Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Diversity: The Red Herring Of Equal Protection, Sharon E. Rush

Sharon E. Rush

Couching the constitutional inquiry in cases like Bakke and VMI in the context of integration also puts in perspective the diversity justification. Affirmative action policies are constitutional because they integrate state programs. Integration on the basis of race and sex also diversifies state programs. In contrast, attempts to justify sex-segregation in state programs by arguing the policy promotes diversity is irrelevant to an equal protection analysis. Voluntarily created all-female schools should be constitutional because they promote the equal citizenship of women without damaging the equal citizenship stature of men. This is true for voluntarily race-segregated programs for minorities; as well. …

Discrimination In Customer Segmentation Marketing Practices, Jude A. Thomas

Jude A Thomas

Customer segmentation is a powerful analytical marketing practice that is employed by a wide range of businesses to segregate customers with similar characteristics into subgroups in order to inform operational business processes. Such practices allow firms to better allocate their resources in order to form more profitable customer relationships, but they also have the capacity to lead to unfair discriminatory impact upon customer groups. Current legislation is largely unprotective of customers so positioned, but recent trends in the insurance and lending industries suggest that a broader application of anti-discrimination laws could foretell a future of greater restrictions on the implementation …

Preventing Balkanization Or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique Of The New Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson

Darren L Hutchinson

Abstract

Preventing Balkanization or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique of the

New Equal Protection

The Supreme Court requires that equal protection plaintiffs prove defendants acted with discriminatory intent. The intent rule has insulated from judicial invalidation numerous policies that harmfully impact racial and ethnic minorities. Court doctrine also mandates that state actors remain colorblind. The colorblindness doctrine has caused the Court to invalidate many policies that were designed to ameliorate the conditions of racial inequality. Taken together, these two equality doctrines facilitate racial domination. The Court justifies this outcome on the ground that the Constitution does not protect “group rights.” …