On this page
American Heritage Dictionary:
seg·re·ga·tion |
Related Videos:
segregation |
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
racial segregation |
For more information on racial segregation, visit Britannica.com.
Barron's Banking Dictionary:
Segregation |
1. Securities and Exchange Commission rule that broker-dealers maintain separate customer accounts for purposes of obtaining Margin credit from a bank, and may not combine customers' accounts without the customers' approval. See also Commingled Funds.
2. Requirement by the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that banks maintain their Trading Account Assets or securities held for trading purposes, separate from loan and investment portfolios.
3. Separation of accounts under management by a bank trust department acting in a Fiduciary capacity for trust accounts.
Roget's Thesaurus:
segregation |
noun
Antonyms by Answers.com:
segregation |
Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health:
Segregation |
Segregation is the separation of people based on race, religion, ethnic group, sex, or social class. In the United States, racial segregation has been the most prevalent and visible form. After the abolition of slavery in 1865, laws, known as Jim Crow laws, were passed in most southern states. The term "Jim Crow" referred to an African-American character in a popular song composed in the 1830s, and these laws, already introduced after that time were designed to enforce racial separation. Segregation was not only enforced by law, but also by various forms of physical violence. African Americans were forced to sit only in the back of buses and trains, use "black only" water fountains, and enter through the back doors of hotels and restaurants—if allowed to enter at all. Laws forced blacks to live only in certain sections of a town or city, be educated in separate schools, and obtain health care in separate hospitals or wards. They were also excluded from some governmental jobs.
Segregation not only limited black people physically, but also economically and socially, by blocking access to schooling and jobs. It also served as a form of humiliation and degradation. The Supreme Court, however, upheld segregation laws as late as 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional. This concept was argued against strongly by both African Americans and whites throughout the United States. Eventually, arguments by Thurgood Marshall before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 led the Court to declare school segregation unconstitutional. This started a series of legal battles, lobbying efforts, boycotts, and protests, which eventually brought an end to de jure, or legal, segregation and discrimination. Even so, de facto segregation, or segregation in fact, continues, and is evident in housing, education, and a number of other areas. Integration remains a continuous process in the United States.
The long-term impact of years of racial segregation persists even to this day. African Americans continue to live in the sections of cities and towns where they were initially forced to live, and they continue to suffer from a lack of economic and educational opportunities. The long and difficult experience of segregation has also resulted in deep mistrust of whites by African Americans. This has, at least in part, contributed to the noticeable disparities in health status and access to health services. In particular, African Americans appear to be more hesitant to seek medical attention. There are many potential reasons, such as previous bad experiences with white health care providers as well as the fact that they may not be as aware of their health problems as whites because of disparities in the provision of health education. Even after becoming aware of their need for services, however, African Americans may experience many barriers to accessing services (i.e., lack of insurance, transportation). They are also more likely to obtain inadequate care even after overcoming these barriers. These discrepancies are extensively documented in the health-services research literature.
(SEE ALSO: African Americans; Asian Americans; Cultural Appropriateness,; Cultural Identity; Ethnicity and Health; Ethnocentrism; Hispanic Cultures; Inequalities in Health; Prejudice; Race and Ethnicity)
Bibliography
Barnes, C. A. (1983). Journey from Jim Crow: The Desegregation of Southern Transit. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bhopal, R. (1998). "Spectre of Racism in Health and Health Care: Lessons from History and the United States." British Medical Journal 316(7149):1970–1973.
Feagin, J. R. "Segregation." World Book Encyclopedia Millennium 2000. Chicago: World Book.
Freeman, H. W.; Blendon, R. J.; Aiken, L. H.; Sudman, S.; Mullinix, C. F.; and Corey, C. R. (1987). "Americans Report on Their Access to Health Care." Health Affairs 6(1):6–8.
King, D. (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the U.S. Federal Government. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Wasby, S. L.; D'Amato, A. A.; and Metrailer, R. (1977). Desegregation from Brown to Alexander. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Wolf, J. H.; Breslau, N.; Ford, A. B.; Ziegler, H. D.; and
Ward, A. (1983). "Access of the Black Urban Elderly to Medical Care." Journal of National Medical Association 75(1):41–46.
— RACHEL JEAN-BAPTISTE; DUNCAN NEUHAUSER
Oxford Dictionary of Geography:
segregation |
The separation of the subgroups of a large population, particularly into distinct residential areas. This segregation may be based on grounds of income, race, religion, or language. See index of segregation.
Early urban geographers suggested that incoming groups to the city went through a series of stages, from initial contact to complete assimilation, and they used indices of segregation to monitor the process. In this context, segregation was assumed to be undesirable. More recently, geographers have been looking at the way in which segregation might contribute to community feeling, or class formation, or the way in which residential segregation contributes to racism.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture & Construction:
segregation |
The differential concentration of the components of mixed concrete.
Gale Encyclopedia of US History:
Segregation |
The practice of segregating people by race and gender has taken two forms. De jure segregation is separation enforced by law, while de facto segregation occurs when widespread individual preferences, sometimes backed up with private pressure, lead to separation. De jure racial segregation was a practice designed to perpetuate racial subordination; de facto segregation of African Americans had similar effects, but sometimes could be defended as a result simply of private choice, itself an important American value. Separation of men and women occurred primarily in the workplace and in education. It contributed to the subordinate status of women, but less directly than racial segregation contributed to racial hierarchy.
Racial segregation as such was not a significant social practice before slavery was abolished because slavery itself was a system of subordination. Some northern states prohibited the immigration of free African Americans, reflecting the near-universal desire among whites to live apart from African Americans who would be socially and politically equal. In some northern cities, African Americans tended to live in neighborhoods that were racially identifiable, but de jure segregation was rare because it was unnecessary; there were few public programs of any sort that might be segregated, and de facto segregation produced the same results that de jure segregation would have. The city of Boston maintained a segregated school system from the beginning of the nineteenth century, and in 1845 the state supreme court found that doing so did not violate the state constitution's guarantee of equal liberty, but the state outlawed segregation in public schools in 1855. De facto segregation in railroads and steamboats was common. The practice of taking land from Indians and forcing them to live on reservations was a type of segregation enforced by law, although the U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of Indian tribes as semi-sovereign nations lent a certain theoretical sense to separating Indians and whites into different territories.
The Emergence of Southern Racial Segregation
Slavery's abolition meant that racial subordination could persist only with new kinds of support. Informal practices of racial segregation soon sprang up throughout the South, particularly in railroads and other places generally open to the public. In response, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which made discrimination in places of public accommodation illegal. The Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibited states from denying equal protection of the law, did not authorize Congress to adopt laws dealing with private discrimination.
After Reconstruction, whites sought to reinforce patterns of racial hierarchy. Many southern states adopted laws expressly requiring racial segregation in transportation, schools, and elsewhere. The Supreme Court upheld such laws in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination only in connection with civil and political rights but not in connection with social rights such as were involved in education and transportation. The Court's doctrine indicated that states could require racial segregation only if the facilities provided the races were actually equal, but no state took the requirement of equality seriously, and the segregated schools and railroad cars available to African Americans were, typically, substantially worse than those available to whites. The Supreme Court's approval of segregation spurred southern legislatures to extend the Jim Crow system much more substantially to include separate seating in courtrooms; separate water fountains from which to drink; separate Bibles for swearing oaths in court; and separate swimming pools, parks, and golf courses.
De Jure Racial Segregation Declines, de Facto Racial Segregation Rises
African Americans continually mounted legal challenges to segregation, focusing at first on the inequality of facilities. Eventually, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Supreme Court became convinced that separate facilities could never be equal. As the social importance of de jure segregation declined with the repeal or invalidation of statutes specifically discriminating on the basis of race, the importance of de facto segregation increased. Migration of African Americans from the rural South to urban areas in the South and North led to significant increases in residential segregation, and—in a society where children went to their neighborhood schools—to de facto segregation in education.
