Topic Library — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far (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 government doctrine, the live debates stated with each side's arguments attributed to their makers, what major faith traditions' texts and histories actually contain, and the long-run numbers — each statistic with its publisher and year attached.
A companion unit, How Racism Is Fought — Foundations and Communities, covers definitions, history through 1968, and community tools. This unit stands on its own.

The lesson

Part 1. Governments — Equal Protection and the Intent Rule

When a government itself classifies people by race, courts apply the hardest test they have. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — and, for the federal government, the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause — an express racial classification receives strict scrutiny: the government must show a compelling interest, and that its use of race is narrowly tailored to that interest. Most such classifications fail. This is the frame OpenStax American Government uses for its civil-rights chapter, and it is the frame every case in this unit works inside.

The hard question is what happens when a law says nothing about race but lands unevenly. In ***Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), Black applicants who had failed a written test for the District of Columbia police department challenged it. The Supreme Court, decided June 7, 1976, held that a law or official act is not unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact: a constitutional equal-protection claim requires proof of discriminatory purpose*. The Court was careful about two limits. Disproportionate impact is still relevant evidence from which purpose may be inferred. And Davis decided the constitutional standard — it did not disturb statutory disparate-impact claims under Title VII, which Part 2 covers. (Because the District of Columbia is federal, Davis ran through the Fifth Amendment; the same intent rule governs states through the Fourteenth.)

A year later, ***Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977)*, decided January 11, 1977, showed how purpose can be proved when nobody announces it. A village had denied rezoning for an integrated low- and moderate-income housing project. The Court held purpose was not proved on that record, and set out the circumstantial inquiry courts still use: the impact of the decision and whether it bears more heavily on one race; the historical background; the specific sequence of events; departures from normal procedure or substance; and the legislative or administrative history, including officials' statements. The Fair Housing Act claim in the case was left for the lower court on remand. The rule of Parts 1–2 together: intent is required for a constitutional claim; effects can be enough under statutes Congress wrote that way.

Part 2. Disparate Impact and the Reconstruction-Era Civil-Rights Statutes

***Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), decided March 8, 1971, is the foundation of disparate-impact law. A power company required a high-school diploma and passing scores on standardized tests for transfer to better departments — requirements adopted without discriminatory announcement, in a workforce shaped by segregated schooling. A unanimous Court held that under Title VII, practices that operate to disqualify a substantially higher rate of one race are unlawful unless the employer shows they are related to job performance: Title VII reaches practices "fair in form, but discriminatory in operation," and good intent does not redeem a requirement unrelated to the job. Congress later codified the disparate-impact burden framework in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, now at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)*: the complaining party must demonstrate that a particular practice causes a disparate impact; the employer must then demonstrate the practice is job related and consistent with business necessity; and liability can also follow where an alternative practice exists and the employer refuses to adopt it.

The same logic reached housing in ***Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), decided June 25, 2015. The Court held, 5–4, that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act*, with safeguards the opinion itself states: a plaintiff must prove the defendant's policy actually causes the disparity (a "robust causality" requirement, so a defendant is not held liable for disparities it did not create), statistical imbalance alone is not enough, and defendants must be given leeway to state valid interests their policies serve.

Two Reconstruction-era statutes complete the toolkit. 42 U.S.C. § 1981, descending from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guarantees all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens; courts require intentional discrimination for § 1981, and no EEOC charge is needed to bring it. 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, creates a civil action against a person who, under color of state law, deprives another of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law — the standard vehicle for suing state and local officials. Note the division of labor: §§ 1981 and 1983 address intentional deprivations and government action; disparate impact lives in the statutes Congress drafted for it, Title VII and the Fair Housing Act.

Part 3. Voting — The Voting Rights Act, Shelby County, and What Followed

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had two engines. Section 2 (52 U.S.C. § 10301) bans, nationwide and permanently, any voting standard or practice that results in denying or abridging the vote on account of race or color, judged on the totality of the circumstances. Section 5 (52 U.S.C. § 10304) froze the rules in covered jurisdictions: no voting change could be enforced until precleared by the U.S. Attorney General or a federal court. Which places were covered was set by the formula in § 4(b) — jurisdictions that had used tests or devices and had low registration or turnout in specified 1960s elections.

