Mock Trial: Bakke v. University of California

 Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Honor, we have come together today to discuss the injustice that has happened to Mr. Allan Bakke.  This case is directly connected to his Fourteenth Amendment Rights, which were violated by the University of California's admissions policy, which discriminates on the grounds of race. The fundamental principle of race should not be a deciding factor within admissions, particularly when it excludes qualified applicants solely based on race.  

The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that no state deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law. This basic principle is integral to a fair and just society, ensuring everyone is treated equally. The university's policy essentially established a quota system that discriminated against Bakke by reserving a specific number of acceptances for minority students. This practice disregards Mr. Bakke's qualifications and runs against values written within the Constitution.  

Mr. Allan Bakke is not just a number but also a qualified candidate for admission to the school's medical college.  With a GPA of 3.5 and high scores on his Medical College Admission Test, or MCAT for short, Bakke's academic level exceeds those admitted to the University under the affirmative action policy.  The denial of his admission while accepting those who are less qualified simply because they are from minorities is discrimination in every way.  This policy not only disregards the hard work and effort Bakke has put into his schooling but is also in clear violation of Bakke's equal protection rights.  

The University is going to claim that its affirmative action policy is in place to rectify past injustices and give way to diversity.  While their goals are to lift students who have been denied in the past, having a non-moving quota, puts sole importance on a person's race rather than their academic ability.  Remember this is not just another basic admission, we are talking about Medical School, these are our future doctors and solely based on race are people being admitted and denied.  The policy fails to give each applicant as an individual but as a tally mark for diversity within the student population.

Moreover, this policy on admissions not only undermines Bakke's rights but also diminishes the hard work done by the minority students who were accepted on merit.  Accepting students to meet a quota and prioritizing their race over their academic qualifications disregards the whole of their previous education.  If the Unversity were trying to reach a truly diverse academic landscape, it would look to an applicant's qualifications, experiences, and potential contribution within the classroom. 

This case will not just affect Bakke, as this case will create a precedent for educational institutions and their admissions goals.  Upholding the policy created by the University would legitimize racial discrimination within our education system, undermining the goals of our current society.  We urge the Court to reaffirm the commitment to create a system where individuals are judged not by the color of their skin, but by their character and their academic accomplishments. 

We ask the Court to recognize how the policy put in place by the University of California's admissions office directly violates Allan Bakke's rights under the Equal Protection Clause.  The school uses a rigid quota system that favors those within certain minority groups, rather than overtly qualified individuals like Bakke, which is unconstitutional.  We urge the Court to rule in favor of Bakke, as it would restore his rights, and further ensure that our educational institutions remain steadfast on merit and inclusivity for all students, regardless of their race.  

In the Heat of the Night Reaction

"In the Heat of the Night," directed by Norman Jewison, was released in 1967 and explored racism and the ways of the South during Reconstruction. The story follows the relationship of Virgil Tibbs, played by Sidney Poitier, a Black detective from Philadelphia, and Mississippi Sheriff Bill Gillespie, played by Rod Steiger, and his officers.  As the film takes place during the Civil Rights Movement, the movie openly shows the prejudices of the time held by Southern white people. It highlights how an understanding and a level of respect can be created across racial divides with open conversation. 

The film starts with Officer Sam Wood stopping and arresting Tibbs for the murder of Mr. Colbert, a wealthy white man in town building a factory, simply for his race.  Once at the station, Tibbs was able to get in contact with his commanding officer and we came to learn that he was not only a detective, but the top homicide detective in Philadelphia.  At that time, Gillespie had released Tibbs from custody and asked his commanding officer if Tibbs could help the investigation to find the killer.

As the investigation progresses, we get to see the relationship between the two actors grow.  Their first interaction is surrounded by tension as Gillespie's prejudice stops him from respecting Tibbs as a normal person and shows the deep-seated racism within the South.  However, Tibbs's professionalism and intellect showed through and allowed Gillespie to soften against his former ideals.  As they examine the crime, Tibbs points out that the racism of the local law enforcement and the community is stopping them from figuring out who actually murdered Mr. Colbert.  

The film highlights this transformation through key moments, such as the pairs trip to the cotton farm of Mr. Endicott, and the iconic line "They call me Mister Tibbs",  and their scene within the abandoned warehouse.  These moments pull the audience in and serve as telling points of the themes of respect and the need for equality.  As the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie grows, they start to put pieces of the crime together, and ends with a sense of justice on all fronts. 

