits\u2014to protest government discrimination. Drawing on this new openness, media discussion in both news and entertainment grew dramatically from the 1950s through the 1960s.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      By the early 1980s, the gay movement boasted national organizations to gather information, lobby government officials, fund electoral campaigns, and bring test cases to courts.[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The anniversary of the Stonewall riots is marked by \u201cgay pride\u201d marches and celebrations in cities across the country.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Political and Legal Efforts<\/h3>\n

      The gay rights movement\u2019s first political efforts were for laws to bar discrimination by sexual orientation in employment, the first of which were enacted in 1971.[27]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> President Bill Clinton issued an executive order in 1998 banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal government employment outside the military. By 2003, nondiscrimination laws had been enacted in 40 percent of American cities and towns.<\/p>\n

      The first legal victory for lesbian and gay rights occurred in 1965: a federal district court held that the federal government could not disqualify a job candidate simply for being gay.[28]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> In 1996, the Supreme Court voided a 1992 Colorado ballot initiative that prevented the state from passing a law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The justices said the amendment was so sweeping that it could be explained only by \u201canimus toward the class\u201d of gay people\u2014a denial of equal protection.[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      In 2003, the Court rejected a Texas law banning same-sex sexual contact on the grounds that it denied equal protection of the law and the right to privacy. The decision overturned a 1986 ruling that had upheld a similar law in Georgia.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      The Military Ban<\/h3>\n

      In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton endorsed lifting the ban on gay people serving openly in the military. In a postelection press conference, Clinton said he would sign an executive order to do so. The news media, seeing a dramatic and clear-cut story, kept after this issue, which became the top concern of Clinton\u2019s first days in office. The military and key members of Congress launched a public relations campaign against Clinton\u2019s stand, highlighted by a media event at which legislators toured cramped submarines and asked sailors on board how they felt about serving with gay people. Clinton ultimately supported a compromise that was closer to a surrender\u2014a \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell\u201d policy that has had the effect of substantially increasing the number of discharges from the military for homosexuality.[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Over years of discussion and debate, argument, and acrimony, opposition to the policy increased and support declined. President Obama urged repeal, as did his secretary of defense and leaders of the military. In December 2010, Congress passed and the president signed legislation repealing \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell.\u201d As the president put it in his 2011 State of the Union message, \u201cOur troops come from every corner of this country\u2014they are black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.\u201d[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Same-Sex Marriage<\/h3>\n

      Same-sex couples brought suits in state courts on the grounds that preventing them from marrying was sex discrimination barred by their state constitutions. In 1996, Hawaii\u2019s state supreme court agreed. Many members of Congress, concerned that officials might be forced by the Constitution\u2019s \u201cfull faith and credit\u201d clause to recognize same-sex marriages from Hawaii, quickly passed a Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and denies same-sex couples federal benefits for married people. Many states followed suit, and Hawaii\u2019s court decision was nullified when the state\u2019s voters amended the state constitution before it could take effect.<\/p>\n

      In 2000, the highest state court in Vermont ruled that the state may not discriminate against same-sex couples and allowed the legislature to create civil unions<\/a><\/span>. These give same-sex couples \u201cmarriage lite\u201d benefits such as inheritance rights. Going further, in 2003, Massachusetts\u2019s highest state court allowed same-sex couples to legally wed. So did the California and Connecticut Supreme Courts in 2008.<\/p>\n

      Voters in thirty states, including California in 2008 (by 52 percent of the vote), passed amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage. President George W. Bush endorsed an amendment to the US Constitution restricting marriage and its benefits to opposite-sex couples. It received a majority of votes in the House, but not the two-thirds required.<\/p>\n

      In 2010, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California\u2019s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on the grounds that it discriminates against gay men and women. In 2011 New York allowed same-sex marriage. The legal battle is almost certain to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      People with Disabilities<\/h2>\n

      People with disabilities have sought and gained civil rights protections. When society does not accommodate their differences, they view this as discrimination. They have clout because, by U.S. Census estimates, over 19 percent of the population has some kind of disability.<\/p>\n

      \n

      From Rehabilitation to Rights<\/h3>\n

      Early in the twentieth century, federal policy began seeking the integration of people with disabilities into society, starting with returning veterans of World War I. According to these policies, disabilities were viewed as medical problems; rehabilitation was stressed.<\/p>\n

