Home » 2025
Yearly Archives: 2025
The Zong Massacre
Because the Zong massacre trial was heard in a British Court, I do not discuss it in my book. In 1781, the crew of the British slave ship The Zong threw over 130+ enslaved Africans overboard to claim insurance money for “lost cargo.” Lord Mansfield, Britain’s Chief Justice, presided over the case. There is a 2013 movie, Belle, that touches on the massacre.
test 358 NEw
Syllabus: Constitutional Law 358, Law and Politics in Black America
PolS 358, BLST 358
Spring 202611:00 – 12:15, T, TH
Student Drop-In Hours: by appointment only
Office: 1147 BSB
TA: Saraf Wasima, swasi@uic.edu
[Insert photo here]
Course Information and Catalog Description: Political Science 358 Constitutional Law: Black American Legal History. 3 hours. Multidisciplinary survey of the Black American constitutional experience from the 1600s to the present, focusing on landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Same as BLST 358.
BRIEF COURSE DESCRIPTION
Nineteenth-century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote, “The degree of civilization in a society can be observed by entering its prisons.” Similarly, the relationship between the Black American political-legal experience and the realities of freedom, equality, civil liberties, and democracy in the United States is also noteworthy. A critical analysis of the Black American political-legal experience provides a straight line of inquiry, a unique frame of reference, and a revealing lens through which to examine the interaction of law and politics. In short, this unique Black American legal experience has shaped, and continues to shape, the “degree of civilization” in the United States. At the same time, as others have stated previously, “no issue has dominated American constitutional law as much the question of race.”
“To put it in historical context, the first slaves were brought to his country in 1619, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were 1964 and 1965. And so there have only been 50 years in which Black people have even had a semblance of legal and legislative freedom in this country. And for seven times longer than that—for 350 years prior— it was fundamentally legal to discriminate against, to dehumanize, and to delegitimize the rights of Black people in this country. And I don’t think we put it in that arc of time often enough.” (adopted from Clint Smith, 11/28/2016)
The Black political-legal experience reveals who we are as a nation and illuminates the limits and capacities of our political institutions and processes; this is especially true of the policy-making role and function of the United States Supreme Court. Under such circumstances, this course has two principal goals. On the one hand, the African-American experience vividly demonstrates the inextricable interactions of law and politics in the United States’ governing system. At the same time, this experience also reveals and explores the continuing quest of Black Americans to define and achieve full citizenship in the United States. In fact, appreciation and analysis of this quest is requisite to understanding American “citizenship” generally in the United States.
The intersection and interdependence of these goals cannot be understated. A cogent analysis of the African-American quest for citizenship, freedom, and equality under the law is required for all of us to understand who we are as a country. In a legally oriented nation, our ethnicity, our gender, our status with regard to wealth and education, acknowledgement of our disabilities, our sexual orientation, etc., is conditioned and defined in part by the Black American experience. Full participation for all in American politics and society has been, and continues to be, largely defined by the successes and failures of the Black American experience.
This class provides a survey analysis of Black American political-legal history through the lens of significant legal doctrines and court decisions, starting in the late 1600s to the present day. History shows these are pivotal decisions that have forged new tests and doctrines that reflect or portend major shifts and changes in law as it relates to the African-American quest for freedom, equality, and full citizenship. Significant decisions are defined as not only those cases that suggest new doctrines, major shifts, or new directions in the law, but additionally, these are cases that contribute to a deeper understanding of the enduring hardship of the African-American quest for freedom and equality in both a historic and systemic perspective. The richness and broad range of cases includes, for example, landmark decisions involving slavery, Jim Crow segregation, access to housing and public accommodations, interracial marriage and miscegenation, school segregation, voting rights, assembly and speech, interstate and intrastate travel, protest politics, the death penalty, and other rights of persons accused of crimes, affirmative action, etc.
The central thrust of such cases, however, cannot be fully grasped unless viewed in a broader political-social context, and that is one of the major objectives of this class. A political-social context influences, and is in turn influenced by, actions and policies that emanate from a myriad of interests, including elective political institutions (e.g., the president, Congress, governors, mayors, etc.), and from non-elective entities, including administrative agencies, federal and state courts, public opinion, and interest groups.
Although many leading constitutional law casebooks (e.g., Barker and Lyles, Civil Liberties and the Constitution, 9th ed.) employ a categorical or doctrinal approach, this class (PolS 358) is organized chronologically. A chronological approach enhances the use of political-social context analysis and allows the student to see more clearly the patterns and rate of change, the enduring permanence, the ironies, the dualities, the contradictions, and continuities in the laws that have shaped—and have been shaped by—the African-American enduring quest for freedom and equality over several centuries. Finally, the fallacy of “white supremacy” is endemic to law, and therefore, to legal education.
COURSE FORMAT
The class will be conducted in a formal seminar format utilizing the Socratic Method and team-based learning. This format lends itself to continuous active engagement and dialogue between the professor and students and among students themselves. Accordingly, students are required to attend and participate in class. For every required Supreme Court decision, students should be prepared to summarize the competing arguments presented to the Court and to explain the Court’s rationales (reasoning, legal doctrines, use of precedent, etc.) for deciding the case. Meaningful participation, however, requires that students come to class prepared. Should this occur, the class can prove interesting, challenging, and exciting. A word of caution: it is important that students prepare for each class since the material is cumulative and the workload increases dramatically as the semester proceeds. Attendance in class and participation in discussion seminars is both mandatory and essential. I will randomly take attendance. Your attendance grade will be calculated based on the percentage of days you are present when attendance is taken. For example, if attendance is taken 10 times and you are present 8 of the 10 times, then your attendance is 80%. Lastly, students are REQUIRED to “brief” every required case and bring their written briefs to class.
Course Objectives
By the end of the semester, students should be able to:
- Explain many of the complex relationships between law and public policy.
- Utilize landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court as vehicles to survey and explain developments in African American History, 1600-present day.
- Apply the interaction of law and politics in discussing the boundaries and constraints of race, gender, violence, power, class, and political participation in defining citizenship in the United States.
