Topic Library — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities (Year 1 Foundations)

School: Minister Destiny Testimony Schools Track: Adult Class: Topic Library — Year 1 (Foundations) Founded and presented by: Muslim Ordained Minister Destiny Marie Morgan

This lesson is educational information, Massachusetts-first, and is not legal advice. Laws and procedures vary by state and by case. If you are in danger right now, call 911. If you have a real case, talk to a lawyer — legal aid organizations help many people for free.

Before you start

This school never asks your name. Your progress is saved only in your own browser on this device — the school collects and keeps nothing. If you pass this unit's quiz (80% or higher, retakes allowed), you earn a downloadable certificate with a blank line — you write your own name on it after you save it. Quiz answers are not shown; if you miss a question, re-read the lesson and try again.
This unit teaches how racism has been defined, built into law, challenged in court, and fought by communities — attributed history, law, and research, not slogans. A companion unit covers governments, religions, and the record so far.

The lesson

Part 1. The Words, Defined With Care — Prejudice, Discrimination, and Institutional Racism

Three words, three different things. In the definitions used across sociology and psychology textbooks (for example, OpenStax's Introduction to Sociology and Psychology), prejudice is an attitude: a preconceived judgment about a person based on their perceived group, held before the facts about that person are known. Discrimination is an action: treating a person differently — in hiring, housing, service, or law — because of that perceived membership. The two come apart: a person can hold a prejudice and never act on it, and a person can carry out a discriminatory act, such as enforcing a biased rule, without feeling hatred. The law mostly reaches the action, not the attitude.

Institutional racism (also called systemic or structural racism) names a level above the individual: patterns inside institutions — written rules, standard practices, accumulated arrangements — that produce unequal results for racial groups whether or not anyone inside intends them. Scholars debate these definitions: some define the term narrowly around identifiable policies, others broadly around outcomes, others require a shown mechanism. So this school attaches sources to vocabulary: when you meet these words in an opinion, a statute, or a study, ask which definition the writer is using, and what the evidence is.

Part 2. The History Spine — Slavery's Laws, the Reconstruction Amendments, and Jim Crow

Slavery in America was a legal architecture, not only a custom. Colonial and state governments wrote slave codes making enslaved status hereditary and restricting enslaved people's movement, assembly, and literacy. The Constitution of 1787 accommodated the system: representation counted three-fifths of the enslaved population (Article I); Congress could not bar the international slave trade before 1808 (Article I); escaped persons held in service were to be returned (Article IV).

The Civil War broke that architecture, and the nation amended the Constitution three times in five years. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, and gives Congress enforcement power. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) makes all persons born or naturalized in the United States citizens and forbids states to deny any person due process or equal protection of the laws. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) forbids abridging the vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

After Reconstruction came Jim Crow — separation and exclusion written into law. Its devices, documented in National Archives materials, included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that disenfranchised Black voters while avoiding the Fifteenth Amendment's words, plus mandated separate schools, railway cars, and facilities. In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the Supreme Court upheld Louisiana's separate-car law 7–1 — "separate but equal": enforced separation violated neither the Thirteenth nor the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Harlan dissented alone: the Constitution is color-blind. That doctrine sheltered Jim Crow for nearly sixty years.

Part 3. The Courtroom Turning Points — Brown and Loving

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), consolidated school-segregation cases from five jurisdictions. On May 17, 1954, a unanimous Court held that separating children in public schools solely by race violates the Equal Protection Clause: "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Brown discarded Plessy in public education; enforcement took years of further litigation and orders, but Jim Crow's constitutional shelter was gone. (The case is studied in full under Cases & codes below.)

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), finished a piece of the same work. Mildred Jeter Loving, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, married in the District of Columbia in 1958 and returned to Virginia, where interracial marriage was a crime; convicted, they drew a one-year sentence suspended if they left Virginia for 25 years. On June 12, 1967, a unanimous Court struck the statutes down, rejecting the argument that a law punishing both races "equally" was therefore constitutional: racial classifications face the most rigid scrutiny, and the laws violated both equal protection and due process, because marriage is a basic civil right. After Loving, no state could lawfully ban marriage across racial lines.