In ***Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), decided June 25, 2013, the Court held, 5–4, that § 4(b)'s coverage formula is unconstitutional: Congress had reauthorized it in 2006 on a decades-old formula, and the Court held that a formula departing from equal state sovereignty must be justified by current conditions. The consequences, stated factually, are these. Section 5 itself was not struck down, but without an operating coverage formula it is inoperable unless and until Congress enacts a new formula — none has been enacted as of this unit's writing. Section 2 was not* at issue and remains fully in force; voting cases since 2013 have been litigated under § 2 after a change takes effect, rather than blocked in advance by preclearance.

What followed inside state legislatures is described here by type only, because the inventory changes every session and this school does not characterize pending politics: after 2013, a number of formerly covered states and other states enacted or implemented laws of recurring types — photo-identification requirements for voting, reductions in early-voting periods, changes to registration and list-maintenance procedures, and polling-place consolidations — while other states moved in the opposite direction with automatic registration, expanded early voting, and mail-voting access. Supporters of the first type describe them as election-integrity and administrative-uniformity measures; opponents describe them as vote-suppression measures; courts have upheld some and struck down others under § 2 and the Constitution, case by case. Those characterizations are attributed positions, not this school's findings.

Part 4. The Live Debates — Affirmative Action After 2023, DEI Programs, and Reparations Proposals

These questions are live debates. For each one, this part gives the holding or the documented facts, then proponents' and critics' arguments in their strongest honest form, attributed. The school takes no side.

Affirmative action in admissions — what the Court held. In ***Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), decided June 29, 2023, the Court held that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause — for Harvard, through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Court treats as coextensive with equal protection. The majority's reasons, in its own terms: the programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives; they employ race in a negative manner; they involve racial stereotyping; and they lack meaningful end points. The decision did not* bar a university from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, when tied concretely to character or a unique ability the applicant can contribute. A footnote noted the decision did not address the military academies, in light of potentially distinct interests they present. Race-neutral alternatives — for example, preferences tied to socioeconomic status, first-generation status, or geography — were not prohibited by the holding.

Proponents of race-conscious admissions argue (the defending universities in the case; the dissenting opinions of Justices Sotomayor and Jackson): selective institutions have a compelling educational interest in a diverse student body that benefits all students; race was one modest factor among many, never a quota; ignoring race in a society where opportunity is still shaped by the history in the companion unit entrenches existing advantage; and, in Justice Jackson's dissent's formulation, preventing consideration of race does not make a system meritocratic. Critics argue (Students for Fair Admissions; the majority opinion): the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a person be treated as an individual, not as a member of a racial group; the programs penalized some applicants, notably Asian American applicants in the Harvard record; racial categories used were imprecise; and a benefit that requires classifying children by race repeats, in the majority's words, the error equal protection exists to forbid. Both lines of argument are in the opinions, which are linked below.

DEI programs in public institutions — status, by type. "DEI" (diversity, equity, and inclusion) names a varied set of offices, trainings, statements, and hiring or curricular practices, so honest description goes by type and jurisdiction. The documented legal facts include: in 2023, Texas enacted Senate Bill 17, prohibiting public institutions of higher education from maintaining DEI offices, compelling DEI statements, or requiring DEI training as a condition of participation, with exceptions including compliance with federal law and accreditation; Florida enacted Senate Bill 266 in 2023, restricting state funds for DEI programs at public colleges and universities. Other states have enacted, considered, or rejected measures of similar types, and some measures have been challenged in court with mixed and evolving results. Supporters of DEI programs argue (university administrators and faculty and student organizations who have defended them in legislative testimony and litigation): the programs perform concrete work — recruiting and retaining students and staff, mentoring first-generation students, ensuring search processes reach broadly — and dismantling offices removes services used by veterans, disabled students, and rural students as well. Critics argue (the legislators who authored the 2023 laws and the organizations that drafted model versions): DEI offices constitute an administrative bureaucracy that classifies people by race and ideology, compels statements of belief in hiring, and spends public money on programming the critics describe as discriminatory in itself; on their account, equal treatment under law requires removing, not expanding, such structures. The school reports both; their factual claims about any specific program must be checked against that program's own documents.