While "In the Heat of the Night" might be a murder-mystery, it also serves as a window into the race relations within the South.  The film sparks the conversation of justice and equality are needed for our country to move forwards, and how without resepecting each other, we may never learn the truth.  The relationship between Tibbs and the police officers from the town fully highlight the racial tensions of society within this period, and the deep seeded prediuces of the South can cause the wrong men to pay for crimes, and how we can all work together.  

Mock Trial: Brown v. Board of Education Reaction

Today, we were welcomed into the courtroom to witness the no-doubt historical trial of Brown v. Board of Education. The case concerns the 14th Amendment and whether the segregation of state-sponsored public schools is constitutional.

Our case starts in the small town of Topeka, Kansas, where Linda Brown was denied admission to the school in her town, forcing her to travel to a segregated school for Black students. While her parents were the first to speak out, they were joined by 12 other affected families across five other cases against the segregation within their school districts. These cases began similarly, as class-action lawsuits from 1950-1951 in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Originally, the district court ruled against the Browns, upholding the precedent established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Afterward, the Browns appealed and took the case to the Supreme Court, represented by Thurgood Marshall, the Chief Counsel for the NAACP. 

During the proceedings, Brown's defense made the moral argument that the entirety of the "separate but equal" precedent was not only from another time but also entirely unjust at its core.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the Board of Education argued based on the same basic principles. Hayes Jones's biblical argument must be remembered. He spoke about how the Bible teaches us all to "love thy neighbor" and how, yes, our world is growing together. Mr. Jones spoke about the violence currently faced, and how putting the children on the front lines of the fight would not be beneficial to their actual education.  

Regardless of the fight put on the Board of Education was not enough to stop the movement of progress.  With a victory towards Brown, the justices declared how the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson, and "separate but equal" was inherently flawed and unconstitutional.  This decision will start the integration of schools at all levels, and bring America into a new age of building.  

EOTO: Executive Order 9981

On July 26th, 1948, Executive Order 9981 was signed by President Harry Truman and was a pivotal step in advancing civil rights in our military with desegregation.   During the 1940s, there was a large push for civil rights, which came to a standstill as the military was segregated.  During and after World War II pressure poured in from civil rights activists, veterans, and the NAACP about the treatment of Black servicemen and the discrimination they faced.

The lead up to the Order, waves of African American men coming home brought back stories not just about their fight with the enemy, but their fight with the government.  During the war, these men were given the tasks no one wanted to do, denied the same opportunities and recognition for their service, and were forced to work in segregated units as their white counterparts.  Incidents of violence and discrimination were seen as the soldiers came back from deployments, which further highlighted the urgency of addressing racial inequality.  These acts caused a personal fire to be lit within President Truman, as he was a veteran himself, and saw these men as brothers in arms with all disregard of their race. 

The Committee of Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services was President Trumans way of enforcement. Known as the Fahy Committee, which was coined as Charles Fahy was named as chairmen, had b
een tasked with investigating the racial practices within the military and ensuring compliance with the desegregation efforts being made.  While implementing Trumans Order, the committee faced hard resistance from the military leaders and institutions who were relucntent to change their values and practices of segregationist.  Regardless, the Committee worked to implement the order as a way to dismantle the discriminatory polices and set stages of integration within the armed forces.  

Much like the education system, the progress made to integrate the military was not immediate or the same across all of the branches. While the Nacy and the Air Force moved quickly towards integration, the army remained to put up a fight for 6 years against integration. Their fight played as a backdrop during the Korean War and finally giving into the Order in 1954.  The Korean War became the turning point of military integration as the demands for greater personnel and the inefficiencies of a segregated military became obvious.  This further accelerated the acceptance from branches and the officers as they had to  recognize Black soldiers and their contributions.  

Executive Order 9981 had lasting impacts on the civil rights movement, and advocated for a desegregated workplace within all federal jobs.  Commiting the federal government into addressing the systemic racism and discrimination that African Americans had faced within the workplace for years.  The desegregation of the armed forces served as a model and example for how other institutions were to integrate, and gave the civil rights movement momentum for even more change.  While their are many changes and hardships that were still faced, by the mid-1950s the military had made substantial progress into being one of the most integrated institutions in the United States.  

Reconstruction Video Reaction

The Reconstruction era of American history started in 1863 and was a pivotal period marked by violence.  The violence came from attempts to integrate the newly freed African Americans into society and faced a major backlash from white Southerners who refused to change.  Reconstruction had aimed to reunite the Southern states back with the Union and create a status for the newly freed slaves.  This time gave hope to many African Americans as they searched for their family with ads, claimed their rights with the "Reconstruction Amendments", and built lives after the Civil War.  However, this idea that society could function without racial barriers was quickly stopped by white Southerners.  