- Relate the legal process and judicial policy-making to the larger American political process and the Black experience in the United States.
My Teaching Philosophy. Learning to teach at the highest levels of the academy is a never-ending process. It has been argued that the vast majority of professors lack basic communication skills, and we often use the classroom to enact rituals of control that are rooted in domination and the unjust exercise of power (bell hooks. Teaching to Transgress, p. 5). I have spent much of my career trying to avoid this trap. I want my classroom to be an exciting place where students feel safe to express themselves, for it is only then that we can achieve higher learning. It is my goal to acknowledge everyone’s presence, and I value everyone’s presence.
I am also acutely aware of the various and unique sensitivities that play out in classes that explore issues of race and gender. We are a diverse group (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, identity, etc.), and each of us has something to contribute to our community of learning. I want you to be engaged and active participants. To that end, the wiki also serves as a voice for student expression and the free exchange of ideas—a safe environment sans the fear of expressing ourselves in class.
I find that many students would prefer “more lectures” and “less discussion” in my classes. I try to transgress traditional boundaries and to avoid “assembly-line” approaches to learning. I want to engage students, and I take some non-traditional risks when I teach. As a research-trained academic, I am always looking for answers. We learn from each other. For example, part of my teaching style is to bring narratives of my limited personal experiences into the classroom—not only to personalize the material but to also show how our individual experiences (both yours and mine) can illuminate and enhance our understanding and deconstruction of academic material. Admittedly, I do most of the talking, but I want us to hear each other, to listen to each other, and to recognize that the work of learning and processing this material is different for each of us.
Most research concludes there are two approaches to teaching constitutional law: (1) lectures and (2) the Socratic Method. Traditional lectures are a popular and primary method of classroom instruction used in college today. I find that the lecture method, if done well, is an efficient system for delivering information to students. However, the lecture method of instruction has been widely criticized, “primarily on the grounds that it places students in a passive learning environment. It may also be less effective in developing analytic skills. The lecture method is weakest in helping students to develop their speaking abilities or critical thinking skills.” But, lecturing is also the easiest way for professors to teach, it requires the least amount of knowledge, effort, risk; requires limited skill; and is extremely safe. It works well for me when I teach introductory classes like PolS 101.
An alternative to the lecture method is the Socratic Method. This is a form of instruction that is popular—and probably predominant—in law school classes, and this method is also used in undergraduate classes, especially law courses. “Professors use the Socratic Method in a wide variety of ways, varying from posing a series of friendly questions to an intense grilling of students with difficult questions and abstract queries.” Debate exists in the political science literature over the benefits and disadvantages of the Socratic Method. “The Socratic Method forces students to think on their feet and to articulate their ideas orally. However, the Socratic Method may not be as efficient in transmitting basic knowledge as does the lecture method.” In my classes and seminars, I utilize a modified Socratic Method in a low-threat/discussion manner that does not penalize or humiliate students for poor responses.
However, even my low-threat Socratic Method can be frustrating if students have not read the assigned material, are not prepared for class, or do not attend class. It is frustrating (1) for me; (2) for the students who are prepared for class and want to engage; and, (3) for students who are not prepared but who plan on taking detailed class notes to help them prepare for exams. To avoid this frustration, students must come to class prepared! Welcome to my class and I look forward to an exciting learning experience.
Additional Course Rules
A. All students must utilize the UIC Blackboard Learning system and WordPress (Lyles)
B. Students should be familiar with UIC’s policies regarding academic integrity.
C. The tape recording of any part of my class (or the use of any other electronic recording device) is strictly prohibited. Why:
1. Student Privacy (FERPA): Recordings can capture students’ identifiable voices or images (e.g., asking questions, participating), making them educational records protected under laws like FERPA, which limits their distribution.
2. Intellectual Property: Lectures are the professor’s intellectual property (IP); recording and sharing them without permission can infringe on their copyright.
D. Students with disabilities who require accommodations for access and participation in this course must be registered with the Office of Disability Services (ODS). If you have a documented disability and would like to discuss academic accommodations, please contact me or the TA promptly.
Readings/Case Law.
Readings under the various topic areas are only suggestive of the vast and growing literature and case law available. All assigned cases must be read prior to the class session for which they are assigned. Be prepared to review and discuss all assigned cases and readings in class.
Required Materials:
1. Kevin Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
3. Film: “Amistad” 1997 directed by Steven Spielberg
4. Film: “12 Years a Slave,” 2013, directed by Steve McQueen
5. Nexis Uni (required). From time to time, you will be required to locate cases on your own online, available online via the UIC library
6. WordPress. https://kevinlyles.digital.uic.edu/
7. Kimberle Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, and Thomas, editors, Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. This is a collection of 27 readings, and you are only required to read ONE. Some are on the syllabus, and others can be found online. There is no need to purchase this book. But, you are required to read ONE of the readings from the book
Optional Texts: DO NOT BUY THE OPTIONAL TEXTS
2. Lyles, et. al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition).
3. Baum.The Supreme Court, any edition, preferably 9th-13th
The optional extra credit book review assignment is NOT available to students in the spring 2026 semester.
Optional Book Review Essay Options (select one).
Students may NOT choose to prepare a written book review for extra credit
Jane Dailey, Gilmore and Simon, editors. Jumpin’ Jim Crow
Erica Armstrong Dunbar’s Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge Michelle Alexander. The New Jim Crow
Ronald J. Fiscus. The Constitutional Logic of Affirmative Action
Harriet Jacobs. The Life of a Slave Girl
Jack Peltason. Fifty-Eight Lonely Men
James W. Loewen. Sundown Towns
John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger. Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation
Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. Race for Profit
Jonathan Kozol. Savage Inequalities
Kevin Lyles. The Gatekeepers
Manisha Sinha. The Slave’s Cause
Paul Butler. Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice
Paul Finkelman. Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court.
