Brown v. Board of Education
by Cynthia Becker
Staff Writer
cynthia.becker@ohiou.edu
In 1954 Topeka, Kan., a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk a full mile to her elementary school, even though a school serving white students was only seven blocks away. When her father tried to enroll her in the white school, she was denied entrance. Her father challenged the school in court.
On May 17 of that year, the Supreme Court ruled in Linda's favor. The decision marked the beginning of the movement towards integration and equality in the United States.
Although the courts ruled that separate schools were unequal and should be desegregated, it still took years for schools to change. By 1964, less than 2 percent of the segregated schools had desegregated, according to The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions (1999).
Yet, 50 years after the decision, schools are resegregating.
According to a study by The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, 70 percent of black students and 76 percent of Hispanic students attend predominantly minority schools, while 80 percent of white students, the most segregated group, attend schools where the majority is white. Asian students are the most integrated.
Ohio has the 15th highest rate of segregation, with 35 percent of blacks in 90 to 100 percent minority schools. Only 29 percent of black students are in majority white schools, according to the study.
Studies show that United States has come a long way from the '50s, but as several desegregation policies end, it might have a long way to go.
At the beginning of the 21st century
American public schools are now 12 years into the process of continuous resegregation. The desegregation of black students which increased continuously from the 1950s to the late 1980s has now receded to levels not seen in three decades
according to a summary of the study.
Also, studies show that although the South is the nation's most integrated region, it is also the region that is resegregating rapidly as the courts end a number of desegregation orders.
Separation of Church and State in Public Schools
by Jason Kane
Staff Writer
jason.kane@ohiou.edu
There once existed a time in America's public school history in which failure to recite religious doctrine was considered a punishable act. Throughout the course of the 20th century, however, a series of Supreme Court rulings have built a wall of separation between church and state in the public-education arena, effectively ensuring many aspects of religious freedom for the nation's youth. Nonetheless, controversy remains.
School prayer, often the most publicly monitored aspect of the controversy, underwent severe scrutiny by the courts in a series of cases beginning in the 1960s. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), it was determined that the government and its officials must in no way promote or guide religious activity, thus banning teacher-led prayer in the classroom. Two subsequent cases, Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) and Lee v. Weisman (1992), respectively prohibited moments of silence ordained for religious purposes and clergy-led prayer at public education ceremonies.
The Supreme Court ruled in Abington v. Schempp (1963) that the teaching of religion is consistent with the First Amendment when conducted in a comparative and secular way that demonstrates the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization.
As a result of these decisions, public school systems are prohibited from leading or endorsing religious activity, and may include issues of a religious nature only for purposes of secular intent. Students, by comparison, are protected by freedom of speech laws and are able to pray and voice their religious beliefs at will, if conducted in a way that is non-disruptive to the learning environment.
The separation of church and state in the classroom is only a small representation of the larger battle to provide a religiously neutral government to the people of the United States. Rulings by the Supreme Court have been complicated and often contradictory over the years.
The Bill of Rights remains a very controversial document. Jeremy Leaming, spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said. These kinds of church/state issues will remain contingent long after I'm gone.
Roe v. Wade
by Emily Patterson
Culture Senior Writer
emily.l.patterson.1@ohiou.edu
The issue of abortion has ignited both passionate support and extreme opposition since it came into the public eye 31 years ago. In the time since the Supreme Court ruled state laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, the court decision has been the subject of debate.
Even the naming of opposing groups is a sensitive topic. According to the Associated Press Stylebook, journalists should avoid using titles of pro-life and pro-choice in favor of more neutral anti-abortion and abortion rights.
Slowly but surely, according to the left-leaning political Web site http://www.salon.com, President Bush has been chipping away at the Roe v. Wade decision. When Bush signed a late-term abortion ban on Nov. 5, it was the first time the national government has outlawed an abortion procedure since.
This past weekend, Bush installed conservative judge Charles Pickering on the federal appeals court in New Orleans. In this position, he could easily take the place of a retiring Supreme Court Judge, said Sheila Buckley, chief executive for Southeast Ohio's Planned Parenthood.
Roe v. Wade is in a precarious position, she said.
I don't think people realize until it is gone just how critical it is
Buckley said. Right now it is a freedom we enjoy.
Ohio University students, most of who were born after Roe v. Wade, take the decision for granted, Buckley said.
It is absolutely a woman's right what to do with her own body
Buckley said. It is not that government's right in a free country to make that decision for a woman.
Planned Parenthood has been in Athens 33 years, even before Roe v. Wade. They offer woman's health services and family planning to Southeast Ohio. Abortions are not performed in Athens.
On the opposite side of the issue, OU sophomore Annie Mitchell, the spokeswoman for the OU Pro-Life club, said the late-term abortion ban has been a huge step forward for her cause.
Mitchell said her view is the minority on campus. She said OU women see abortion as a matter of choice and are unable to grasp that it is really a matter of taking away a human life.
I think that it downgrades the purpose of women
which is to have children
Mitchell said. You are taking away from something that is the core of womanhood.
Napster Court Case
by Jason Kane
Staff Writer
jason.kane@ohiou.edu
When Shawn Fanning, creator of the Napster phenomenon, first initiated his file-sharing enterprise, the 19-year-old knew the idea would be a success. However, he had little foresight into the legal technicalities upon which he was about to stumble.
In fact, it took some time for the legal world to decide exactly how Napster and other such adversaries were infringing upon copyright and fair-use laws.
In the past, an array of laws strictly defined what did and did not constitute fair use of textual information. In the late '90s, innovative multimedia resources became available.
This unbalancing act has drawn users of copyrighted information into collision with the bewildering complexity of copyright as it applies to multimedia
Kathleen Amen, Trish Keogh and Necia Wolff wrote in Digital Copyright
which appeared in the May 2002 volume of Computers in Libraries.
As millions of people gained free access to copies of music and films through file sharing sites like Napster, copyright owners were sent into an uproar at their sudden loss of control and profits. Many promptly filed suit.
On Feb. 13, 2001, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court's decision that Napster users are not fair users. The site was ordered to comply with federal laws protecting copyrighted multimedia.
The verdict in the Napster court case ended a brief period in the history of technology in which even copyrighted material was literally free game. At present, pirated files are much more difficult to come by.
New legitimate services like Apple's iTunes and the legal Napster now have the opportunity to prove themselves
Miachael J. Wolf wrote in The Music Industry Is Getting Its Act Together at Last
