暂无摘要。

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in university admissions, in which an applicant of a particular race or ethnicity receives a plus factor, is unconstitutional. This ruling was based on both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This article argues that a more natural fit as the basis for constitutional analysis would be a different clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In the article, a legal analysis based on the clause is applied to medical school admissions. Depending on whether a fundamental rights reading or an antidiscrimination (equality) reading of the clause is applied, opposite conclusions are reached on the constitutionality of affirmative action in medical school admissions. This analysis demonstrates why affirmative action in admissions--in this case medical school admissions, which directly affect the composition of the Nation\'s physician workforce--is a complex and difficult constitutional question.

This Paper argues that to protect at-risk communities - and all Americans - from the deadly effects of environmental racism, Congress must pass the Environmental Justice for All Act. The Act is intended to \"restore, reaffirm, and reconcile environmental justice and civil rights.\" It does so by restoring an individual\'s right to sue in federal court for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin regardless of intent under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, strengthening the National Environmental Policy Act, and providing economic incentives focused on environmental justice.

Industry-funded religious liberty legal groups have sought to undermine healthcare policy and law while simultaneously attacking the rights of sexual and gender minorities. Whereas past scholarship has tracked religiously-affiliated healthcare providers\' growing political power and attendant transformations to legal doctrine, our account emphasizes the political donors and visionaries who have leveraged religious providers and the U.S. healthcare system\'s delegated structure to transform social policy and bureaucratic agencies more generally.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Ida B. Wells (1862-1931) led an extraordinary life as a journalist, educator, and activist while navigating the intersecting social realities of race, gender, and class. She embodied courage, advocating for the civil rights of Black Americans in an uncompromising fashion.Building on decades of research in social psychology, sociologist Cecilia L. Ridgeway presents (2019) a cultural schema theory of status. She contends that issues of status in interpersonal contexts are an unavoidable aspect of the human condition. Despite the ubiquity of status as a sociocultural force, Ridgeway believes that status hierarchies may be undermined.The present study is a psychobiographical exploration of Wells through the lens of Ridgeway\'s status theory. It explores: the development of Wells\' cultural schemas; how Wells navigated her own status; the inter-relationship between Wells and her sociocultural context; and how Wells undermined and overcame status hierarchies.

Our students ought to know about the history of formal hospital segregation and desegregation. To that end, this article urges those who teach foundational health law and policy courses to do three things. First, to teach the Simkins case. Second, to swap out the usual Medicare signing ceremony picture for one that includes W. Montague Cobb, M.D., Ph.D. Third, to highlight how the implementation of that program for the elderly led, in a matter of months, to the desegregation of hospitals throughout the country.