Peter Irons. Jim Crow’s Children
Sowande’ M. Mustakeem. Slavery at Sea
Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers. They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South
Thomas A. Foster. Rethinking Rufus: Sexual Violations of Enslaved Men
Ibram X. Kendi. How to Be an Antiracist
Computation of Course Grade
| Midterm Exam | 30% |
| Final Exam | 30% |
| Attendance/Quizzes | 20% |
| Online Participation/WordPress | 10% |
| Critical RaceTheory due 4/14 | 10% of your final grade |
SEMINAR SCHEDULE
Readings under the various topic areas are only suggestive of the vast and growing literature and case law available. These are the readings that I selected for my class. All assigned readings (and cases) must be read prior to the class session for which they are assigned. Be prepared to review and discuss all assigned cases and readings in class.
FOUR WARNINGS:
- Everything on the syllabus (unless it is marked optional) is required. But not all required materials listed on the syllabus will be discussed in class. Again, all required material—whether discussed in class or not—is appropriate for examinations. In other words, although we may not cover all the required materials in class, it may still be on the test!
- What does [optional] mean in this class? Readings preceded or followed by [optional] are highly recommended but you are not required to read them before class. You are however responsible for the material to the extent I opt to discuss it in class. If I discuss it in class, its fair game for the test.
- Additional REQUIRED material can be added to the syllabus at any time. Like the Constitution, the syllabus can be amended.
- The use of AI writing tools (including, but not limited to, ChatGPT, Bard, Sudowrite, etc.) is NOT permitted in my courses. Students who use these tools for class assignments (extra credit assignments, exam answers, WordPress comments, etc.) undermine the goals and learning objectives for my courses, reducing the effectiveness of my instruction. I will continue to submit your work to an AI writing detector (e.g., GPTZero) throughout the term. Any confirmed use of AI writing tools will be treated as cheating. Consult page 11 of UIC’s Student Disciplinary Policy, which provides information on Academic Integrity that I will apply to your usage of AI tools. Consider this the only warning I will announce.
Extra Credit. Throughout the semester, there are numerous extra-credit opportunities. Obviously, these extra credit opportunities are optional. The extra credit guidelines can be found here: Extra Credit Guidelines. Extra credit assignments must be submitted on the due date. I no longer accept late extra assignments for partial credit because previous students abused my good nature.
WEEK 1
1/13
POST a comment here BEFORE the first day of 358
Post your preferred names and pronouns here before the first day of class
Read the syllabus for PolS 358. Be sure to review all the course requirements.
Review the course requirements again, and then again.
What is a Case Syllabus and/or Headnotes?
1/15
358 Ice Breaker prompt. ALL students are required to comment on this prompt BEFORE coming to class today
[skim/optional] Lyles, Barker, et. al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition) CHAPTER 1. Civil Liberties and the Constitution, pp. 1-16. A Framework for Analysis, pp. 1-2; Law and Courts in Political-Social Context, pp. 3-5; Congress, the President, and Administrative Officials, pp. 5-8; Interest Groups and the Dynamics of Civil Liberties, pp. 8-9; More on the Court: Inside the Marble Palace, pp. 9-13; The Rules of the Game and American Political Values, pp. 13-16.
[skim/optional] Lyles, Barker, et. al.Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition)CHAPTER 2, Civil Liberties in the Context of Federalism 17-19; The Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, pp. 19-23; State Constitutions, pp. 23-26; State Judicial Selection, pp. 26-27; Conclusion, p. 27.
Lecture 1. Introduction to Courts and Law.
Start reading Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
WEEK 2
1/20
Continue reading Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
Lecture 2: The Federal Courts: Nature and Structure of the Legal and Political System.
Supreme Court Criticism (2023)
[optional] Dahl, Robert. “Decision-making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law, vol. 6 (1957).
[optional] Casper, Jonathon D. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making,” American Political Science Review 70 (1970): pp. 50-63.
[optional] Barker, Lucius. “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function,” Journal of Politics 29 (1967): pp. 41-69.
[optional] Funston, Richard. “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975): pp. 795-811.
[optional] Baum, ch. 4-6
[optional] Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Courts in the Political Process, ch. 1, pp. 1-9.
EXTRA CREDIT: Kevin Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Court in the Political Process, chapter 3, Judicial Selection
1/22
Lecture 3: Courts as Policy-making Institutions.
[optional] Lyles, The Bork Confirmation Battle: A Case Study on Judicial Selection, Lyles, (1994)
[optional] Amicus Curiae (skim)
Assignment: The Danger of the Single Story. All students are required to comment before class today, including former students not attending class today.1-21
Skim: “A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court”
[optional] The Constitution of the United States of America [pp. 807-817]
[optional] Alexander Hamilton, et. al. The Federalist Papers, No. 78-81
[optional] “Understanding the Federal Courts
WEEK 3
1/27
Continue reading Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
Last day of introductory lectures
Lyles: Chapter 1, Law and Politics in Black America.
African Enslavement: An Overview
The Trans-Saharan and East African Slave Trades
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
Enslaved Africans and Free Blacks in Colonial America
Why Virginia and South Carolina?
Colonial Virginia: a case study, 1619-1788
[optional] Anthony Johnson: From Captive African to Right-wing Talking Point [optional]
Re Davis 1630 [also required for PolS 356]
Declaration of Independence, or, “I’ll take six”
Revolutionary War and the Book of Negroes
“Prime Healthy Negroes” 1760-1784
The Articles of Confederation 1871
The Pennsylvania Gradual Abolition Act, 1780 [as discussed in class]
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Nathaniel Jennison (1783)
Slavery and the United States Constitution
[optional] Federalist 42
[optional] Judicial Cases Concerning Slavery
The Electoral College and the Three-Fifths Compromise
1/29
Lyles: Chapter 2 Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6
Selected topics include:
PART I. The New Supreme Court: An Overview
Jurisdiction
The Origin and Evolution of Judicial Selection
Theories on Supreme Court Policymaking
Judicial Behavior
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari
Critical Race Theory, Lyles ch. 2
PART II. African-Americans and the New Supreme Court: Constitutionalizing White Supremacy
The Naturalization Act of 1790
[optional] Bank of America 1791
<Figure 2.1>
[optional] Federalist 78
Sidebar: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Enslaved
WEEK 4
2/3
Today is an ASYNCHRONOUS day. We will NOT meet in 209 BH. Watch the pre-recorded lectures (Parts I and II) for Marbury v. Madison and write your first brief. Marbury v. Madison. Everyone should write their first brief AND post something on this page before next week.
