discrimination — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

A Blow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold Discrimination

During the civil rights protests of the 1960s, many pieces of legislation were passed to better secure rights for minority groups. Such legislation included the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Recently, however, civil rights legislation has come under attack with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C (2022). In Cummings, the Court ruled that emotional distress damages—obtainable through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—are not recoverable. [1] The Court’s ruling erects new barriers in the paths of victims who simply want to feel whole after being discriminated against. Thus, the crux of civil rights legislation is suppressed as victims will not be able to seek justice even though “emotional injury is often the primary, and at times the only, harm caused by discrimination.” [2]

Raymond SterlingDecember 27, 2022discrimination, civil rights, equality, disability

Legacy Admissions: An Insidious Form of Racial Discrimination

About 10 to 15 percent of students at Ivy League universities are the children of alumni. [1] Commonly known as “legacies,” they are often favored in the application process to encourage alumni ties and donations. [2] Between 2014 and 2019, Harvard accepted legacies at a rate of 33 percent, more than five times its overall acceptance rate. [3] In addition, 70 percent of Harvard’s legacy applicants are white. [4] This is hardly surprising: historically, the alumni of selective American universities like Harvard have been disproportionately white. [5] Yet, this racial disparity reveals the discrimination underlying legacy admissions that preserves and perpetuates historical inequalities in higher education.

Ashley KimOctober 12, 2022admissions, education, discrimination, race

Discrimination Gone Too Far: The Implications of Defining Mutability in Court

While most Americans would agree that one should not be blatantly discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, or religion, as an egalitarian maxim it becomes much more difficult to maintain when seemingly alterable and/or non-biological traits come under scrutiny. Defining aspects of a person such as language use, cultural practices, or body type, for example, leave open the debate over what characteristics are, in fact, given legal protection against discrimination.