This concerns me.
Civil rights advocates are also concerned about Roberts' views on Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex at schools receiving federal funds.
At issue in the early 1980s was whether this law applied broadly to all colleges and universities -- including private ones. Because their students received federal aid, some said the law should apply to the college as a whole. Others, including Roberts, said the law should apply only to college departments that receive federal money. And because the athletic departments did not receive federal money, school sports would not be covered, according to this view.
In a 1982 memo, Roberts said the Education Department should not go after the private University of Richmond over allegations that it discriminated against women in its sports programs. "Under Title IX federal investigators cannot rummage willy-nilly through institutions, but can only go as far as the federal funds go," Roberts wrote.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-roberts7aug07,1,2017069.story?coll=la-news-po
litics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true
I don't get it. Why would Roberts think that equal rights for women should only exist in departments where federal funding was provided? I do not understand acceptance of treating women differently at all.
This is not the only time that Roberts challenged Title IX.
Roberts was also criticized for taking a narrow view of the Title IX law later when he was the deputy to Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr. Together, they sided with a Georgia school district in arguing that victims of sex discrimination in schools could not sue a college or school system. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the student in 1992 and said victims of sex bias had a right to take their claims to court.
More recently, the court has been closely split on who can sue to enforce civil rights laws.
In March, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke for a 5-4 majority in saying that teachers and coaches can sue if they are retaliated against for having reported violations of Title IX. Roderick Jackson, who coached a women's basketball team at an Alabama high school, said he was demoted after complaining that the girls were given second-class facilities.
With O'Connor retiring, civil rights lawyers fear Roberts could form a new majority that would make it harder to enforce the anti-bias law.
Wow. What a close vote. I absolutely agree with O'Connor. If teachers and coaches have been retaliated against because they blew the whistle on colleges that were not in compliance with Title IX. they should be able to sue. Why not? Seriously. What is the rationale for the other side? I want to know. If Title IX is the law and a school or college breaks the law, why should the jobs of the people who revealed the breaking of the law be punished?
I am very concerned about Roberts being on the Supreme court. I am very happy to see civil rights advocates asking the tough questions. There is more in the article about the Voter's Right Act. Honestly, though, I didn't understand his statement about quotas.
In Congress, civil rights advocates pressed to amend the Voting Rights Act to cover the "effect" of electoral systems. They said it should be illegal for cities or states to use systems that have the effect of excluding blacks from power.
Roberts wrote a series of memos urging the Reagan administration to oppose the change. Many of them were written as "talking points" for administration officials.
"I believe the goal of the Voting Rights Act to be that no one be denied the right to vote on account of race. If this is in fact the goal, an intent test, such as in the current [law], logically follows," he wrote. "If, on the other hand, the goal of the Voting Rights Act is that election results reflect racial balance, an effects test should be used.... In essence, it would establish a quota system for electoral politics, a notion we believe is fundamentally inconsistent with democratic politics."
The Voting Rights Act is no one can be denied the right to vote on the basis of race. Back in the day, there was apparently other concerns about quotas. I really don't understand why the concept of treating peope equally is so difficult.
Deep breaths. Thanks for letting me vent.