Sometimes residential segregation was reinforced by law. In Buchanan v. Warley (1917), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional ordinances that effectively required residential segregation. In response, real estate agents and private developers began to include provisions, called restrictive covenants, in contracts for the purchase of housing that barred resale to purchasers of a race different from that of the homeowner. The Supreme Court eventually, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), held restrictive covenants unconstitutional, but not before patterns of residential segregation had become entrenched. National housing policy from the 1930s through the 1950s also reinforced residential segregation, as federal housing authorities required developers to include restrictive covenants and supported decisions by local housing authorities to segregate the buildings they owned. When combined with differences in the wealth of African Americans and whites, these policies helped create urban ghettoes in which African Americans and, in some parts of the country, Hispanic Americans were concentrated.
Some antidiscrimination laws enacted in the 1960s provided the legal basis for challenging de facto segregation, but in general such attacks failed. Legislatures and courts regarded de facto segregation as resulting from private choices by people with different amounts of money to spend on housing, and therefore as less morally questionable than de jure segregation. The Supreme Court held that only de jure segregation violated the Constitution. By the early 1970s, Justice William O. Douglas, a liberal, and Justice Lewis F. Powell, a moderate conservative, urged their colleagues to abandon the distinction between de jure and de facto discrimination. The Court never did, however, in part because liberals were concerned that the courts could not successfully take on the challenge of eliminating de facto segregation, while conservatives were concerned that the courts would try to do so.
Gender Segregation
Separation of men and women was also common. Often influenced by labor unions and early feminists, state legislatures adopted what were known as protective labor laws, barring women from particular occupations regarded as inappropriate for women, or restricting the hours women could work while leaving untouched employers' ability to contract with men for longer hours. In Muller v. Oregon (1908), the Supreme Court upheld a state law limiting the hours women could work, noting the extensive information about workplace safety submitted by public advocate Louis Brandeis. In Goesaert v. Cleary (1948), the Court upheld a law barring women from working as bartenders, except when their husbands owned the bars. Sincerely defended as being in the best interests of women who would become ill if they worked long hours, or morally degraded if they worked in certain occupations, the protective labor laws rested on assumptions about women's proper role that were part of a system of gender hierarchy.
The creation of separate educational institutions for girls and women had even more complex effects on the gender system. Women typically took different courses than men did, specializing in subjects that were thought particularly suitable for women who would be running households and caring for others, including children. Separate educational institutions, however, also provided women students a space within which they could develop free from competition with men, and their instructors gave women students models of intellectually engaged mature women whom the students could emulate.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning workplace discrimination based on sex, led courts to invalidate protective labor laws and employer work rules that had the effect of creating different departments for men and women. The feminist movement of the mid-twentieth century discredited the assumptions on which protective legislation rested and began to undermine the assumptions that had justified separate educational institutions for girls and women. From the 1960s on, colleges that had been segregated by gender voluntarily abandoned the practice, leaving only a handful of private colleges that admitted only men or only women. In United States v. Virginia (1996), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute, one of the remaining state-run schools that did so—although the Court's opinion suggested that separate education for women might have more justification than did schools for men only.
Voluntary Segregation
In the 1990s, a minor flurry of interest arose in the creation of public schools for young African American men, which would have revived a form of de jure racial segregation. No such schools were created, largely because the nation's commitment against de jure racial segregation was so strong. Voluntary programs of racial separation, in the form of separate dormitories for African Americans at private colleges, had somewhat more support, and defenders of separate educational institutions for women and separate sports programs for men and women could be found even more easily. The different ways that de jure and de facto segregation contribute to creating racial and gender hierarchy seem to account for the stronger opposition to de jure than to de facto segregation, with de jure segregation expressing more clearly a social preference for hierarchy.
Bibliography
Kerber, Linda. No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998.
Kousser, J. Morgan. "'The Supremacy of Equal Rights': The Struggle Against Racial Discrimination in Antebellum Massachusetts and the Foundations of the Fourteenth Amendment." Northwestern University Law Review 82 (Summer 1988): 941–1010.
Welke, Barbara Y. "When All the Women Were White, and All the Blacks Were Men: Gender, Class, Race and the Road to Plessy, 1855–1914." Law and History Review 13 (1995): 261–316.
Woodward, C. Vann. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. 3d rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Gale Encyclopedia of Education:
Segregation |
Segregation in education is a systemic practice or policy of establishing and maintaining racially separate educational facilities, services, and activities. Historically, racial segregation in education includes assigning African-American and white students to separate school facilities because of race, and assigning only African-American teachers, staff, and administrators to schools established for African-American students while assigning only white teachers, staff, and administrators to schools established for white students. Racial segregation also involves the use of separate buses for African-American and white students and racially separate extracurricular activities, such as athletic programs. Segregation in education also includes widespread discrimination in the educational process against groups other than African Americans, such as Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics. The practice of segregation in education involves all levels of the educational process: elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools.
The American legal system has played a major role in the creation, maintenance, and elimination of segregation in public education. In the American legal system the courts generally are responsible for the interpretation of laws, and major court decisions constitute a framework of reference for discussion of the legal aspects of segregation in education. There are fifty-one legal systems in the United States: one for each of the fifty states and a separate federal legal system created by the Constitution of the United States. Although each state legal system has some responsibility for resolving legal issues about segregation in education, it is the federal legal system, and particularly the Supreme Court of the United States, that has the major role in deciding legal issues involving segregation in public education.
Any meaningful discussion of the legal aspects of segregation in education inevitably centers on the national commitment to equality that has been read into the Constitution of the United States. America did not formally commit itself to equality until after the Civil War when it abolished slavery in the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), provided individuals equal protection of the law in the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), and guaranteed individuals the right to vote in the Fifteenth Amendment (1870). An important provision of the Constitution that embraces the national commitment to equality is the Fourteenth Amendment which provides that "[n]o State shall … deny any persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A primary reason for the national commitment to equality is to eliminate racial discrimination against African-Americans in all aspects of governmental (or public) activities. Congress has a role in implementing the equality policy and carries out this role when it enacts laws, including laws to eliminate segregation in education. In the final analysis the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, have final authority to interpret the meaning of equality. Over time the federal courts have adopted different meanings of equality.
History
No provision in the Constitution of the United States requires governments to provide an education for any person. Rather the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires only that if a state provides public education it must make it available to all of its individuals without regards to race. All states provide a system of public education at all levels: elementary, secondary, and college-level. Racial segregation in education in the United States has its genesis in the institution of slavery. The dominant social philosophy during slavery was that African Americans were inferior to whites. The Supreme Court legalized slavery's social philosophy in 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The Court held, in Dred Scott, that even emancipated African Americans who had been free for many years were to be "regarded as beings of an inferior order" who were "altogether unfit to associate with the white race," and were "so far inferior that they [had] no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Laws prohibited education of slaves prior to the abolition of slavery in slave-holding states.
In some nonslave-holding states, public schools were desegregated when they first appeared in the United States, but eventually some African-American parents took steps to set up privately funded separate schools for their children because of their dissatisfaction with the quality of education their children received in racially integrated schools. Later, some of these African-Americans students sought admission to publicly funded schools, but public school committees instead set up racially separate schools for them.