Part 4. The Three Great Statutes — 1964, 1965, and 1968

Courts declare principles; statutes build machinery. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed July 2, 1964 (National Archives), struck on several fronts. Title II bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in public accommodations — hotels, restaurants, theaters. Title VI bars discrimination in programs receiving federal funds, backed by the power to cut the funds off. Title VII bars employment discrimination and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to receive and investigate charges.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 answered a century of disenfranchisement devices. Section 2 (52 U.S.C. § 10301) bans any voting qualification or practice applied in a manner that results in denying or abridging the vote on account of race or color, judged on the totality of the circumstances. Section 5 added preclearance: jurisdictions with documented discrimination histories, identified by Section 4's coverage formula, could change no voting rule until the U.S. Attorney General or a federal court cleared it as having neither the purpose nor the effect of abridging the vote on account of race or color.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 reached the home. Section 804 (42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)) makes it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent, refuse to negotiate, or "otherwise make unavailable or deny" a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. By 1968, federal law spoke to the restaurant counter, the ballot box, the payroll, and the front door.

Part 5. Communities, First Tool — Contact, Schools, and What the Research Found

Law is one tool; daily life is another. In The Nature of Prejudice (1954), psychologist Gordon Allport proposed the contact hypothesis: prejudice tends to decline when groups meet under the right conditions — equal status, shared goals, cooperation rather than competition, and the support of authorities or custom. Under the wrong conditions, he warned, contact could fail or deepen hostility.

Pettigrew and Tropp tested the idea at scale (meta-analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006): 515 studies, 713 samples, roughly 250,000 participants in 38 nations. Contact was associated with lower prejudice (average correlation r = −.21); 94 percent of samples showed the inverse relationship; rigorous studies found stronger effects (r = −.33); Allport's conditions helped but were not strictly necessary. Other scholars caution that many studies are cross-sectional snapshots, limiting how confidently contact caused the change rather than accompanied it.

Economist Rucker C. Johnson (NBER Working Paper 16664, 2011, revised 2014; Children of the Dream, 2019) followed children exposed to court-ordered desegregation after Brown: for Black students, each added year of exposure was associated with better adult outcomes — attainment, earnings (roughly 5 percent higher annual earnings per year of exposure for Black men, per the NBER summary), health, and lower incarceration — with no corresponding harm found for white students. The orders often arrived with increased spending and smaller classes, and researchers still debate how much of the gain belongs to integration itself versus those resources.

Part 6. Communities, Second Tool — Document It, Report It, and the Hate-Crime Laws

Rights on paper help only people who can prove what happened, so the second tool is a paper trail: document suspected discrimination the same day — dates, times, exact words, witnesses' names, and every advertisement, message, and receipt saved in original form. The official doors have clocks. For job discrimination, the EEOC's process (eeoc.gov) requires a signed charge of discrimination before suit (the Equal Pay Act is an exception), within 180 calendar days of the act — 300 days where a state or local law covers the same basis. In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) enforces Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B across employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit; its guidance (mass.gov) sets a 300-day deadline from the last act in most cases (six months for higher-education admissions) and warns that scheduling an intake interview does not stop the clock. Its remedies can include lost-wage and emotional-distress compensation, civil penalties, and policy-change orders.

Violence adds a criminal layer. The FBI's 2023 hate-crime statistics, released September 2024 and summarized by the U.S. Department of Justice, counted 11,862 reported incidents; race, ethnicity, or ancestry was the largest bias category with 5,900 incidents, anti-Black incidents 51.3 percent of it — incidents reported to law enforcement, which is why reporting is itself part of the tool. The principal federal statute is 18 U.S.C. § 249, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009: willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting it with a dangerous weapon) because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin — and, where a federal jurisdictional element is met, because of religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In 2022 the Emmett Till Antilynching Act (Pub. L. 117-107) amended § 249, adding paragraph (a)(5): conspiracy to commit a § 249 offense, punishable by up to 30 years where death or serious bodily injury results.

Part 7. Communities, Third Tool — Local Power, Redlining, and Standing Up

The third tool is closest to home: local power. Zoning boards decide what housing gets built; school committees set policy and budgets; councils pass ordinances, and many Massachusetts communities add local human-rights protections atop state law. These bodies meet in public, with public comment — and whether a neighborhood changes is usually decided by whoever shows up with documents in hand.