Reparations proposals — two documented examples. Evanston, Illinois: in 2019 the city committed cannabis-tax revenue to a local reparations fund, and in March 2021 its council approved the Restorative Housing Program — grants of up to $25,000 for home purchase, mortgage assistance, or repair, for Black residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969, their direct descendants, or residents who could show housing discrimination from city policy after 1969 — described by the city as a response to its documented history of housing discrimination in that period. California: a state Reparations Task Force created by statute issued a final report in 2023 (over 1,000 pages, published by the California Attorney General's office) recommending, among many measures, a formal apology and lineage-based eligibility — limited to descendants of enslaved people or of free Black people living in the United States before 1900 — with compensation calculations for specific harms the report itemized, including housing discrimination and mass incarceration; the recommendations went to the Legislature, which decides what, if anything, becomes law. Proponents argue (the Evanston program's architects; the California Task Force report): governments that enacted and enforced the documented discrimination should repair its measurable, still-compounding harms, and housing wealth is where the compounding is most concrete. Critics argue (opponents in the Evanston council debate, where the 2021 vote was 8–1, and published critics of the California recommendations): present-day taxpayers who did not commit the acts should not bear the cost; lineage and eligibility lines are administratively and constitutionally contestable; and, in the dissenting Evanston council member's stated objection, a restricted housing grant was "reparations in name only" that moved too fast — a criticism from within the pro-reparations side that the program was too narrow, which this unit records because it is part of the honest record. Neither debate is settled by this school.

Part 5. Religions — What the Texts Teach

This part quotes only verified public-domain texts, exactly as verified in this topic's case-records file, and summarizes where no public-domain wording could be verified.

Islam. The Qur'an, Surah Al-Hujurat (49:13), in Marmaduke Pickthall's 1930 translation, reads: "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware." The verse makes human division into nations and tribes a basis for knowing one another, and conduct — not lineage — the measure of nobility. In the Farewell Sermon tradition — the Prophet Muhammad's addresses during his final pilgrimage, transmitted as hadith narration rather than as a single settled transcript — the Prophet taught that no Arab has superiority over a non-Arab, and no white person over a Black person, except by piety and good action. This unit summarizes that teaching with attribution and does not quote it, because no verbatim English rendering could be verified as public domain.

Judaism and Christianity. Genesis 1:27, in the World English Bible, reads: "God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them." The doctrine drawn from it — every human bears the image of God — is the textual root of the equality claims in both traditions. In the New Testament, Galatians 3:28 (World English Bible) reads: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." And in Acts 10:34–35 (World English Bible), Peter says: "Truly I perceive that God doesn't show favoritism; but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him."

Baháʼí Faith. The oneness of humanity is, in the Baháʼí International Community's statement to the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, the pivotal principle of the faith: there is one human race, and remedies for racial prejudice must address the false concepts of superiority and inferiority that produce it; official Baháʼí materials (bahai.org) likewise describe the condemnation of all prejudice — racial, religious, class, or national — as an essential element of the teaching. Sikh tradition. Equality is practiced as well as stated: in langar, the community kitchen of a gurdwara, meals are served free to all, regardless of religion, caste, gender, economic status, or ethnicity, with everyone seated together on the floor — an institution Sikh sources trace to Guru Nanak and describe as a deliberate rejection of caste separation at the shared meal.

Buddhism and Hinduism — one careful paragraph, attributed. Scholars of both traditions (for example, the treatments summarized in comparative-religion course materials) describe a shared rejection of worth-by-birth in their founding strata: Buddhist texts present the Buddha teaching that a person is noble or outcaste by deeds, not by birth, and admitting followers across caste lines into the sangha; Hindu thought contains both the varna (caste-order) texts and the Vedantic teaching that the same self (atman) is present in all beings, which reformers from the bhakti poets to modern movements have invoked against caste hierarchy. How those strands have interacted across history is Part 6's subject — stated here as the traditions' scholars state it, not harmonized by this school.

