THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES WHY PRESIDENT CARTER CHOSE THE EEO REORGANIZATION THAT HE DID: SHIFTING EEO RESPONSIBILITIES FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE DEPT. OF LABOR TO CREATE A "SUPER-EEOC". ALSO PRESENTED ARE ALTERNATIVE REFORM OPTIONS WHICH COULD HAVE INCREASED EEO COORDINATION AND WOULD HAVE REQUIRED NEW LEGISLATION.
Separate worlds, separate lives -- Lyndon Johnson and the Fair Housing Act -- George Romney's blueprint for suburban integration -- Richard Nixon, centralization, and the policymaking process -- Suburban segregation from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton -- The federal courts and suburban segregation.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Central to the dynamics of American pluralism are legal protections provided for minorities. To a large degree these rights revolve around the concept of equal protection of the laws. Whether reflected in the Fourteenth Amendment or statutes, the principal question is, Under what conditions is it just or reasonable to afford different treatment to persons because of their race? Here this question is addressed in the context of the transformation of the concept of equal protec tion since Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Certainly the legal meta morphosis from the "separate but equal" doctrine to the cur rent status of minority rights is truly profound. Particularly important in recent years is the issue of affirmative action. After a brief survey of the legal transition from Plessy into the 1970s and of the various levels of scrutiny that the United States Supreme Court has given to equal protection prob lems, the progression of the equal protection principle is traced herein with emphasis placed on the three most recent affirmative action decisions announced by the Court: Univer sity of California Regents v. Bakke (1978), United Steel- workers of America v. Weber (1979), and Fullilove v. Klutz nick (1980).