As early as 1849 a Massachusetts state court, in Roberts v. City of Boston, upheld the segregation of African-American and white students in public schools. The plaintiff in Roberts was a five-year-old African-American student who challenged the Boston, Massachusetts, school committee's refusal to admit her to an all-white primary school. Rejecting the plaintiff's argument that segregation of students in public schools because of race violated the state's constitutional mandate of equality, the court held that the school committee's decision represented a reasonable and nondiscriminatory exercise of its power. The court held also that if racial segregation generated feelings of prejudice in black students, then law probably could not change those feelings. Roberts was one of the first cases to adopt the separate-but-equal theory of equality. The separate-but-equal theory of equality, like the Dred Scott philosophy, was motivated by racism; thus it did not make it lawful for school boards to establish racially segregated schools. The Supreme Court relied on the Roberts case in its 1986 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson to hold that racial segregation of African Americans and whites was lawful and therefore did not violate the equality policy in the federal constitution. A few state courts rejected the Roberts case's separate-but-equal doctrine by holding that racially segregated schools violate the rights of African-American students to equality.
Almost immediately after the Civil War and the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, southern states enacted laws called "black codes." These codes were enacted to try to retain as much as possible the Dred Scott philosophy by codifying almost every aspect of the lives of former slaves, including circumstances under which they could be educated. Legally mandated racial segregation was not confined to public schools, nor was it confined to the south. Many border and northern states maintained some form of segregation, including public schools, until the end of World War II.
From Plessy to Brown
In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court held that a Louisiana law requiring racial segregation of passengers in railway coaches was not prohibited by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Louisiana law required "separate railway carriages for the white and colored races" on all passenger railways within Louisiana. In upholding the Louisiana law, the Court legally sanctioned the separate-but-equal theory of equality. The separate-but-equal doctrine holds that the equality does not require racial integration if a state provides separate accommodations or services for blacks that are equal to those provided to whites. The Roberts decision, rather than its subsequent repeal by the Massachusetts legislature, was a major legal precedent on which the Supreme Court relied in its Plessy decision. In Cumming v. Richmond Board of Education, the Court suggested that the constitutionality of segregation in the field of education had not yet been decided. But in Gong Lum v. Rice, decided in 1927, the Court relied upon both the Plessy and Roberts cases to reject a claim by a Chinese-American student who claimed that she had been denied equal protection because she had been assigned to a public school for African-American students. Despite the ambivalence in the Supreme Court cases on whether the Plessy separate-but-equal theory of equality applied to public education, the courts, including the Supreme Court, accepted the view that the Plessy case stated a legal rule that applied equally to public education (Briggs v. Elliot).
The separate-but-equal theory of equality provided the legal foundations for racial segregation in education (and all other state supported activities) until the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I) in 1954. Brown I was the result of a litigation strategy that relied upon a series of test cases to try to convince the Supreme Court to reject the separate-but-equal theory of equality. In a series of "equalization" cases before Brown I, major civil rights organizations claimed that state-funded graduate and professional schools for African Americans, although racially "separate," did not provide African-American students an education opportunity "equal" to educational opportunities available to white students in schools reserved for whites. Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first African-American justice of the Supreme Court, played a major role in the legal campaign to overturn the separate-but-equal doctrine. Brown I involved legal challenges to segregated elementary and secondary public schools in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
The Supreme Court rejected the separate-but-equal doctrine in Brown I. The legal issue in Brown I was whether state-supported racial segregation in public elementary and secondary schools was lawful under the equal protection clause of the federal constitution even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal. In specifically addressing this issue, the Court held that "[i]n the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place" because "[s]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal." The Court, in Brown I, left undecided the issue of what states had to do to eliminate racially segregated schools, but it addressed that issue about year later in Brown II. In Brown II, the Court ordered lower federal courts to require school authorities to "make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance" with Brown I, and to admit students to public schools on a "racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed."
From Brown to Freeman
The southern states engaged in massive resistance to the Brown decisions. "Massive resistance" is a term that was coined in the era after Brown to describe southern states' efforts to evade and avoid the legal mandate of Brown I. Massive resistance took many forms. Some southern communities, for example, closed their schools rather than allow African-American and white students to attend the same schools. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to use the National Guard to help integrate white schools in Arkansas. Other school districts adopted "pupil placement" plans, "minority to majority" transfer plans, or "freedom of choice" schemes, all of which were adopted to avoid compliance with Brown I ; and most of these tactics succeeded in maintaining racially segregated state-supported school systems for more than a decade. The various massive resistance schemes required African-Americans parents and students to initiate legal action against many school districts in an effort to compel compliance with Brown I.
The massive resistance to Brown I produced minimal desegregation of schools by the time the Court decided Green v. School Board of New Kent County in 1968. In Green, the Court held, for the first time, that Brown I imposed an affirmative obligation on school districts to convert segregated, dual-school school systems to unitary school systems in which racial discrimination would be eliminated "root and branch." A unitary school system is one that has fully complied with the mandate of Brown I. Green also enunciated at least six criteria that lower federal courts should consider in determining whether a school system has achieved a unitary status. Those criteria focus on student assignments, faculty assignments, staff assignments, transportation (busing), extracurricular activities, and school facilities. A year later, the Court, in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, held that the Brown II"'deliberate speed' for desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible." The federal courts have developed a substantial body of case law on remedies to determine whether dual school systems are progressing toward a unitary, nonsegregated system. These remedies include busing, magnet schools, and the location of new schools in geographical areas to maximize racial integration.
In school desegregation litigation, the Supreme Court has made an important distinction between de jure and de facto racial discrimination. De jure segregation is intentional racial discrimination that is affirmatively required by state law, custom, or usage. De facto segregation is racial separateness that occurs without the sanction of law. Brown I generally is inapplicable to de facto segregation. There has been no effort by the Supreme Court to address the constitutionality of de facto segregation since 1973 when the Supreme Court refused in Keyes v. School District No. 1 to abandon the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation.
During the years following World War II, there developed an exodus of white families who relocated to suburbia. This exodus has been described as "white flight." In the school desegregation cases, white flight is the mass migration of whites from urban communities to suburban communities to avoid enrolling their children in racially integrated inner-city schools. One of the results of white flight has been that African Americans and other persons of color have largely populated many inner cities. As a result, there are many school districts throughout the United States with a significant number of schools with no or very little racial integration.
Many school districts have been under the supervision of federal courts since 1954 when the Court decided Brown I. The Supreme Court has held that federal supervision of school desegregation programs was intended to be a temporary measure, and not to operate in perpetuity. Local control of education comes from the Constitution. The power to control education has not been delegated to the federal government; rather it is the responsibility of the various states. In several cases, the Supreme Court has provided illustrations of circumstances under which school boards should be released from federal courts supervision of desegregation orders. In Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowel, the Court held that a formerly segregated school districts may be released from court-ordered busing as long as all "practicable" steps to eliminate the vestiges of past de jure segregation have been taken. In Freeman v. Pits, the Court made clear that racial isolation of schools brought on by white flight that was not the fault of school districts is not subject to the mandate of Brown I and its progeny. In Freeman, the Court held that federal courts are justified in relinquishing supervision over school districts subject to desegregation in piecemeal fashion before full compliance with the Green criteria has been achieved. And in Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court held that a lower federal district court funding order, which relied upon creating and maintaining "desegregative attractiveness" in order to deal with white flight, was outside of the authority of the federal courts under Brown I.
Segregation in Higher Education
The Supreme Court has held that the rule it announced in Brown I is applicable to segregation in higher education, but made a distinction between the obligation of states to remedy segregation in higher education and elementary and secondary education. In United States v. Fordice, the Court addressed the issue whether, under Brown I, states that have engaged in de jure discrimination in higher education are obligated to take steps beyond adopting race-neutral admission policies to desegregate these educational institutions. In response to this question, the Court held that states have an affirmative legal obligation to remedy the remnants of prior de jure segregation. The standard the Court adopted for higher education was that states have an obligation to eliminate all policies and practices that continue to have a discriminatory effect and that are traceable to the prior de jure system.