Part 6. Religions — The Honest Double History and the Work Being Done Today

Honesty requires both halves of the record, and this school softens neither.

Religion used to defend slavery and segregation — documented. Pro-slavery writers in the United States argued from the Bible, and one of their central devices was the so-called "curse of Ham": a reading of Genesis 9 that claimed Africans, as supposed descendants of Noah's son Ham, were divinely destined for servitude. Taught here as a misuse, because the text itself refutes it on its face: Genesis 9 records a curse on Canaan, Ham's son — not on Ham — and says nothing connecting Canaan's line to Africa or to skin color, as biblical scholars across traditions have documented (see, for example, David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Princeton University Press). The misuse mattered institutionally: in 1844 the Methodist Episcopal Church split over whether a bishop could hold enslaved people, and in 1845 Southern Baptists formed the Southern Baptist Convention after national mission boards declined to appoint slaveholders as missionaries — denominational separations, as matters of documented fact, over slavery. Segregation was later defended from pulpits as well, including in published sermons and denominational statements of the Jim Crow era.

Religion in the work against them — also documented. Abolitionism drew heavily on religious leadership and argument, from Quaker anti-slavery testimony to the preaching traditions of Black churches — institutions built, under slavery and Jim Crow, as autonomous Black-led spaces of worship, education, mutual aid, and political organization. Historians of the civil-rights movement document the Black church's centrality to the movement's infrastructure — its meeting places, networks, and leadership, including clergy such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. — and document interfaith participation alongside it: rabbis, priests, ministers, and laypeople of many traditions marched, registered voters, and in some documented cases were killed, in the campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s. Those are attributed historical findings, and the same historians note that white congregations in the South were, in the main, not movement participants — the double history runs through the same decades.

Today's documented work. Denominations have put reconciliation into their own published records: the Southern Baptist Convention's 1995 resolution on racial reconciliation, adopted on its 150th anniversary, repudiated slavery and racism and apologized to Black Americans, and is published in the Convention's own resolutions archive; other denominations and faith bodies publish comparable statements, study materials, and joint congregational partnership programs, which any reader can find in the bodies' official publications rather than in this school's summary. This unit closes where the topic's founder-tradition stands as one documented tradition among others: ministry understood as advocacy — defending people and standing against injustice in public — is a form of religious work with a long record in the sources above. The school presents that tradition; it does not promote itself, and it does not rank faiths.

Part 7. The Record So Far — What the Evidence Shows, and What Actually Moved the Numbers

Close with the long-run series, each with publisher and year, because claims about progress and its absence both need numbers.

Attitudes. Gallup's long trend on approval of marriage between Black people and White people (Gallup, 2021) moved from 4% approval in 1958, when Gallup first asked, to 94% approval in 2021 — with 20% in 1968, the year after Loving, and majority approval first reached in 1997. Gallup describes the shift as one of the largest transformations in public opinion in its polling history. Attitude change of that scale is real — and it is the easiest kind of change to measure, which is why the next two series matter.

Wealth. The Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances (Board of Governors, 2023 release of 2022 data) reports median family wealth in 2022 of $285,000 for white families, $44,900 for Black families, and about $61,600 for Hispanic families — the typical Black family holding about 15% of the typical white family's wealth, as the Federal Reserve's own analysis puts it. Homeownership. The U.S. Census Bureau's Housing Vacancies and Homeownership release for the fourth quarter of 2023 reports homeownership rates of 73.8% for non-Hispanic white householders, 45.9% for Black householders, and 49.8% for Hispanic householders — a Black–white gap of about 28 percentage points, roughly where it stood a decade earlier, as Census-derived analyses report.