      By the 1960s, Congress began shifting toward civil rights by enacting a law requiring new federal construction to be designed to allow entrance for people with disabilities. In 1972, Congress voted, without debate, that work and school programs receiving federal funds could not deny benefits to or discriminate against someone \u201csolely by reason of his handicap.\u201d[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Civil servants in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare built on this language to create a principle of reasonable accommodation<\/a><\/span>. In the workplace, this means that facilities must be made accessible (e.g., by means of wheelchair ramps), responsibilities restructured, or policies altered so that someone with disabilities can do a job. At schools, it entails extra time for tests and assignments for those with learning disabilities.<\/p>\n

      The Americans with Disabilities Act<\/a> (ADA) passed Congress by a large margin and was signed into law in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. The act moves away from the \u201cmedical model\u201d by defining disability as including a physical or mental impairment that limits a \u201cmajor life activity.\u201d It gives the disabled a right of access to public building. It prohibits discrimination in employment against those who, given reasonable opportunity, could perform the essential functions of a job.<\/p>\n

      However, the courts interpreted the law and its definition of disability narrowly; for example, to exclude people with conditions that could be mitigated (e.g., by a hearing aid or artificial limb), controlled by medication, or were in remission.<\/p>\n

      In response, on September 29, 2008, President Bush signed legislation overturning the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions. It expanded the definition of disability to cover more physical and mental impairments and made it easier for workers to prove discrimination.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Depictions of Disabilities<\/h3>\n

      Disability activists fight to be respected and accepted as they are. They advocate for what they can<\/em> do when society does not discriminate against them and adapts to their needs. This effort is frustrated by the typical media frame presenting disabilities as terrible medical burdens to conquer. The mass media tend to present disabled people either as pitiable, helpless victims requiring a cure, or as what activists call \u201csupercrips\u201d: those courageously trying to \u201covercome\u201d their handicaps.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Comparing Content:\u00a0Christopher Reeve<\/h3>\n

      In 1995, the actor Christopher Reeve suffered a devastating fall in a horseback-riding accident, which paralyzed him from the neck down and forced him to use a ventilator to breathe. Reeve\u2014best known for playing the role of Superman in a series of movies\u2014would not be deterred. He became a film director and found award-winning acting roles, such as a television remake of the classic Rear Window<\/em>, in which the principal character has a broken leg.<\/p>\n

      Above all, Reeve resolved he would walk again. He began to campaign for a cure for spinal injuries, sponsoring television specials and raising money through a newly formed foundation. He gave countless speeches, including one to the Democratic National Convention in 2000. Reeve\u2019s efforts won praise in the media, which monitored his landmarks, such as breathing without a ventilator. A Time<\/em> magazine headline in September 2002 was typical: \u201cAgainst All the Odds: Christopher Reeve, in a visit with TIME<\/em>, tells how he is regaining control of his body, one finger at a time.\u201d<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Photo<\/p>\n

      Actor Christopher Reeve was adored by the news media\u2014and politicians\u2014for his committed fight to regain the use of his body after a horseback-riding accident.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      The media attention lavished on Reeve until his death in 2004 irked many people with disabilities. They saw the massive publicity he received as undermining their struggle for civil rights and equal treatment. In magazines aimed at serving people with disabilities, such as Ability Magazine<\/em> and Ragged Edge<\/em>, writers blasted Reeve for presenting himself as, in their words, \u201cincomplete\u201d or \u201cdecayed.\u201d Chet Cooper, editor of Ability Magazine<\/em>, confronted Reeve in a 1998 interview. Cooper began, \u201cPromoting civil rights for people with disabilities would involve encouraging people to accept and respect people with disabilities just as they are\u2026Their concept is \u2018I don\u2019t need to walk to be a whole human being. I am able to lead a fully functional life, independent of walking.\u2019\u201d Reeve answered, \u201cWe were not born to be living in wheelchairs. We were meant to be walking upright with all of our body systems fully functional and I\u2019d like to have that back.\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n

      In this section, we addressed the civil rights challenges facing Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, as well as women, lesbians and gays, and individuals with disabilities. Latinos have gained language but not immigration rights. After the horror of relocation inflicted on Japanese Americans, Asian Americans have obtained their rights, although vestiges of discrimination remain. Rights issues for Native Americans concern tribal autonomy and self-government. Women have gained less civil rights protection, in part because of policy disagreements among women and because of fear of undermining men\u2019s and women\u2019s traditional roles. Gay people have won protections against discrimination in states and localities and through the courts, but have been denied equality in marriage. People with disabilities have won civil rights protections through national legislative and executive action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t

      Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
      CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>