Watch The Supreme Court Visitor’s Film (C-Span, narrated by A.E. Dick Howard) [everyone must post a comment TODAY].
[Optional Extra Credit] The Story of Marbury v Madison, by Michael W. McConnell.
2/5
Today is an ASYNCHRONOUS day. We will NOT meet in 209 BH.
Watch the film The Amistad 1839-1841
Watch the film 12 Years a Slave 1841-1853
Be prepared to discuss the film in class next week.
[optional] EXTRA CREDIT:Spielberg’s Amistad
WEEK 5
2-10
The Domestic Slave Trade: Breeding Farms [also required for PolS 356]
[optional] Joel Kovel, The Fantasies of Race
[optional] Winthrop Jordan White Over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro, 1550–1812 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1968) pp. 4-11, 24.
Sidebar. Harriet A. Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself [also required for PolS 356]
[optional] EXTRA CREDIT: The Birth of a Nation
[optional] Barron v Baltimore, 1833 [Non-incorporation, Selective Incorporation and the Nationalization of the Bill of Rights] (required for PolS 354
The Domestic Slave Trade 1820-1839
[optional] Georgetown University 1838
1800-1860. Black American Voting Rights in the NORTH (Lyles, ch. 2)
By the end of this week, everyone is REQUIRED to have watched the film: “Amistad” 1997 directed by Steven Spielberg. Be prepared to discuss the film in class next week.
[optional] EXTRA CREDIT:Spielberg’s Amistad
2/12
A Black Feminist Analysis of Bridgerton [optional]
cont. Lyles: Chapter 2, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6.
Selected topics include:
President Obama’s comments last week on Christianity, slavery, and Jim Crow by Ta-Nehisi Coates
Hillary does Tubman [also required for PolS 356]
White Women Were Avid Slave Owners [also required for PolS 356]
Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842 [also required for PolS 356]
Film discussion:12 Years a Slave 1841-1953
[optional] Reclaiming Intimate Histories in the Americas
The Auction Block [also required for PolS 356]
1850. Black Americans loose the vote in Michigan (Lyles, ch.2, p. 77)
Souther v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1851
1851. Delaware prohibits Black Americans from voting (Lyles, ch.2, p. 77)
[optional] Frederick Douglass 1852
William Lloyd Garrison (1852) and other Abolitionist Writings [optional]
[optional] Domestic Slave Trade 1853
The Trial of Celia 1855 [also required for PolS 356]
[optional]Extra Credit: The Imperial Scholar
WEEK 6
2-17
1857. Dred Scott 1857 [citizenship] (Lyles, ch.2) 1858. [also required for PolS 356]
(1) Georgia Slave Sale after Dred Scott 1860, and (2) Weeping Time
Penis size, castration, and the myth of race [also required for PolS 356]
Lyles: Chapter 3, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6. Selected topics include:
Bailey v. Poindexter’s Executioner (1858)
The “First Thirteenth Amendment
Sidebar. John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry
Lincoln or the Red Pill (Lyles, ch.3, p. 8-9)
EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY: Lincoln in UIC PolS Dept and Yale Renames Calhoun College
[optional] Enslaved at Currency
Harriet Ann Jacobs 1861 [also required for PolS 356]
The Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863 [also required for PolS 356]
The Draft Riot in New York City, July 1863
Teaching the Emancipation Proclamation for the 100th time, the media, and Juneteenth
Response to the Emancipation Proclamation in the North
2/19
1865. Thirteenth Amendment(Lyles, ch.3, p. 19-20).
The Freedman’s Bureau Act of 1865
[optional] Black Women and the Freedman’s Bureau [also required for PolS 356]
[optional] 1865. Elizabeth Cady Stanton to the Editor, This is the Negro’s Hour, National Anti-Slavery Standard, [also required for PolS 356]
New York, 26 December 1865, in Baer and Goldstein, 4th edition, pp. 34-36.
1866. Voting Rights and the KKK (Lyles, ch.3)
[optional] The Mississippi Black Codes
1867. Military Reconstruction Acts (Lyles, ch. 3, p. 28-29).
1868. Fourteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 29-30) [also required for PolS 356]
1870. Fifteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 30-32)
The Enforcement Acts, 1870, 1871
The Extraordinary Case of Kate Brown 1868 [also required for PolS 356]
1873. Butchers’ Benevolent Association v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (The Slaughter-House Cases) (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 36-38) [also required for PolS 356]
WEEK 7
2/24
1875. Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett [disenfranchisement of women](Lyles, ch. 3, p. 42), add Baer. [also required for PolS 356]
1876. United States v. Hiram Reese [disenfranchisement of African-Americans] (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 43-45).
1876. United States v. Cruikshank [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 45-48). [also required for PolS 356]
Warren Goodman Allen 1876-1954
1877. Hayes-Tilden Presidential Election of 1876 and the Compromise of 1877 (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 48-51).
EXTRA CREDIT: Lincoln–The Movie [optional]
2/26
Colonization v. Deportation or Dreamers and “A Dream Deferred” [extra credit opportunity]
Jim Crow: Promises Betrayed 1865-1896
Strauder v. West Virginia 1880
[optional] Ex Parte Virginia 1880
[optional] Neal v. Delaware 1880
[optional] Virginia v Rives 1881
1883. The Consolidated Civil Rights Cases [private v. public discrimination] (Lyles, ch.3, p.57-59) [also required for PolS 356]
[optional] 1884. Ex Parte Yarbrough [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 59-62) [required for PolS 359]
1890. The “lily-whites” and the “black and tan” (Lyles, ch.3, p. 63-65).
Black American Disenfranchisement, e.g., the Grandfather Clause (Lyles, ch.3, p. 64-66).
Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway v. Mississippi (1890)
[optional] Re Green (1895) [required for PolS 359]
1896. Plessy v. Ferguson [separate but equal] (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 67-75). [also required for PolS 356]
Thomas McKinley Lyles 1896-1969
Parilee Elizabeth (Evans) Allen 1887-1973
WEEK 8
3-3
Lyles: Chapter 4. Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6
Introduction to Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, Chapter 4, pp. 1-4
1898. The Wilmington Riot 1898 [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch.4, pp. 5-6).
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898
[optional] Williams v. Mississippi 1898 [required for PolS 359]
Cumming v. Board of Education 1899
[optional] Downes v. Bidwell (1901) [required for PolS 359]
[optional] Giles v Harris 1903 [required for PolS 359]
Berea College v. Kentucky, 1908
The Springfield Riots and the Founding of the NAACP
The Lynching of Laura Nelson [also required for PolS 356]
The Lynching of Will Potter, 1911
[optional] McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company 1914
[optional] 1915 Guinn v. United States [required for PolS 359]
[optional] Texas Acknowledges Killing Hundreds of Latinos 1915-1919
Mary Turner, Red Summer (1919) and Fighting Back [also required for PolS 356]
Elaine County Massacre (1919) / Moore v. Dempsey (1923)
[optional] Newberry v United States 1921 [required for PolS 359]
<Figure 4.1 here> The Duluth Lynchings on June 15, 1920
The Tulsa Race Riots of 1921 [also required for PolS 356]
The Rosewood Massacre 1923 [skim] [also required for PolS 356]
Terrorism in the streets, 1900-1940
“Damn Lyles, enough is enough.” 1911-1940 Riots, Lynchings, Domestic Terror, and Massacres.
Women and Lynching [also required for PolS 356]
[optional] Nixon v. Herndon 1927 [required for PolS 359]
[optional]Gong Lum v Rice 1927
[optional] Nixon v. Condon (1932) [required for PolS 359]
[optional] The Scottsboro Boys Cases, Powell v. Alabama, 1932 and 1935, this case is also covered in 354, “right to counsel” and in PolS 356.
NAACP: “look at the seven WHITE children” 1935
EXTRA CREDIT: Critical Review of American Political Institutions Tate, Lyles and Barker
EXTRA CREDIT: Ida B. Wells: A Passion for Justice The Pioneering African American Journalist & Activist
Extra Credit Opportunity Today is National Anthem Day. “Fuck the National Anthem?”
3/5
Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall (Sidebar: NAACP and Public Education)
Sidebar: W.E.B. Du Bois, Does the Negro Need Separate Schools? 1935
Time for a little more INTERSECTIONALITY. Asked to Resign in 1929
The New Deal or the Same Deal?
The Lynching of Claude Neal, 1934 [also required for PolS 356]
An Open Letter of Apology to my 358 students
[optional] Grovey v Townsend 1935 [required for PolS 359]
[optional] Brown v. Mississippi 1936
[optional] Palko v. Connecticut 1937
[optional] Breedlove v. Suttles 1937 [Georgia poll tax] [required for PolS 359]
[optional] Alpha Phi Alpha
[optional] Jim Crow in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s
[optional] Segregation is just one aspect of Jim Crow
[optional] United States v. Carolene Products 1938
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada 1938
[optional] Lane v. Wilson 1939 [required for PolS 359]
[optional] The controversy of the without sanctuary, museum exhibit
Sidebar: The NAACP and Criminal Justice (1940-1945)
Chambers v. Florida 1940
Hill v. Texas 1942
Lyons v. Oklahoma 1944
Screws v. United States 1945
Akins v. Texas 1945
Mitchell v. United States 1941
[optional] United States v. Classic 1941 [required for PolS 359]
WWII [as discussed in class]
Sidebar: Korematsu, Hirabayashi and the Origins of Strict Judicial Scrutiny [required for PolS 353]
[optional] Smith v. Allwright 1944 [required for PolS 359]
[optional] Terry v. Adams (1953) [required for PolS 359]
[optional] Colegrove v. Green (1946) [required for PolS 359]
Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 1948
Residential Segregation, The NAACP, and the Battle Over Restrictive Covenants
Corrigan v. Buckley, 1926
The North-South Split in the Democratic Party
[optional] Rice v Elmore 1948 [required for PolS 359]
[optional] Hurd v. Hodge, 1948
[optional] Pearson v. County Bd of Ed 1948
[optional] EXTRA CREDIT: Legal Disfranchisement of the Negro
MATERIAL ABOVE THIS DATE IS REQUIRED FOR THE MIDTERM EXAM,
MATERIAL BELOW THIS DATE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED ON THE MIDTERM EXAM
WEEK 9
3-10
CHAPTER 5
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, Chapter 5
<Figure 5.1> Educational Segregation in the U.S in 1950
<Sidebar. State of South Carolina, County of Clarendon. Petition>
<Figure 5.2> The Liberty Hill School for Black children
<Figure 5.3> The Clarendon County elementary school for white children
<Figure 5.4> The Clarendon County high school for white children
<Figure 5.5> Drs. Mamie and Kenneth Clark
<Excerpt of Judge Waring’s Dissent in Briggs v. Elliott> ONLINE
Brown v. Board of Education, 1951
<Figure 5.7> and <Figure 5.8> NAACP Lawyers Robert Carter and Jack Greenberg
[optional] <Huxman, Circuit Judge in Brown v Board, 1951>
Davis v. Prince Edward County, 1952
[optional] Beauharnais v Illinois 1952
3-12
Watch the Film SIMPLE JUSTICE before today
[optional] Terry v. Adams 1953 [required for PolS 359]
Oral Argument: Brown I, Part 1
Summary of Argument presented to SCOTUS, 1953: NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
Oral Argument: Brown I, Part II
The Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear Re-arguments
Brown v. Board of Education I, 1954
Sidebar. Media Reactions to Brown I
Reactions to Brown I and the Coming Decree
Brown II. Oral Argument, Implementation and the Decree
Marshall’s Response: Anger and Resolve
Brown v. Board of Education II, 1955
Barker and Lyles The Downfall of Separate But Equal: Brown v. Board of Education
WEEK 10
3/17
CHAPTER 6
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, (1955-1969)
Introduction
Browder v. Gayle (1956) Rosa Parks
Sidebar. Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott
The Southern Manifesto: A Declaration of Constitutional Principles
John F. Kennedy, President, 1961-1963. Civil Rights: An Overview
President Johnson and Civil Rights
A. Public Accommodations, Demonstrations, Breach of Peace, and Sit-In Cases, 1956-1968
The Interstate Commerce Clause
EXTRA CREDIT: Freedom Riders: American Experience. The entire film may no longer be available at this link.