Synthesis — what the combined record shows. No single intervention ended racism anywhere it has receded, and this unit's evidence does not support crediting any one of them alone. What the record assembled across both units shows moving together is: law that changed (the Reconstruction Amendments, the 1964–1968 statutes, the court holdings), enforcement that followed (agencies, deadlines, litigation, preclearance while it operated), sustained contact and schooling (Part 5 of the companion unit and Johnson's desegregation cohorts), education (the definitions and records ordinary people can check), and time measured in generations (Gallup's 63-year trend). Where outcomes have not converged — wealth and homeownership above — the gap itself is the documented finding, and the debates in Part 4 over what governments should do next are, in part, debates about that gap. For related study, see the Topic Library's Positive Change unit (how change processes work, nonpartisan) and its Profiling unit (patterns, evidence, and the ethics of using them) — pointers only; everything this unit teaches is contained in this unit.

Words to know — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

Strict scrutiny — the courts' hardest test for a government racial classification: a compelling interest, narrowly tailored.
Discriminatory purpose — the intent to treat people differently because of race; required for a constitutional equal-protection claim after Washington v. Davis.
Disparate impact — a facially neutral practice's disproportionately adverse effect on a protected group; actionable under Title VII and the Fair Housing Act when the statutory tests are met.
Business necessity — under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k), the employer's required showing that a practice causing disparate impact is job related and consistent with business necessity.
Coverage formula — Voting Rights Act § 4(b): the statutory test that determined which jurisdictions were subject to § 5 preclearance, held unconstitutional in Shelby County.
Section 1981 — 42 U.S.C. § 1981: the Reconstruction-era guarantee of the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens.
Section 1983 — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: a civil action against a person who, under color of state law, deprives another of constitutional or federal rights.
Affirmative action — in this unit, race-conscious consideration in admissions or similar programs as debated and ruled on in Students for Fair Admissions (2023).
Reparations — proposals or programs to repair documented harms of slavery and discrimination, as in Evanston's housing program and the California Task Force recommendations.
Langar — the Sikh community kitchen serving free meals to all, seated together, regardless of caste, religion, gender, or status.

Myths vs facts — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

Myth: A policy that harms one race more than another is automatically unconstitutional. Fact: After Washington v. Davis (1976), a constitutional claim requires proof of discriminatory purpose; disparate-impact claims proceed under statutes — Title VII and the Fair Housing Act — that Congress wrote to reach effects (Parts 1–2).
Myth: Shelby County struck down the Voting Rights Act. Fact: Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down § 4(b)'s coverage formula, leaving § 5 without an operating formula; § 2 was not at issue and remains in force (Part 3).
Myth: Students for Fair Admissions banned universities from ever hearing how race affected an applicant. Fact: The 2023 holding forbids the race-conscious programs before the Court; it expressly did not bar considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected their life, tied to character or unique ability (Part 4).
Myth: The Bible's "curse of Ham" curses Africans. Fact: Genesis 9 records a curse on Canaan, not Ham, and connects it to neither Africa nor skin color; scholars document the racial reading as a later pro-slavery misuse (Part 6).
Myth: Because approval of interracial marriage reached 94%, the work is finished. Fact: Gallup (2021) measures attitudes; the Federal Reserve (2023, 2022 data) and Census Bureau (Q4 2023) series in Part 7 show wealth and homeownership gaps persisting — attitudes and outcomes are different measurements.

Think it through — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

The situation: A city employer uses a written aptitude test to promote warehouse workers. Black employees pass at roughly half the rate of white employees. A worker asks you three questions: Is this automatically unconstitutional? Could it still be unlawful? What would each kind of case have to prove?

Walk it through: (1) Automatically unconstitutional? Part 1 answers no — after Washington v. Davis, unequal impact alone does not violate the Constitution; a constitutional claimant must prove discriminatory purpose, using the Arlington Heights factors — impact, history, sequence, departures, and official statements — as evidence. (2) Unlawful anyway? Part 2 answers possibly — this is Griggs territory. Under Title VII as codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k), the workers would demonstrate that the particular test causes a disparate impact; the city would then have to demonstrate the test is job related for the position and consistent with business necessity; and an available alternative test with less impact that the city refuses could establish liability. (3) Keep the tracks separate in your own notes — purpose for the Constitution, effects-plus-justification for the statute — because mixing them is the most common error this unit exists to prevent. The worker's next step is documentation and a lawyer or the EEOC, not this lesson's conclusion.