Sex-Based Segregated Schools
United States v. Virginia is an important Supreme Court case involving sex discrimination in higher education. The case involved the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), an educational institution established by Virginia. VMI excluded females because of their gender. The Court held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment applies to sex segregation, but applied a different standard than is applicable to race discrimination. The legal rule for determining the legality of publicly supported separate schools based on gender is a more differential standard than the legal rule that is applied to racially segregated schools. Even under the differential standard used in sex discrimination cases, the Supreme Court held that VMI's policy of excluding women because of their gender was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
Bibliography
Brown, S. Christopher, II. 1999. The Quest to Define Collegiate Desegregation. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Fairfax, Lisa. 1999. "The Silent Resurrection of Plessy: The Supreme Court's Acquiescence in the Resegregation of America's Schools." Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review 9:1 - 57.
Kluger, Richard. 1976. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Knopf.
Ware, Leland B. 2001. "Setting the Stage for Brown: The Development and Implementation of the NAACP's School Desegregation Campaign, 1930 - 1950." Mercer Law Review 52:631 - 673.
Williams, Juan. 1987. Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years: 1954 - 1965. New York: Viking.
— ROBERT BELTON
West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
Segregation |
The act or process of separating a race, class, or ethnic group from a society's general population.
Segregation in the United States has been practiced, for the most part, on African Americans. Segregation by law, or de jure segregation, of African Americans was developed by state legislatures and local lawmaking bodies in southern states shortly after the Civil War. De facto segregation, or inadvertent segregation, continues to exist in varying degrees in both northern and southern states.
De facto segregation arises from social and economic factors and cannot be traced to official government action. For example, zoning laws that forbid multifamily housing can have the effect of excluding all but the wealthiest persons from a particular community.
De jure segregation was instituted in the southern states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The state legislatures in the southern states accomplished de jure segregation by creating separate facilities, services, and areas for African Americans. Blacks were separated from the rest of society in virtually every facility, service, and circumstance, including schools, public drinking fountains, public lavatories, restaurants, theaters, hotels and motels, welfare services, hospitals, cemeteries, residences, military facilities, and all modes of transportation.
The quality of these facilities and services was invariably inferior to the facilities and services used by the rest of the communities. Laws in many states also prohibited miscegenation, or marriage between racially mixed couples. If an African American failed to observe segregation and used facilities reserved for white persons, she could be arrested and prosecuted.
In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court gave explicit approval to segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896). The High Court declared in Plessy that segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment if the separate facilities and services for African Americans were equal to the facilities and services for white persons. This separate-but-equal doctrine survived until 1954.
That year, in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), the Court reversed the Plessy decision. In Brown, the Court ruled that state-sponsored segregation did violate the guarantee of equal protection under the laws provided to all citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Brown case concerned only the segregation of schools, but the Court's rationale was used throughout the 1950s to strike down all the remaining state and local segregation laws.
In the 1960s Congress took steps to curtail segregation in private life. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a et seq.) forbade segregation in all privately owned public facilities subject to any form of federal control under the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution. Facilities covered by the act included restaurants, hotels, retail stores, and recreational facilities. States began to follow suit by passing laws that prohibited discrimination in housing and employment. In 1968 the Supreme Court ruled that a seller or lessor of property could not refuse to sell or rent to a person based on that person's race or color (Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 2186, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1189 [1968]).
In 1971 the Court held in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S. Ct. 1267, 28 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1971), that busing schoolchildren to different schools was an acceptable means of combating de facto segregation in schools. However, subsequent court decisions have rejected the forced integration of predominantly white suburban school districts with largely black urban districts, and public education remains effectively segregated in many areas of the United States.
See: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas; Civil Rights; Integration; Jim Crow Laws; Plessy v. Ferguson; School Desegregation.
Investopedia Financial Dictionary:
Segregation |
Segregation is the separation of an individual or group of individuals from a larger group, often in order to apply special treatment to the separated individual or group. Segregation can also involve the separation of items from a larger group, as seen with the handling of funds in certain types of accounts.
Segregation applied to the securities industry, for example, requires that customer assets being held by a broker or other financial institution be kept separate – or segregated – from the broker or financial institution’s assets. This is referred to as security segregation.
Investopedia Says:
Segregated accounts usually have different privileges and requirements than those held by the general public. Portfolio managers will often create portfolio models which will be applied to the majority of the assets under management. However, some discretionary accounts may be introduced for investors with requirements or risk aversion deviating from the behavior of typical individuals.
Related Links:
When is it acceptable for a broker to commingle funds with a client?
America is addicted to debt. Learn how to manage your credit and keep debt from ruining your life. Credit And Debt Management: Credit And Relationships
This arrangement allows you to have more control over your estate - both before and after your death. Establishing A Revocable Living Trust
Forex scams are more common than you may realize. Know the signs before you throw your money away. Spotting A Forex Scam
Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Politics:
segregation |
The policy and practice of imposing the separation of races. In the United States, the policy of segregation denied African-Americans their civil rights and provided inferior facilities and services for them, most noticeably in public schools (see Brown versus Board of Education), housing, and industry. (See integration, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and separate but equal.)
Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry:
segregation |
| segmentation genes, segmentation, segment polarity gene | |
| segresome, selachyl alcohol, selectable marker |
Saunders Veterinary Dictionary:
segregation |
The separation of allelic genes during meiosis as homologous chromosomes begin to migrate toward opposite poles of the cell, so that eventually the members of each pair of allelic genes go to separate gametes.
Random House Word Menu:
categories related to 'segregation' |
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Racial segregation |
| Part of a series of articles on Racial segregation |
|
|---|---|
 |
|
| Segregation in the US | |
| Australia | |
| White Australia policy | |
| South Africa under Apartheid | |
| Bantustan | |
| Rhodesia | |
Racial segregation is the separation of humans into racial groups in daily life. It may apply to activities such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a public toilet, attending school, going to the movies, or in the rental or purchase of a home.[1] Segregation itself is defined by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as "the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds without an objective and reasonable justification, in conformity with the proposed definition of discrimination. As a result, the voluntary act of separating oneself from other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds does not constitute segregation".[2] According to the UN Forum on Minority Issues, "The creation and development of classes and schools providing education in minority languages should not be considered impermissible segregation, if the assignment to such classes and schools is of a voluntary nature".[3]
Racial segregation is generally outlawed, but may exist through social norms, even when there is no strong individual preference for it, as suggested by Thomas Schelling's models of segregation and subsequent work. Segregation may be maintained by means ranging from discrimination in hiring and in the rental and sale of housing to certain races to vigilante violence (such as lynchings, e.g.) Generally, a situation that arises when members of different races mutually prefer to associate and do business with members of their own race would usually be described as separation or de facto separation of the races rather than segregation. In the United States, legal segregation was required in some states and came with "anti-miscegenation laws" (prohibitions against interracial marriage).[4] Segregation, however, often allowed close contact in hierarchical situations, such as allowing a person of one race to work as a servant for a member of another race. Segregation can involve spatial separation of the races, and/or mandatory use of different institutions, such as schools and hospitals by people of different races.