President Kennedy and Civil Rights, ch. 6.
Revisit Morgan v Virginia, 1946 [in chapter 5]
Greensboro Sit-Ins [optional, under construction]
3/19
****************. EXAM #1 ***************
WEEK 11 Spring Break 3/24 – 3/28
WEEK 12
3/31
Sidebar: Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963
[optional] Edwards et al. v. South Carolina (1963), See PolS 354
Anderson v. Martin 1964 [optional, see ch. 6]
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. 1964
Hamm v. City of Rock Hill 1964
EXTRA CREDIT: Four Little Girls [optional]
Adderly v. State of Florida (1966) See PolS 354
Johnson’s “Speech to the Nation on Civil Disorder (establishing the Kerner Commission) 1967
4/2
B. School Desegregation, 1955-1969
Desegregation does NOT equal Integration
Eisenhower’s Speech on Little Rock, AK [optional]
The Blossom Plan (Cooper v Aaron) chapter 6
Figure 6.4 Elizabeth Eckford chapter, 6
Ruby Bridges Figure 6.5 <chapter 6>
Eyes on the Prize, Fighting Back (1957-1965). Please comment ON THIS REQUIRED VIDEO BEFORE class.
[optional] Daisy Bates v. Gov Wallace 1957
Gov. George Wallace, Segregation Forever
The Cowboys: America’s Team [Jerry Jones was in Little Rock]
Dorothy Counts https://kevinlyles.digital.uic.edu/lyles/dorothy-counts-sept-1957/
Figure 6.6. James Meredith, 1962
Griffin v. Prince Edward County 1964
[optional] Extra Credit: The Reverend Francis Griffin
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County 1968
C. Employment Discrimination, Affirmative Action
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
D. Voting Rights, 1955-1969
1957 The Civil Rights Act of 1957 (Lyles, ch. 6)
[optional] 1959 Lassiter v. Northamton County Board of Elections [required for PolS 359]
[optional] 1960 United States v. Raines [required for PolS 359]
[optional] 1960 United States v. Thomas [required for PolS 359]
1960 The Civil Rights Act of 1960
[optional] Eisenhower’s Response the the Civil Rights Act of 1960
[optional] 1960 Gomillion v. Lightfoot [required for PolS 359]
[optional] 1962 Baker v. Carr [required for PolS 359]
1964 Fannie Lou Hamer <image> chapter 6, lyles
1965 Black Women and the Right to Vote, by Darlene Clark Hine and Christine Anne Farnham [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
<Figure 6.9> Amelia Boynton was beaten unconscious on the Edmund Pettis Bridge by an Alabama State Trooper, Bloody Sunday, Lyles, ch. 6.
Required and EXTRA CREDIT: Bloody Sunday
WEEK 13
4/7
Gray v. Sanders, 1963 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Wesberry v. Sanders 1964 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Anderson v Martin (1964) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Reynolds v. Simms (1964) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Louisiana v. United States [interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch. 6) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
United States v. Mississippi [interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch. 6). [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Required and EXTRA CREDIT: Bloody Sunday
Review\Revisit: Voting Rights (From U.S. v Reese to Terry v Adams) [optional for PolS 358, req’ PolS 359]
Malcolm X, The Ballot or The Bullet (1964)
South Carolina v. Katzenbach 1966
[optional] Harper V. Virginia Board of Elections 1966 (lyles, ch. 6) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
[optional] EXTRA CREDIT: King v Malcom X
Attempted Murder of James Meredith [“to encourage voter registration”] (Lyles, ch. 6, p. 66-67).
[optional] Bond v. Floyd (1966) (optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359)
4/9
E. Fair Housing, 1955-1969
Freshly Painted White Walls This reading is also under PolS 354 (speech) and 356 ( assembly)
1967 Reitman v. Mulkey
1968 Fair Housing Act
1968 Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
F. Black Americans and Criminal Justice 1955-1969
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
G. Other Individual Rights: First Amendment Freedoms, Freedom of Association, and the NAACP Cases, 1955-1969
The NAACP Cases, 1955-1969
[optional] NAACP v. Alabama, 1958 See PolS 354
[optional] NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers (1964)
[optional] Shelton v. Tucker (1960)
[optional] Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963) see PolS 354
[optional] Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP (1961)
[optional] Harrison v. NAACP (1959)
[optional] NAACP v. Button 1963 See PolS 354
Freedom of the Press
[optional] New York Times v. Sullivan 1964. See PolS 354 and/or PolS 359
Miscegenation and the Freedom to Marry
Sidebar. Selected Laws Criminalizing Interracial Marriage
[optional] EXTRA CREDIT: The Loving Story
CHAPTER 7: Burger, 1969-1986
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, chapter 7 (1969-1986)
A Review and Introduction to the Judicial Standards of Equal Protection
Table 7.1 Personnel Changes during the Burger Court
A. Demonstrations and Sit-In Cases, 1969-1986
Adickes v. S. H. Kress and Company (1971)
Griffin v. Breckenridge 1971 and [optional] Title 42 U.S.C., § 1983 and 1985.
WEEK 14
4/14
Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. This assignment is due Today, and counts as 10% of your grade.