Local history is a public record. In the 1930s the federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) drew "residential security maps" (1935–1940, 239 cities) grading neighborhoods A ("best") to D ("hazardous"), D areas outlined in red. The Mapping Inequality project (University of Richmond and partners), from originals at the National Archives, documents that the D grade was consistently applied where Black residents lived or were nearby. Denying credit and investment by a neighborhood's racial composition is redlining — and any resident can still read the government's own grade and description of their street.

Communities also train people to act in the moment. Bystander-intervention programs — taught by community organizations, schools, and the U.S. Department of Justice's Community Relations Service, which runs forums helping communities respond to bias incidents and hate crimes — teach a consistent toolkit: distract to interrupt, delegate to someone with authority, document what is happening, delay to check on the person targeted afterward, and speak directly when safe. Structured dialogue and mediation give divided towns a way to negotiate facts and remedies in the open.

Words to know — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

Prejudice — a preconceived judgment about a person based on their perceived group, held before the facts about that person are known.
Discrimination — an action: treating a person differently in hiring, housing, service, voting, or law because of a protected characteristic such as race.
Institutional racism — patterns within an institution's rules, practices, or arrangements that produce unequal results for racial groups, intended or not; scholars debate the term's scope.
Segregation — enforced separation of racial groups in schools, housing, transport, or public facilities, by law or by practice.
Jim Crow — the laws and practices that enforced segregation and Black disenfranchisement from the late 1800s into the 1960s.
Disenfranchisement — depriving a person or group of the vote, by law or by devices such as poll taxes and rigged literacy tests.
Preclearance — the Voting Rights Act mechanism requiring certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before changing any voting rule.
Redlining — denying loans, insurance, or investment to neighborhoods based on racial composition, named for the red-outlined "hazardous" grades on HOLC maps.
Contact hypothesis — Allport's 1954 proposal that prejudice tends to decline when groups meet with equal status, common goals, cooperation, and authority support.

Myths vs facts — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

Myth: Racism is only individual hatred, so if no one feels hate, there is nothing to address. Fact: Part 1 separates attitude (prejudice), action (discrimination), and institutional patterns — a practice can produce discriminatory results the law reaches even when no one's feelings can be proved.
Myth: Brown ended school segregation the day it was decided. Fact: Brown (1954) removed the doctrine protecting segregation; desegregation itself took years of further orders, legislation, and enforcement (Part 5).
Myth: Facing job discrimination, you can simply sue whenever you are ready. Fact: The EEOC generally requires a charge first — within 180 days, or 300 where a state or local law covers the same basis — and MCAD complaints carry their own 300-day deadline (Part 6).
Myth: Hate-crime laws punish thoughts. Fact: 18 U.S.C. § 249 punishes conduct — willfully causing bodily injury, or attempting it with a dangerous weapon — committed because of a protected characteristic (Part 6).
Myth: "Redlining" is just a figure of speech. Fact: It names literal maps — the HOLC's 1935–1940 residential security maps, graded A through D, held by the National Archives and searchable street by street (Part 7).

Think it through — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

A tenant calls about an advertised apartment and is told it was just rented. A friend of a different race calls the same landlord an hour later about the same advertisement and is invited to view it that evening. The tenant suspects race is the reason — but suspicion is not yet proof, and the advertisement is still running.

Walk it through: (1) Part 1: if the apartment was withheld because of race, that is discrimination — an action — in housing, whatever the landlord's private attitudes. (2) Part 6: document it the same day — the advertisement, both call times, the exact words, the friend's account written down fresh. (3) Part 4: refusing to rent, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable, because of race violates the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a); Massachusetts law enforced by the MCAD covers housing too. (4) Part 6's clocks: an MCAD complaint is generally due within 300 days, and waiting for an intake appointment does not pause it — file early, documentation attached. (5) Part 7: a local fair-housing organization or human-rights commission can document the landlord's pattern across callers. One call is a story; a documented pattern is a case.