|
Contents
|
Racial segregation has appeared in all parts of the world where there are multiracial communities. Where racial amalgamation has occurred on a large scale, as in Hawaii and Brazil, there was no legal segregation, however, there has been occasional social discrimination. [5]
Between 3,000–8,000 years ago, Indo-European-speaking nomadic groups from Europe, the Near East, Anatolia, and the Caucasus migrated to India, and according to some historians, established the caste system, an elitist form of social organization separating the light-skinned Indo-Aryan conquerors from the conquered dark-skinned indigenous Dravidian tribes through enforcement of racial endogamy. In this system, the Dravidians and other aboriginal stocks were legally subject to rigorous segregation and bound to servile occupations.[6][7]
According to Indian historian Nirad C. Chaudhuri, "If the whole of Sanskrit literature, sacred or profane, makes one thing clear, it is that there is one line no Hindu could cross, and that was the line which separated the Aryan in India from the non-Aryan. The two ethnic nouns even acquired moral connotations: to be Arya was to be noble and honourable, and to be Anarya was to be base and dishonourable. The non-Aryans were beyond the pale of Hindu society, and therefore untouchable. The Aryan Hindus regarded them with fear, hatred, contempt and disgust..."[8] However there is no decisive theory as to the origins of the caste system in India, and historians and archaeologists like Jim Shaffer, J.P. Mallory, Edwin Bryant have disputed the claim of "Aryan Invasion".[9]
Some researchers from India, Europe and the U.S. claim that genetic similarities to Europeans were more common in members of the higher ranks.[10] Their findings, published in Genome Research, claimed the idea that members of higher castes are more closely related to Europeans than are the lower castes.[11][12] However, other researchers have criticized and contradicted this claim.[13] A study by Joanna L. Mountain et al. of Stanford University had concluded that there was "no clear separation into three genetically distinct groups along caste lines", although "an inferred tree revealed some clustering according to caste affiliation".[14] A 2006 study by Ismail Thanseem et al. of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (India) concluded that the "lower caste groups might have originated with the hierarchical divisions that arose within the tribal groups with the spread of Neolithic agriculturalists, much earlier than the arrival of Aryan speakers", and "the Indo-Europeans established themselves as upper castes among this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes."[15] A 2006 genetic study by the National Institute of Biologicals in India, testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups, concluded that the Indians have acquired very few genes from Indo-European speakers.[16] A study conducted by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in 2009 (in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT) analyzed half a million genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 ethnic groups from 13 states in India across multiple caste groups.[17] The study indicated, based on the impossibility of identifying any genetic indicators across caste lines, that castes in South Asia grew out of traditional tribal organizations during the formation of Indian society, and was not the product of any "Aryan Invasion" and "subjugation" of Dravidian people.[18]
Jews in Europe generally were forced, by decree or by informal pressure, to live in highly segregated ghettos and shtetls.[19] In 1204 the papacy required Jews to segregate themselves from Christians and to wear distinctive clothing.[20] Forced segregation of Jews spread throughout Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries.[21] In the Russian Empire, Jews were restricted to the so-called Pale of Settlement, the Western frontier of the Russian Empire corresponding roughly to the modern-day countries of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.[22] By the early 20th century, the majority of European Jews lived in the Pale of Settlement.
Jewish population were confined to mellahs in Morocco beginning from the 15th century. In cities, a mellah was surrounded by a wall with a fortified gateway. In contrast, rural mellahs were separate villages inhabited solely by the Jews.[23]
In the middle of the 19th century, J. J. Benjamin wrote about the life of Persian Jews:
"…they are obliged to live in a separate part of town…; for they are considered as unclean creatures… Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt… For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans… If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him… unmercifully… If a Jew enters a shop for anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods… Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses to ask for them... Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever please them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defense of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life... If... a Jew shows himself in the street during the three days of the Katel (Muharram)…, he is sure to be murdered."[24]
Racial Segregation in Canada, particularly British Columbia, was widespread during colonial times and continued through the 1950s. Early workplaces were often segregated, with different groups being allowed certain jobs and rates of pay. Fish canneries & coal mines were both highly segregated. In coal mining opes - such as the one at Cumberland in Vancouver Island - had separate China Towns, "Jap" Towns and white towns. Fish canneries were segregated as well - with separate living areas and jobs for Whites, Japanese, Chinese and First Nations ('Indians'). Non-whites were usually paid less and segregation served to prevent labour solidarity. Following the internment of the Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, the Japanese were removed from these systems and more First Nations were hired. In some locations there were whites-only bathrooms and water fountains. At Namu Cannery this system existed - though the Japanese were considered 'honourary whites' and allowed to use white bathrooms. In the case of Namu - it was desegregated when a group of First Nations women removed the 'whites-only' signs and took them to the cannery manager in the mid-20th century.
First Nations (Indigenous/Native people) were also prohibited from using the same facilities in transportation - rail cars, accommodations on steamships are two examples. Both First Nations, and Asians were restricted from some professions in the early 20th Century. Indians were also prohibited from entering pool halls or bars, and owning logging licences (required to log). The right to vote was granted to Indians in 1960 for federal elections. Other non-white groups acquired voting rights earlier - shortly after World War Two.
Schools were segregated in some areas. The last segregated black school (Merlin, Ontario) was closed in 1965. The last Canadian segregated black school (Guysborough, Nova Scotia) was closed in 1983.[25]
Several laws enforcing racial segregation of foreigners from Chinese were passed by the Han chinese during the Tang dynasty. In 779 the Tang dynasty issued an edict which forced Uighurs to wear their ethnic dress, stopped them from marrying Chinese females, and banned them from pretending to be Chinese. Chinese disliked Uighurs because they practiced usury. The magristrate who issued the orders may have wanted to protect "purity" in Chinese custom. In 836 Lu Chun was appointed as governor of Canton, he was disgusted to find Chinese living with foreigners and intermarriage between Chinese and foreigners. Lu enforced separation, banning interracial marriages, and made it illegal for foreigners to own property. Lu Chun believed his principles were just and upright.[26] The 836 law specifically banned Chinese from forming relationships with "Dark peoples" or "People of colour", which was used to describe foreigners, such as "Iranians, Sogdians, Arabs, Indians, Malays, Sumatrans", among others.[27][28]
The Qing Dynasty was founded not by the Han Chinese who form the majority of the Chinese population, but the Manchus, who are today an ethnic minority of China. The Manchus were keenly aware of their minority status and during the early eras of their reign, they implemented a strict policy of racial segregation between the Manchus and Han Chinese. This ethnic segregation had cultural and economic reasons: intermarriage was forbidden to keep up the Manchurian heritage and minimize sinicization. Han Chinese and Mongols were banned from settling in Manchuria.[29] The Qing Dynasty started colonizing Manchuria with Han Chinese later on in the dynasty's rule, but the Manchu area was still separated from modern-day Inner Mongolia by the Outer Willow Palisade, which kept the Manchu and the Mongols in the area separate.
The policy of segregation applied directly to the banner garrisons, most of which occupied a separate walled zone within the cities in which they were stationed. While the Manchus followed the governmental structure of the preceding Ming dynasty, their ethnic policy dictated that appointments were split between Manchu noblemen and Han Chinese officials who had passed the highest levels of the state examinations, and because of the small number of Manchus, this insured that a large fraction of them would be government officials.
Segregation may have existed in early Anglo-Saxon England, restricting intermarriage and resulting in the displacement of the native British population by Germanic incomers.[30] According to research led by the University College London, Anglo-Saxon settlers enjoyed substantial social and economic advantages over Celtic Britons.[31] However, Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes argue that there was no population displacement, as the Anglo-Saxons had relatively little genetic impact on England.[32][33] In 2002, the BBC used the headline "English and Welsh are races apart" to report a genetic survey of test subjects from market towns in England and Wales.[34]
The Statutes of Kilkenny were a series of thirty-five acts passed at Kilkenny in 1366. They forbad the intermarriage between the native Irish and the English settlers in Ireland, the English fostering of Irish children, the English adoption of Irish children and use of Irish names and dress.[35]
In the early 14th century, some guilds in the cities of North-East Germany introduced statutes, under which persons of Wendish, i.e. Slavic, origin were forbidden from joining the guild.[36] According to Wilhelm Raabe, "down into the eighteenth century no German guild accepted a Wend."[37]
The ban of interracial marriage was part of the Nuremberg Laws enacted by the Nazis in Germany against the German Jewish community during the 1930s. The laws prohibited marriages between Jews and Aryan Germans, which were classified as different races.[38]
Under the General Government of occupied Poland in 1940, the Nazis divided the population into different groups, each with different rights, food rations, allowed housing strips in the cities, public transportation, etc. In an effort to split Polish identity they attempted to establish ethnic divisions of Kashubians and Gorals (Goralenvolk), based on these groups' alleged "Germanic component".