The resistance used violence with riots and oppressive laws, known as the Black Codes, as they wanted to control Black labor and maintain white supremacy.  The creation of the Ku Klux Klan sought to reclaim their lives and social order before the Civil War, as they acted like Slave Patrols.  The backlash revealed the deep-seated racism that still remained within the nation despite the end of slavery and the promises from the government for citizenship and rights for Black Americans. 

Even after the Civil War, Black Americans struggled with their rights well into the 1960s, illustrating the failure of the Reconstruction to deliver on their promises.  The hope was that after the 14th Amendment Black families would be given citizenship, and while they had citizenship, the racism and violence from white Southerners made life as an equal citizen.  From the race riots in Memphis that lasted three days, to a white mob in New Orleans that killed over 40 people, cases such as Emmett Till underlined the landscape of this period.  Much like Fredrick Douglass and others noted the political landscape was largely unwelcoming and non-protective of Black citizens due to Southern Democrats like Andrew Johnson.  As their priorities and interests lay with wealthy white landowners over those who had been freed.  

The legacy of Reconstruction is a reminder of the fragility of progress within the system.  While this time gave a glimpse of what equality could look like, it also laid the groundwork for long-lasting racial tension and struggles, shaping the civil rights movements for decades.  

EOTO: Reconstruction Era Reaction

Listening to the EOTO groups allowed me to learn more about the Reconstruction era. The first group taught the class about the positive aspects of the Reconstruction era, hitting topics such as Forty Acres and a Mule, the Freedmen’s Bureau, and the Reconstruction Amendments.  While the other focused on the negatives such as, The Black Codes, The Klan, and the overall Failure of Reconstruction. Both groups did a great job presenting and teaching their peers about their topics.

Kaitlyn discussed Forty Acres and a Mule, which was the promise of land being redistributed to freed black families and some were given army Mules hence the name. The one to pass this order following the war was General Sherman. He made it possible for around 40,000 freedmen to settle on this land. This land had been taken from wealthy confederates. 

Alyson taught us about the Freedmen's Bureau established in 1865. This helped millions of former enslaved people by providing them with food, shelter, medical aid, schooling, and legal assistance. They had set up offices in fifteen states' major cities. The Freedmen's Bureau even helped found historically black colleges such as Howard University. 

On the opposite side, Justin spoke about a negative during this time, which was the Ku Klux Klan. This organization started as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1865. They targeted any symbols of black autonomy because their goal was to reverse back to how life was before the Reconstruction Era. Some of their members were even made up of well-to-do people in society and not all poor southern whites. When Ulysses S. Grant took executive office he went after the Klan and after this, they gradually went away for some time. 

After hearing Kaitlyn, Alyson, and Justin speak, I feel that I have now learned more about the positive and negative aspects of the Reconstruction Era. 

Mock Trail: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Honor, I stand before this court today to reinforce the plaintiff’s position that the Separate Car Law is profoundly unconstitutional. The law, in its most basic form, stands in clear violation of our nation’s legal and moral principles.

I begin by reminding the court of a core tenet in our Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Our country was built on these ideals, and they must guide our judgment here today.

As a nation, we face a pivotal moment. The decision this court makes will define how we are seen both by our citizens and the world at large. If we turn our backs on the values that form the foundation of this republic, how can we move forward? How can we expect to be respected?

I also remind you of the importance of the Constitutional amendments added to safeguard these values. This country came together to enshrine the rights of African Americans to citizenship, to vote, and, most importantly, to be protected equally under the law. If this court ignores these protections, the very fabric of our democracy will be at risk.

This case centers on the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally states: "No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equality is not a vague concept—it is clear, unchanging, and absolute. There are no conditions or exceptions when it comes to equality.

The Separate Car Law, by regulating public transportation based solely on race, is not only unjust but unconstitutional. The Constitution is colorblind. There is no legal or moral basis for a caste system, and there is no ruling class in America. The 14th Amendment was created to ensure that all citizens, regardless of race, stand equal under the law.

The true intent of this state law is to segregate based on race, and this is a blatant violation of the Constitution. One of our most basic rights, the right to personal liberty, is under attack. A man has the right to decide where he wishes to sit, regardless of who his fellow passengers are. The government cannot infringe upon this right by using race as the only justification. 

As it pertains to civil rights, and under the 14th Amendment, "all citizens are equal before the law," regardless of race or color. We are one nation, and the sooner we embrace this truth, the sooner we will see less conflict and less cruelty in our society.

If this court rules against Homer Plessy today, it will not only be undermining its authority, but it will also be undermining the very purpose of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, it will strip us of our ability, as a nation, to speak of freedom, for we will have compromised the most fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded: personal liberty and individual freedom.