Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Social sciences

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Social sciences

Another skirmish in the equal education battle

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court, in Freeman v. Pitts, upheld a lower federal court's decision to terminate court supervision of De Kalb County, Georgia's school desegregation plan even though de facto segregation related to former legally-mandated segregation remained. Convinced by county officials that the residual segregation was due to residential patterns, the Supreme Court sided with the lower federal court in viewing compliance with desegregation orders as a gradual process best suited to local monitoring once major discriminatory practices, and not the effects of those practices, are rooted out.

Author: Stewart, Lisa A.
Publisher: Harvard Law School
Publication Name: Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
Subject: Social sciences
ISSN: 0017-8039
Year: 1993
Educational equalization, Equal education, Segregation in education, De facto school segregation

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The search for citizen-soldiers: female cadets and the campaign against the Virginia Military Institute

Article Abstract:

The ruling by a US district court in Virginia in United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia improperly focused on outcome equivalency without considering whether the educational experiences at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership would be equivalent. Virginia established the women's school in response to an earlier sex discrimination suit, and the court was reconsidering the plan. Ignoring the differences in experiences at the two schools essentially accepts the separate-but-equal rationale long since rejected for race.

Author: Kayyem, Juliette
Publisher: Harvard Law School
Publication Name: Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
Subject: Social sciences
ISSN: 0017-8039
Year: 1995
Sex discrimination against women, Single-sex schools, Single sex schools, Virginia Military Institute

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Limiting federal court power to impose school desegregation remedies

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. Jenkins striking down the US district court's whole desegregation plan for the Kansas City, Missouri, School District was unsupported and extended far beyond the action requested by the state. Missouri asked only to have salary increases and remedial class funding struck down as outside the scope of the desegregation plan. The Supreme Court chose to further limit court authority to act against historical discrimination as well as turning a blind eye to evidence of such discrimination.

Author: Stewart, Carter M., Torres, S. Felicita
Publisher: Harvard Law School
Publication Name: Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
Subject: Social sciences
ISSN: 0017-8039
Year: 1996
Missouri, Federal jurisdiction

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Case Note, School integration, United States, Discrimination in education, Educational discrimination
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Gender and race in the sexuality education classroom: learning from the experiences of students and teachers. Sexuality education is debated as restrictive programs gain popularity
  • Abstracts: Argentina's human rights: crisis in transition. Arming the march to Capitol Hill: behind the scenes with the NLGLA
  • Abstracts: Comparison of the educational deficiencies of delinquent and nondelinquent students. Facilitating self-determination in adolescents with intellectual disabilities: A curriculum
  • Abstracts: Consuming materials: the American way. The growth dynamics of the Internet and the long wave theory
  • Abstracts: Speaking over and above the plot: Aural fixation, scopophilia, opera and the gay sensibility
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.