.jpg)
During the 1930s and 1940s, Jews in Nazi-controlled states were made to wear yellow ribbons or stars of David, and were, along with Romas (Gypsies), discriminated against by the racial laws. Jewish doctors and professors were not allowed to treat Aryan (effectively, gentile) patients or teach Aryan pupils, respectively. The Jews were not allowed to use any public transportation, besides the ferry, and were able to shop only from 3-5 pm in Jewish stores. After Kristallnacht ("The Night of Broken Glass"), the Jews were fined 1,000,000 marks for damages done by the Nazi troops and SS members.
Jews and Roma were subjected to genocide as "undesirable" "racial" groups in the Holocaust. The Nazis established ghettos to confine Jews and sometimes Romas into tightly packed areas of the cities of Eastern Europe, turning them into de-facto concentration camps. The Warsaw Ghetto was the largest of these ghettos, with 400,000 people. The Ghetto Litzmannstadt was the second largest, holding about 160,000.[39]
Between 1939 and 1945, at least 1.5 million Polish citizens were transported to the Reich for forced labour (in all, about 12 million forced laborers were employed in the German war economy inside the Nazi Germany).[40][41] Although Nazi Germany also used forced laborers from Western Europe, Poles, along with other Eastern Europeans viewed as racially inferior,[42] were subject to deeper discriminatory measures. They were forced to wear identifying red tags with "P"s sewn to their clothing, subjected to a curfew, and banned from public transportation.
While the treatment of factory workers or farm hands often varied depending on the individual employer, Polish laborers as a rule were compelled to work longer hours for lower wages than Western Europeans — in many cities, they were forced to live in segregated barracks behind barbed wire. Social relations with Germans outside work were forbidden, and sexual relations (Rassenschande or "racial defilement") were punishable by death.[43]
In 1938, the fascist regime led by Benito Mussolini introduced a series of laws instituting an official segregationist policy in the Italian Empire, especially aimed against the Jews. This policy enforced various segregationist norms, like the prohibition for Jews to teach or study in ordinary schools and universities, to own industries reputed of major national interest, to work as journalists, to enter the military, and to wed non-Jews. Some of the immediate consequences of the introduction of the 'provvedimenti per la difesa della razza' (norms for the defence of the race) included many of the best Italian scientists leaving their job, or even Italy. Amongst these, world-renowned physicists Emilio Segrè, Enrico Fermi (whose wife was Jewish), Bruno Pontecorvo, Bruno Rossi, Tullio Levi-Civita, mathematicians Federigo Enriques and Guido Fubini and even the fascist propaganda director, art critic and journalist Margherita Sarfatti, who was one of Mussolini's mistresses. Rita Levi-Montalcini, who would successively win the Nobel Prize for medicine, was forbidden to work at the university. Albert Einstein, upon approval of the racial law, resigned from honorary membership of the Accademia dei Lincei.
Later, Fascist Italy participated actively in the persecution of the Italian Jews, arresting and handing over tens of thousands of Jews to Nazi Germany. The persecution of the Jews ended in southern Italy (controlled by the Kingdom of Italy) after the armistice with the Allies (September 8, 1943), while in central and northern Italy (controlled by the Italian Social Republic, a puppet state of Nazi Germany led by Mussolini) the persecution continued until the definitive fall of Mussolini's regime (April 25, 1945).
Spanish colonists created caste systems in Latin American countries based on classification by race and race mixture. An entire nomenclature developed, including the familiar terms "mulatto", "mestizo", and "zambo" (the latter the origin of "sambo"). The Spanish had practiced a form of caste system in Hispania prior to their expulsion of the Jews and Muslims. While many Latin American countries have long since rendered the system officially illegal through legislation, usually at the time of independence, prejudice based on degrees of perceived racial distance from European ancestry combined with one's socioeconomic status remain, an echo of the colonial caste system.[44][45]
On May 16, 1940 the Administrasjonsrådet asked Rikskommisariatet why radio receivers had been confiscated from jews in Norway.[46] That Administrasjonsrådet thereafter "quietly" accepted[47] racial segregation between Norwegian citizens, has been claimed by Tor Bomann-Larsen. Furthermore he claimed that this segregation "created a precedent. 2 years later ( with NS-styret in the ministries of Norway) Norwegian police picked up those who had listened to the radios at the addresses where radios were previously confiscated from Jews. November 26, 1942 it was time for departure and extermination".[48]
The British colony of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), under Ian Smith, leader of the white minority government, declared unilateral independence in 1965. For the next 15 years, Rhodesia operated under white minority rule until international sanctions forced Smith to hold multiracial elections, after a brief period of re-established British rule in 1979.
Laws enforcing segregation had been around before 1965, although many institutions simply ignored them. One highly publicized legal battle occurred in 1960 involving the opening of a new theatre that was to be open to all races; the inclusion of an unsegregated restroom led to an argument nicknamed "The Battle of the Toilets".
The Apartheid system enacted a nation-wide social policy "separate development" with the National Party victory in 1948, following the "colour bar"-discriminatory legislation dating back to the beginning of the Union of South Africa and the Boer republics before which, while repressive to black South Africans along with other minorities, had not gone nearly so far.
Apartheid laws can be generally divided into following acts. Firstly, the Population Registration Act in 1950 classified residents in South Africa into four racial groups: "black", "white", "colored", and "Indian" and noted their racial identities on their identifications. Secondly, the Group Areas Act in 1950 assigned different regions according to different races. People were forced to live in their corresponding regions and the action of passing the boundaries without a permit was made illegal, extending pass laws that had already curtailed black movement. Thirdly, Under the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in 1953, amenities in public area, like hospitals, universities and parks, were labeled separately according to particular races. What is more, the Bantu Education Act in 1953 segregated national education in South Africa as well.
Uprisings and protests against Apartheid appeared immediately when Apartheid arose. As early as 1949, the youth wing of the African National Congress (ANC) advocated the abolishment of Apartheid and suggested fighting against racial segregation by various methods. During the following decades, hundreds of anti-Apartheid actions occurred, including those of the Black Consciousness Movement, students’ protests, labor strikes, and church group activism etc. In 1994, Nelson Mandela won in the first multiracial democratic election in South Africa. His success fulfilled the ending of Apartheid in South African history.
After the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in America, racial discrimination became regulated by the so called Jim Crow laws, which mandated strict segregation of the races. Though such laws were instituted shortly after fighting ended in many cases, they only became formalized after the end of Republican-enforced Reconstruction in the 1870s and 80s during a period known as the nadir of American race relations. This legalized segregation lasted up to the mid 1960s,
While the U.S. Supreme Court majority in 1896 Plessy explicitly upheld only "separate but equal" facilities (specifically, transportation facilities), Justice John Marshall Harlan in his dissent protested that the decision was an expression of white supremacy; he predicted that segregation would "stimulate aggressions … upon the admitted rights of colored citizens," "arouse race hate" and "perpetuate a feeling of distrust between [the] races. Feelings between whites and blacks were so tense, even the jails were segregated."[49]
Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., working during the period from the end of World War II through the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 supported by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many of their efforts were acts of non-violent civil disobedience aimed at disrupting the enforcement of racial segregation rules and laws, such as refusing to give up a seat in the black part of the bus to a white person (Rosa Parks), or holding sit-ins at all-white diners.
By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and by 1970 support for formal legal segregation had dissolved. Formal racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support.
Since then, African-Americans have played a significant role as mayors, governors, and state officials in both Southern and Northern states and on the national level have been on the Supreme Court, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, in presidential cabinets, as head of the joint chiefs of staff, and in 2009, the first black President of the United States.