Cases & codes to study — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1896)

The facts: Louisiana's Separate Car Act required separate railway cars by race; Homer Plessy, recruited by a citizens' committee, sat in a whites-only car, refused to move, and was convicted.
The question: Does a state law requiring separate railway accommodations for the races violate the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments?
The ruling and the outcome: May 18, 1896, 7–1 for Ferguson: enforced separation did not by itself deny equal protection — "separate but equal." Harlan dissented alone.
Why it matters to you: The doctrine Jim Crow stood on — inequality preserved in equality's language, until a later court overruled it outright.
📄 Court document: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537 (Oyez case page)

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1954)

The facts: Black families in five jurisdictions challenged laws assigning their children to separate public schools by race; lower courts, bound by Plessy, denied relief.
The question: Does segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause?
The ruling and the outcome: May 17, 1954, unanimously for Brown: separate educational facilities are inherently unequal; Plessy was rejected in public education.
Why it matters to you: The hinge of modern civil-rights law — constitutional text, organized litigation, and community plaintiffs reversing a 58-year-old doctrine.
📄 Court document: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483 (Oyez case page)
🎥 Watch / listen: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483 — Listen: the actual oral argument — Oyez

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1967)

The facts: Mildred and Richard Loving married in the District of Columbia in 1958 and returned to Virginia, which criminalized interracial marriage; they were sentenced to a year in jail, suspended if they left Virginia for 25 years.
The question: Did Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses?
The ruling and the outcome: June 12, 1967, unanimously for the Lovings: racial classifications get the most rigid scrutiny, "equal application" does not save a racial law, and marriage is a basic civil right.
Why it matters to you: "The law treats both sides the same" is no defense when a law's purpose is racial separation.
📄 Court document: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 (Oyez case page)
🎥 Watch / listen: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 — Listen: the actual oral argument — Oyez

The law itself — read the real words

Thirteenth Amendment (U.S. Constitution) — abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime. Read the Reconstruction Amendments in the Constitution Annotated: constitution.congress.gov.
Fourteenth Amendment, § 1 (U.S. Constitution) — birthright citizenship; due process and equal protection. Read it in the Constitution Annotated: constitution.congress.gov.
Fifteenth Amendment (U.S. Constitution) — the vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Read it: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt15-1/ALDE_00000634/
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a — bars discrimination in public accommodations; Titles VI and VII cover federally funded programs and employment. Read about it: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act (National Archives)
Voting Rights Act § 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 — bans voting practices resulting in denial or abridgement of the vote on account of race or color. Read it: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:10301)
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 — bars making a dwelling unavailable because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Read it: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:3604)
Shepard-Byrd Act, 18 U.S.C. § 249 — the federal hate-crime statute. Read the enforcing agency's summary: https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section (DOJ)
Emmett Till Antilynching Act, Pub. L. 117-107 (2022) — amends § 249, adding the lynching-conspiracy paragraph (a)(5). Read it: https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ107/PLAW-117publ107.pdf

Where to read the real thing, free: Oyez (oyez.org) — case pages and oral-argument audio; Constitution Annotated (constitution.congress.gov); U.S. Code (uscode.house.gov); National Archives (archives.gov) — milestone documents and the HOLC records behind the redlining maps.

Try this — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

☐ Look up your neighborhood in the Mapping Inequality project's digitized HOLC maps and read the government's original 1930s description of where you live.
☐ Start a documentation sheet: columns for date, time, exact words, witnesses, and papers saved — Part 6's format.
☐ On eeoc.gov, read "How to File a Charge of Employment Discrimination" and note the 180/300-day deadlines in your own words.
☐ Find one public meeting — school committee, zoning board, or council — in your town this month and read its agenda first.
☐ Write Part 1's three definitions on one card, each with an example from the lesson.

Resources to keep — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

Emergencies: 911.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: call or text 988.
Crisis Text Line: text HOME to 741741.
National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233.
RAINN (sexual assault): 1-800-656-4673.
EEOC (eeoc.gov): filing a charge of employment discrimination — deadlines and the Public Portal.
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (mass.gov): filing a discrimination complaint — the 300-day deadline.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (justice.gov): hate-crime information and the FBI's published statistics.

What you earned / what's next — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

✅ How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities complete (quiz score 80% or higher): you can define prejudice, discrimination, and institutional racism with their sources; trace the line from slave codes through the Reconstruction Amendments, Jim Crow, Brown, and Loving; explain what the 1964, 1965, and 1968 statutes did; and use this unit's community tools — contact, documentation and reporting deadlines, and local public records.