B. School Desegregation, 1969-1986
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education 1969
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 1971
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver Colorado 1973
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 1973
Pasedena City Board of Education v. Spangler 1976
4/16
C. Public Accommodations, 1969-1986
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 1972
D. Employment Discrimination, Affirmative Action, Title VII, “Impact (Effect) v. Intent” 1969-1986
Repeat: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [see chapter 6]
Griggs v. Duke Power Co 1971 [as discussed in class]
Washington v. Davis 1976 [as discussed in class]
United Steel Workers of America v. Weber 1979
Warren Burger and the “Tests” for Fullilove
FINAL EXAM QUESTION: Who Invented White People?
OVERVIEW: Affirmative Action in Employment and Higher Education
“Bush style” affirmative action
Brief of the American Bar Association
Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718 v. Boston Chapter, NAACP [optional]
Memphis Firefighters Union No. 1784 v. Stotts 1984 [optional]
United States v. Paradise [optional]
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, CA [optional]
WEEK 15
4-21 AND 4-23
E. Voting Rights, 1969-1986
City of Richmond v. United States 1975 [358 and 359]
City of Mobile v. Bolden 1980 [PolS 358 and PolS 359]
EXTRA CREDIT:Kevin Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Court in the Political Process, chapter 8, “Does Race Make a Difference?” [optional]
1982. The 1982 Amendments to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (Lyles, ch. 7), Lexis Uni.
Thornburg v Gingles 1986 [required for POLS 359, optional for POLS 358]
Jericho Bernal’s Gatekeepers Analysis [optional]
Thornburg v. Gingles 1986 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
F. Fair Housing, 1969-1986
The Temptations, “Run Charlie, Run!” [for your listening pleasure]
Village of Arlington Heights 1977
G. African-Americans and Criminal Injustice, 1969-1986
Gregg v. Georgia 1976 [optional] PolS 354
Batson v. Kentucky 1986 [354] [optional] PolS 354
H. Protecting Individual Rights and Other Issues, 1969-1986
Bob Jones University v. United States 1983 and Letter from Bob Jones University [optional]
April 24 to the Last Day of Class
Chapter 8. Rehnquist: 1986-2005
A. Public Accommodations, Demonstrations, Breach of Peace, and Sit-In Cases, 1986-2005
B. School Desegregation, Affirmative Action in School Admissions, 1986-2005
Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell (1991)
Gratz v. Bollinger 2003 [optional]
Brief of the American Bar Association
Racial Transformation Orfield and Lee [optional]
Illinois School Funding Failure [optional]
C. Public Accommodations, 1986-2005
D. Employment Discrimination, Title VII, Affirmative Action in Employment, 1986-2005
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson 1988
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena 1995
E. Voting Rights, The Rehnquist Court: 1986-2005
1987. Thurgood Marshall’s Remarks at the Annual Seminar of the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association in Maui, Hawaii (May 6, 1987) (Lyles, ch. 8).
1989. [optional] EU v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee 489 U.S. 214, [associational rights], Lexis Uni
1990 Georgia State Board of Elections v. Brooks [judicial elections] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1990. [optional] Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, [political speech, patronage] Lexis Uni
1990. [optional] Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, [campaign finance, limitations on expenditures] Lexis Uni
1991. Chisom v. Romer 501 U.S. 380, [judicial elections, “standard practice or procedure”] (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni).
1991. [optional] Houston Lawyers Association v. Texas Attorney General [judicial elections] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1992. Presley v. Etowah County Commission [redistributing power among officials] (Lyles, ch. 8) and 1992. Mack v. Russell County Commission [preclearance/redistributing power among officials] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1992. [optional] Burdick v. Takushi [write-in voting, third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni
1992. [optional] Burson v. Freeman, 505 U.S. 191, [at the polls, campaign-free zones around polling places], Lexis Uni
1993. Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. 630, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, and majority-minority districting], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.
1994. Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, “standard practice or procedure”] (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni).
1994. [optional] Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 [minority vote dilution], Lexis Uni
1995. Miller v. Johnson 515 U.S. 900, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, and majority-minority districting], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.
1995. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, [term limits], Lexis Uni See also, PolS 353
1995. [optional] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, [anonymous campaign literature], Lexis Uni
1995 [optional] United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, [political speech, public employees] Lexis Uni
1996. Shaw v. Hunt. [majority-minority districts] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1996. Bush v. Vera [majority–minority districts] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1996. [optional] Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Colorado Republican I), 518 U.S. 604, [campaign finance, coordinated expenditures], Lexis Uni
1997. [optional] Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, [multiple-party or “fusion” candidates, third parties, independent candidates and ballot access] Lexis Uni
1997. [optional] Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 7, [remedying errors in elections, re-votes and the uniform date for federal elections], Lexis Uni
1998 [optional] Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, [media coverage, debate exclusion], Lexis Uni
1998 [optional] Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, [political speech, circulation of petitions] Lexis Uni
1999. [optional] Lopez v. Monterey County, 552 U.S. 196, [preclearance], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni
1999. Hunt v. Cromartie [irregular district configurations], (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.
1998 [optional] Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182, [political speech, circulation of petitions] Lexis Uni
2000. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, [counting votes, resolving disputed presidential election contests], Lyles, ch. 8 and/or Lexis Uni.
2000. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board 528 U.S. 320 [preclearance/retrogression], Lexis Uni
2000. [optional] California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, [associational rights of parties and the “blanket primary], Lexis Uni
2000. [optional] Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, [campaign finance, limits on contributions] Lexis Uni
2001. Easley v. Cromartie [irregular district configurations] (Lyles, ch. 8).
2001. [optional] Cook v. Gralike 531 U.S. 510, [term limits, state] Lexis Uni
2001. NAACP v. Harris [purging the rolls] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1947. [optional] Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, [political speech, patronage] Lexis Uni
2002. [optional] Republican party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, [political speech, judicial candidate’s speech] Lexis Uni
2003. [optional] Georgia v. Ashcroft 539 U.S. 461, [preclearance/retrogression],Lyles, ch. 8, or Lexis Uni.