Redlining is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services, such as banking, insurance, access to jobs,[50] access to health care,[51] or even supermarkets[52] to residents in certain, often racially determined,[53] areas. The most devastating form of redlining, and the most common use of the term, refers to mortgage discrimination. Over the next twenty years, a succession of further court decisions and federal laws, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and measure to end mortgage discrimination in 1975, would completely invalidate de jure racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S., although de facto segregation and discrimination have proven more resilient. According to the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, the actual de facto desegregation of U.S. public schools peaked in the late 1980s; since that time, the schools have, in fact, become more segregated mainly due to the ethnic segregation of the nation with whites dominating the suburbs and minorities the urban centers.
The Supreme Court Cases: Dred Scott v. Sandford -- 1857, slaves considered not citizens but property
Plessy v. Ferguson -- 1896, segregation allowed if equal but separate
Irene Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia -- 1946, segregation of races not allowed on motor carriers
Sweatt v. Painter -- 1950, higher education facilities must be equal in order to be segregated; "intangibles" must be taken into account when determining quality
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas -- 1954, segregation outlawed in public schools
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County -- 1968, parents cannot choose a previous all-white or all-black school for children
On 28 April 2007, the lower house of Bahraini Parliament passed a law banning unmarried migrant workers from living in residential areas. To justify the law MP Nasser Fadhala, a close ally of the government said "bachelors also use these houses to make alcohol, run prostitute rings or to rape children and housemaids".[54]
Sadiq Rahma, technical committee head, who is a member of Al Wefaq said: "The rules we are drawing up are designed to protect the rights of both the families and the Asian bachelors (..) these labourers often have habits which are difficult for families living nearby to tolerate (..) they come out of their homes half dressed, brew alcohol illegally in their homes, use prostitutes and make the neighbourhood dirty (..) these are poor people who often live in groups of 50 or more, crammed into one house or apartment," said Mr Rahma. "The rules also state that there must be at least one bathroom for every five people (..) there have also been cases in which young children have been sexually molested."[55]
Bahrain Centre for Human Rights issued a press release condemning this decision as discriminatory and promoting negative racist attitudes towards migrant workers.[56][54] Nabeel Rajab, then BCHR vice president, said: "It is appalling that Bahrain is willing to rest on the benefits of these people’s hard work, and often their suffering, but that they refuse to live with them in equality and dignity. The solution is not to force migrant workers into ghettos, but to urge companies to improve living conditions for workers – and not to accommodate large numbers of workers in inadequate space, and to improve the standard of living for them."[56][54]
In Canada, the Mohawk tribe of Kahnawake has been criticized for evicting non-Mohawks from the Mohawk reserve.[57] Mohawks who marry outside of their race lose their right to live in their homelands.[58][59] The Mohawk government claims that its policy of racially exclusive membership is for the preservation of its identity,[60] but there is no exemption for those who adopt Mohawk language or culture.[58] The policy is based on a 1981 moratorium which was made law in 1984.[61] All interracial couples are sent eviction notices regardless of how long they have lived on the reserve.[59] The only exemption is for interracial couples married before the 1981 moratorium.
Although some concerned Mohawk citizens have contested the racially-exclusive membership policy, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the Mohawk government may adopt policies it deems necessary to ensure the survival of its people.[60]
A long standing practice of segregation has also been imposed upon the commercial salmon fishery in British Columbia since 1992 when separate commercial fisheries were created for select aboriginal groups on three B.C. river systems. Canadians of other races who fish in the separate fisheries have been arrested, jailed and prosecuted. Although the fishermen who were prosecuted were successful at trial (see the decision in R. v. Kapp),[62] the decision was overturned on appeal.[63] On final appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the program on the grounds that segregation of this workplace is a step towards equality in Canada.[64] Affirmative action programs in Canada are protected from equality rights challenges by s. 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The segregation continues today though more than 35 percent of the fishermen in the B.C. commercial fishery are of aboriginal ancestry, yet Canadians of aboriginal ancestry comprise less than 4 percent of B.C.'s population.[citation needed]
 |
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007) |
Two military coups in Fiji in 1987 removed from power a government that was led by an ethnic Fijian,[65] but was supported principally by the Indo-Fijian (ethnic Indian) electorate. A new constitution was promulgated in 1990, establishing Fiji as a republic, with the offices of President, Prime Minister, two-thirds of the Senate, and a clear majority of the House of Representatives reserved for ethnic Fijians, Ethnic Fijian ownership of the land was also entrenched in the constitution.[66]
Fiji's case is a situation of de facto ethnic segregation.[67] Fiji has a long complex history with more than 3500 years as a divided Tribal nation. Unification under the British rule as a Colony for 96 years brought other racial groups, particularly immigrants from the Indian sub-continent.
Some activists consider that the Indian caste system is a form of racial discrimination.[68] The participants of the United Nations Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in March 2001, condemned discrimination due to the caste system, and tried to pass a resolution declaring that caste as a basis for the segregation and oppression of peoples in terms of their descent and occupation is a form of apartheid. However, no formal resolution was passed to that effect[69]
India's treatment of Dalits has been described by some authors as "India's hidden apartheid".[70][71]
Controversy exists as to whether caste-based discrimination is equivalent to racial discrimination. Such allegations have been rejected by some scholars such as Andre Béteille, an Indian sociologist, who writes that treating caste as a form of racism is "politically mischievous" and worse, "scientifically nonsense" since there is no discernible difference in the racial characteristics between Brahmins and Scheduled Castes. While he admits the existence of caste-based discrimination, he writes that "Every social group cannot be regarded as a race simply because we want to protect it against prejudice and discrimination".[72]
Pakistani-American sociologist Ayesha Jalal also rejects these allegations. In her book, Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia, she writes that "As for Hinduism, the hierarchical principles of the Brahmanical social order have always been contested from within Hindu society, suggesting that equality has been and continues to be both valued and practiced."[73]
The level of de facto segregation of Arabs from Jews in Israel is high. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund used resources to diminish the Arab presence and increase Jewish communities in Negev and the Galilee. Since 1948, no new town has been established for the burgeoning Arab population, except for a few small Bedouin communities in Negev. The Israeli government has also withdrawn approval on various occasions to allow reasonable growth to meet Arab citizens' needs.[74]
In 2010, the Knesset finalized the "Amendment to the Cooperative Associations Bill," with the intention of bypassing previous rulings of the High Court of Justice against Arab segregation in Israel. If implemented, the amendment will give acceptance committees of communal villages the authority to limit residence in their towns exclusively to Jewish Israelis.[74]
Support for segregation and suspicion of Arabs in Israel is on the rise. A 2008 poll by the Center Against Racism (2008) found a worsening of Jewish citizens' perceptions of their Arab counterparts:[75] For instance, 75% of Israeli Jews would not agree to live in a building with Arab residents, 60% would not accept any Arab visitors at their homes, 40% believed that Arabs should be stripped of their right to vote, and 59% believe that the culture of Arabs is primitive.[75]
Malaysia has an article in its constitution which distinctly segregates the ethnic Malays and indigenous peoples of Malaysia—i.e. bumiputra—from the non-Bumiputra such as the Chinese and the East Indians under the social contract, of which by law would guarantee the former certain special rights and privileges. To question these rights and privileges however is strictly prohibited under the Internal Security Act, legalised by the 10th Article(IV) of the Constitution of Malaysia.[76] The privileges mentioned herein covers—few of which—the economical and education aspects of Malaysians, e.g. the Malaysian New Economic Policy; an economic policy recently criticised by Thierry Rommel—who headed a European Commission's delegation to Malaysia—as an excuse for "significant protectionism"[77][78] and a quota maintaining higher access of Malays into public universities. This system of segregation is seen as a form of apartheid by its opponents.[79]
Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007[80] It was already abolished in 1980 though it was still affecting the descendants of black Africans abducted into slavery before generations, who live now in Mauritania as "black Moors" or haratin and who partially still serve the "white Moors", or bidhan (the name means literally white-skinned people), as slaves. The number of slaves in the country was not known exactly, but is was estimated to be up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population.[81][82]