Your certificate

Minister Destiny Testimony Schools Certificate of Completion — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

This certificate is presented by Muslim Ordained Minister Destiny Marie Morgan

Awarded to: ______________________________ (write your name here after you download — your name is never collected or stored by this school)

Date completed: ______________

You studied how a nation wrote inequality into law — and how its people, with clear words, true records, and each other, wrote it back out. Keep your documents, keep your deadlines, and keep showing up. — Minister Destiny Marie Morgan

This is a certificate of educational completion from Minister Destiny Testimony Schools. It is not a state license, a government certification, or legal training for representing anyone.

What's next: Return to the Topic Library for your next Year 1 Foundations unit.

Sources

National Archives (archives.gov) — https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act — the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC's creation; Archives materials also document Jim Crow disenfranchisement devices.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov) — https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination — the charge process and 180/300-day deadlines.
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (mass.gov) — https://www.mass.gov/decision-tree/file-a-complaint-of-discrimination-at-the-mcad — the complaint process and 300-day deadline.
U.S. Department of Justice, Community Relations Service (justice.gov) — https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics — summary of the FBI's 2023 statistics: 11,862 incidents; 5,900 race/ethnicity/ancestry; anti-Black 51.3 percent of that category.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (justice.gov) — https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section — statutes enforced, including the § 249 summary.
Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Tropp, Linda R. — "A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2006) — 515 studies; roughly 250,000 participants; mean r = −.21.
Johnson, Rucker C. — NBER Working Paper 16664 (2011, revised 2014); Children of the Dream (2019) — long-run effects of court-ordered desegregation.
Allport, Gordon W. — The Nature of Prejudice (1954) — the contact hypothesis and its conditions.
Mapping Inequality project — University of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab and partners, from HOLC records at the National Archives — the 1935–1940 maps for 239 cities.
OpenStax, Introduction to Sociology and Psychology (openstax.org) — definitions checked for Part 1.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (U.S. Supreme Court 1896) — "separate but equal" upheld.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. Supreme Court 1954) — separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) — anti-miscegenation statutes violate Equal Protection and Due Process.
U.S. Const. amend. XIII — abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 — citizenship, due process, and equal protection.
U.S. Const. amend. XV — the vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
42 U.S.C. § 2000a (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II) — public accommodations; Titles VI and VII taught alongside it.
52 U.S.C. § 10301 (Voting Rights Act § 2) — the results test; § 5 preclearance (52 U.S.C. § 10304) taught in outline.
42 U.S.C. § 3604 (Fair Housing Act § 804) — housing discrimination.
18 U.S.C. § 249 (Shepard-Byrd Act of 2009) — federal hate-crime offenses.
Emmett Till Antilynching Act, Pub. L. 117-107, 136 Stat. 1125 (2022) — adds § 249(a)(5).
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B — Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, enforced by the MCAD; complaint procedure in § 5.

Your Progress — On Your Device Only — How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities

Learning outcomes: On completing this unit, the student can:

define prejudice, discrimination, and institutional racism, and state that scholars debate the definitions;
summarize slavery's legal architecture, the three Reconstruction Amendments, and Jim Crow including its disenfranchisement devices;
state the holdings of Plessy, Brown, and Loving precisely;
describe what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Titles II, VI, VII), the Voting Rights Act (§§ 2 and 5), and the Fair Housing Act each did;
summarize the contact hypothesis, the Pettigrew and Tropp findings, and Johnson's desegregation research, with the critics' cautions attached;
state the EEOC and MCAD deadlines, and describe how to document discrimination and where to read redlining maps and local public records.

Study time: Approximately 1 hour — an estimate covering reading, activities, and the test. Students move at their own pace.
Assessment: A 10-question test drawn only from this unit's lesson. 80% or higher passes and earns the unit certificate. Answers are not shown; your score is saved only in your own browser on this device, and retakes are allowed.
Level: Topic Library — Year 1 (Foundations) · Adult school · working rank on completion path: Freshman → Sophomore.
Version: Version 1.0 — October 2026.

Minister Destiny Testimony Schools — Adult. Educational information only, not legal advice. Help lines: 911 for emergencies · 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call/text 988).

Ready to test? This course's test is given at the Testing Center. Answers are never shown; score at least 80% to earn your certificate of completion. You may retake the test as many times as you need — each retake presents the questions in a different order, with the answer choices in a different order too.