2003 McConnell v. FEC (2003) (Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156)2010. [Money as speech] 540 U.S. 93, [campaign finance, limits on expenditures, reporting and disclosure] Lexis Uni
2004. Vieth v. Jubelirer 541 U.S. 267 [political questions/political gerrymandering] (Lyles, ch. 8/ Lexis Uni).
2004. [optional] Cox v. Larios 542 U.S. 947, [one person/one vote, mathematical equality], Lexis Uni
F. Fair Housing,
G. African-Americans and Criminal Justice, 1986-2005
EXTRA CREDIT 13th by Ava DuVernay [optional]
Equal Justice Initiative: Slavery to Mass Incarceration
Powers v. Ohio (1991)
Hudson v. McMillian (1992) [optional, CLJ]
Sidebar. Rodney King (1992)
H. Individual Rights and Equal Protection, 1986-2005
R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul 1992 [optional, take PolS 354]
Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) [optional, take PolS 354]
How Racism Effects Your Health from Science As Fact [optional]
Remarks of Thurgood Marshall, 1987
L. Hanna, CCDOC [optional]
Chapter 9. The Roberts Court Nine: 2005-2025
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, Chapter 9 (2005-2025)
A. Public Accommodations, Demonstrations, Breach of Peace, and Sit-In Cases,
B. School Desegregation, Affirmative Action in School Admissions
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et. al (2007)
Fisher v University of Texas (2016)
SFFA v. Harvard
C. Public Accommodations,
D. Employment Discrimination, Title VII, Affirmative Action in Employment,
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)
E. Voting Rights, The Roberts Court 2005-present
2005. [optional] Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, [independents and associational rights of parties], Lexis Uni
2006. [optional] League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, [majority-minority districting], Lexis Uni
2006. “The Constitutionality of Section 5 Revisited,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), p. 255.
2006 [optional] Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, [campaign finance, limits on contributions] Lexis Uni
2008. [optional] Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, [The People’s Choice Initiative of 2004], Lexis Uni
2008. [optional] Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, [at the polls, avoiding election fraud] (Lyles, ch. 9) and/or Lexis Uni
2008. [optional] New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni
2009. [optional] Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act], Lexis Uni
2009. [optional] Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder [preclearance revisited, Section 5, and bailout]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
2011 [optional] Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 [anonymous speech, petition signature disclosure and referendums], Lexis Uni 2011. [Money as speech]
[optional] Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, [campaign finance, government financing of campaigns] Lexis Uni [Money as speech]
2012 [optional] United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, [political speech, defamation and false statements], Lexis Uni [Money as speech]
2013. The Sentencing Project, Losing the Right to Vote
2013. Shelby v. Holder 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2612, [preclearance revisited, Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965], Lyles, Chapter 9 or Lexis Uni
2014 McCutheon v FCC 2014 (Required only to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156) [campaign finance, limits on contributions], Lexis Uni [Money as speech]
2015. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
[referendums, initiatives, and independent redistricting commissions]
[Legislatures vs. Commissions]
2015 [optional] Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 557 U.S. ___; 135 S. Ct. 1656, [political speech, judicial candidate’s speech] Lexis Uni
2015 [optional] Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895, 575 U.S. ____, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015)
2015. NPR Broadcast, Fresh Air, Monday August 10, 2015 The Voting Rights Act 1965 to 2013
Find an article on Felony Disenfranchisement, bring it to class and be prepared to discuss it in class today.
2015 “The Constitutionality of Section 5 Revisited,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), p. 255.
2016. Evenwel v. Abbott, Lexis Uni, [population]
2017. “How Mass Incarceration Led Directly to Trump’s Win,” February 15, 2017, Vanity Fair 1985.
[optional] Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, [disenfranchisement of persons convicted of crimes], Lexis Uni.
2017 [optional] Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1455
F. Fair Housing,
G. Black Americans and Criminal Injustice,
Sean Bell, November 26, 2006
Snyder v. Louisiana (2008)
H. Protecting Individual Rights and Other Issues,
EXTRA CREDIT: John Hope Franklin [optional]
Former-President Trump’s September 2020 executive order to eliminate “divisive concepts in schools and federally-funded entities” [skim]
Critical Race Theory: An Introduction to my class, OR, the End of my Class?
Miseducating the Public [optional]
Ron DeSantis’s Attack on Black Studies is Textbook Proto-Fascism [optional]
White Like Me: Race, Racism & Privilege in America [optional]
Should Middle Eastern and North Africans STILL be WHITE? [optional]
Ryan M. Crowley, ‘The Goddamndest, toughest voting rights bill’: Critical Race Theory and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.’ Race Ethnicity and Education, Volume 16, 2013-Issue 5. [optional 358, required for 359]
The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates [optional, but a great read]
The State of Black America: Race and the Limits of Judicial Power, continued.
Why white Southern conservatives need to defend Confederate monuments
THE POLS 358 FINAL EXAM
Part 1. Who Invented White People? [0-5 points] Students posted a link to their essay on WP.
Part 2. Critical Race Theory Research: [0-5 points] Students posted their essay on WP as a file or a comment.
Part 3. Student-Generated Final Exam Questions: [0-5 points] Students posted their questions and answers on WP.
Part 4. Final Exam on Blackboard, [0-85 points] Monday, May 5. You have 2 hours (120 minutes) to complete the exam. You may only take the Exam once. The Exam will be available from 8:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Monday, May 5. So, you must start the Exam anytime on Monday before 10 p.m. to enjoy the whole 2 hours. The exam is on Blackboard, and the format is similar to the midterm exam. You do NOT need to come to the classroom or even UIC. However, if you take the exam in a monitored UIC computer lab, you will have someone to corroborate if there is a system error. Conversely, if your internet connection fails in the middle of the Exam at home, you will be graded on the completed portion.
Post Views: 4,124
← Chiafalo v. Washington 591 U.S. ___ (2020) 358 Ice Breaker prompt →
Recent Comments