For centuries, the so-called Haratin lower class, mostly poor black Africans living in rural areas, have been considered natural slaves by white Moors of Arab/Berber ancestry. Many descendants of the Arab and Berber tribes today still adhere to the supremacist ideology of their ancestors. This ideology has led to oppression, discrimination and even enslavement of other groups in the region of Sudan and Western Sahara.[83][84] In certain villages in Mauritania there are mosques for lighter-skinned nobles and mosques for black slaves, who are still buried in separate cemeteries.[85]
There is considerable racial segregation in the United Arab Emirates, where there are areas that house large numbers of South Asian migrant workers (primarily Indian, as well as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka).[86]
Although not directly or legally sanctioned, a system of passively co-existing communities, segregated along racial lines has emerged as the norm in much of the United Kingdom, with minority communities being left "marooned outside the mainstream”. [87]
The affected and ‘ghettoised’ communities are largely representative of Pakistanis, Indians and other Sub-Continentals as well as Afro-Caribbeans and other blacks, with skin colour being a primary determinant. Such racial segregation has widely been thought to be the basis of growing ethnic tensions, a deterioration in race relations, the deterioration of the standard of living and levels of education and employment among ethnic minorities as well as being a main precursor to recent race riots. [88] [89]
There seems to be some indication that such segregation, particularly in residential terms seems to be the result of the unilateral ‘steering’ of ethnic groups into particular areas as well as a culture of vendor discrimination and distrust of ethnic minority clients by estate agents and other property professionals. [90] This may be indicative of a market preference amongst the white majority to reside in areas of less ethnic mixture; less ethnic mixture being perceived as increasing the value and desirability of a residential area. This is likely as other theories such as “ethnic self segregation” have generally been shown to be baseless and a majority of ethnic respondents to surveys on the matter, were in favour of wider social and residential integration. [91]
 |
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (December 2008) |
Rajiv Sethi, economist at Columbia University, writes that black-white segregation is declining fairly consistently for most metropolitan areas in the US. Despite these pervasive patterns, many changes for individual areas are small.[92] Racial segregation or separation can lead to social, economic and political tensions.[93] Thirty years (the year 2000) after the civil rights era, the United States remained in many areas a residentially segregated society, in which blacks, whites and Hispanics inhabited different neighborhoods of vastly different quality.[94][95][96]
Dan Immergluck writes that in 2002 small businesses in black neighborhoods still received fewer loans, even after accounting for businesses density, businesses size, industrial mix, neighborhood income, and the credit quality of local businesses.[97] Gregory D. Squires wrote in 2003 that it is clear that race has long affected and continues to affect the policies and practices of the insurance industry.[98] Workers living in American inner-cities have a harder time finding jobs than suburban workers.[99]
The desire of many whites to avoid having their children attend integrated schools has been a factor in white flight to the suburbs.[100] Recent studies in San Francisco showed that groups of homeowners of all races tended to self-segregate in order to be with people of the same education level and race.[101] By 1990, the legal barriers enforcing segregation had been mostly replaced by decentralized racism, where whites pay more than blacks to live in predominantly white areas.[102] Today, many whites are willing, and are able, to pay a premium to live in a predominantly white neighborhood. Equivalent housing in white areas commands a higher rent.[103] By bidding up the price of housing, many white neighborhoods effectively shut out blacks, because blacks are unwilling, or unable, to pay the premium to buy entry into these expensive neighborhoods. Conversely, equivalent housing in black neighborhoods is far more affordable to those who are unable or unwilling to pay a premium to live in white neighborhoods. Through the 1990s, residential segregation remained at its extreme and has been called "hypersegregation" by some sociologists or "American Apartheid"[104]
In February 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. California 543 U.S. 499 (2005) that the California Department of Corrections' unwritten practice of racially segregating prisoners in its prison reception centers — which California claimed was for inmate safety (gangs in California, as throughout the U.S., usually organize on racial lines)— is to be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review.[citation needed]
Sociologists in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s long studied the impact of racial segregation in California, the nation's most populous and racially diverse state not known for customary segregation the Southeast US was infamous. (See also Demographics of California).[citation needed] A socially liberal, but racially divided state can have softer prevalent forms of racial segregated communities populated of nearly all whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, and Hispanics (of any race, an ethnic designation) brought upon by economic changes, housing integration, white flight and immigration (in the case of Mexican and Latin American) in California.[citation needed] For examples, South L.A. and west Oakland are a majority (or plurally) black, East Los Angeles is predominantly Mexican American and San Francisco has strictly Chinese American neighborhoods.
There are 105 historically black colleges (HBCU) in the United States today, including public and private, two-year and four-year institutions, medical schools and community colleges.[105] The 2009 "Stimulus Bill" would include more than $1.3 billion for HBCU campuses.[106]
In Yemen, the Arab elite practices an unofficial form of discrimination against the lower class Akhdam people.[107]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Translations:
Segregation |
Dansk (Danish)
n. - adskillelse, isolation, afsondring, udskillelse
idioms:
Nederlands (Dutch)
segregatie, rassenscheiding, scheiding
Français (French)
n. - ségrégation, isolement, séparation
idioms:
Deutsch (German)
n. - Trennung
idioms:
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - (φυλετικός) διαχωρισμός
idioms:
Italiano (Italian)
segregazione, separazione, allontanamento
idioms:
Português (Portuguese)
n. - segregação (f), discriminação (f)
idioms:
Русский (Russian)
отделение, изоляция, сегрегация
idioms:
Español (Spanish)
n. - segregación
idioms:
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - avskiljande, isolering, segregation
中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
隔离, 分离, 分开, 种族隔离
idioms:
中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 隔離, 分離, 分開, 種族隔離
idioms:
한국어 (Korean)
n. - 분리, 분리(유전자, 형질 등의), 인종 차별을 규정한 법률
日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 分離, 隔離, 人種差別
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) فصل, عزل
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - הפרדה גזעית, הבדלה
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.
To select your translation preferences click here.
 | unification |
| Jim Crow (History) |
| ad seg |
 | When did they start segregation? Read answer... |
| Why did segregation end? Read answer... |
| Is segregation ended? Read answer... |
 | What is segregation and what is the result of segregation? |
| Why is it that you had segregation? |
| De facto segregation is segregation that results from? |
Copyrights:
 |
 | American Heritage Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 1994-2012 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Barron's Banking Dictionary. Dictionary of Banking Terms. Copyright © 2006 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Roget's Thesaurus. Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage® Dictionary Copyright © 1995 byHoughton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Antonyms by Answers.com. © 1999-present by Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health. Encyclopedia of Public Health. Copyright © 2002 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Oxford Dictionary of Geography. A Dictionary of Geography. Copyright © Susan Mayhew 1992, 1997, 2004. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture & Construction. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture and Construction. Copyright © 2003 by McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Gale Encyclopedia of US History. Encyclopedia of American History Copyright © 2006 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Gale Encyclopedia of Education. Encyclopedia of Education. Copyright © 2002 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| West's Encyclopedia of American Law. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Investopedia Financial Dictionary. Copyright ©2010, Investopedia.com - Owned and Operated by Investopedia US, A Division of ValueClick, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Politics. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry. Oxford University Press. Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology © 1997, 2000, 2006 All rights reserved. Read more | |
 |
| Saunders Veterinary Dictionary. Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary 3rd Edition. Copyright © 2007 by D.C. Blood, V.P. Studdert and C.C. Gay, Elsevier. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Random House Word Menu. © 2010 Write Brothers Inc. Word Menu is a registered trademark of the Estate of Stephen Glazier. Write Brothers Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Wikipedia on Answers.com. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article Racial segregation. Read more |
 |
| Translations. Copyright © 2007, WizCom Technologies Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more |
Mentioned in