Cases & codes to study — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976)

The facts: Black applicants who failed a written examination for the District of Columbia police department sued, showing the test failed Black applicants at a substantially higher rate than white applicants.
The question: Is a law or official act unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's equal-protection component solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact?
The ruling and the outcome: Decided June 7, 1976, the Court reversed the lower court: disproportionate impact alone is not unconstitutional; proof of discriminatory purpose is required — though impact is evidence of purpose, and statutory disparate-impact claims were distinguished.
Why it matters to you: Davis draws the line every later case walks: purpose for constitutional claims, effects under the statutes written to reach them.
📄 Court document: https://m.openjurist.org/426/us/229/washington-v-e-davis (the opinion — OpenJurist)

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977)

The facts: A nonprofit developer's plan for integrated low- and moderate-income housing required rezoning a parcel from single-family to multiple-family; the village denied the request, and the developer sued under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act.
The question: Did the denial violate equal protection — and how is discriminatory purpose proved when it is not announced?
The ruling and the outcome: Decided January 11, 1977, the Court reversed and remanded: purpose was not proved on this record, and it set out the circumstantial-evidence inquiry — impact, historical background, sequence of events, departures, and legislative or administrative history. The Fair Housing Act claim was left for remand.
Why it matters to you: Arlington Heights is the working checklist lawyers use to build — or test — an intent case from circumstantial evidence.
📄 Court document: https://openjurist.org/429/us/252/village-of-arlington-heights-v-metropolitan-housing-development-corporation (the opinion — OpenJurist)

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1971)

The facts: A power company required a high-school diploma and passing scores on standardized tests for transfer out of its lowest-paying department, requirements Black employees met at far lower rates and that were not shown related to job performance.
The question: Does Title VII prohibit employment requirements that disqualify a substantially higher rate of one race and are not shown related to job performance, even without proof of discriminatory purpose?
The ruling and the outcome: Decided March 8, 1971, a unanimous Court held yes: Title VII reaches practices fair in form but discriminatory in operation, unless shown related to job performance.
Why it matters to you: Griggs created disparate-impact doctrine; Congress codified its burden framework at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k) in 1991.
📄 Court document: https://openjurist.org/401/us/424 (the opinion — OpenJurist)
🎥 Watch / listen: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/124 — Listen: the actual oral argument — Oyez

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)

The facts: A fair-housing organization sued a Texas agency, alleging its allocation of housing tax credits caused a disparate impact by concentrating subsidized housing in predominantly minority areas.
The question: Are disparate-impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?
The ruling and the outcome: Decided June 25, 2015, the Court affirmed and remanded, 5–4: disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, with safeguards — robust causality, no liability for disparities the defendant did not create, and leeway for valid interests.
Why it matters to you: Inclusive Communities extends effects-based analysis to housing while limiting it — the balance Congress and the Court struck, in the Court's own terms.
📄 Court document: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/519/ (the opinion — Justia Supreme Court Center)
🎥 Watch / listen: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-1371 — Listen: the actual oral argument — Oyez

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2013)

The facts: An Alabama county within the coverage formula sued, challenging the 2006 reauthorization of Voting Rights Act §§ 4(b) and 5, which still keyed coverage to 1960s-era tests, devices, and turnout.
The question: Is § 4(b)'s coverage formula a valid exercise of Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?
The ruling and the outcome: Decided June 25, 2013, the Court held, 5–4, that § 4(b) is unconstitutional: the formula may no longer be used, leaving § 5 without an operating coverage formula unless Congress enacts a new one. Section 5 was not struck down and § 2 was not at issue.
Why it matters to you: After Shelby County, voting protection runs through § 2 litigation after a change, not § 5 preclearance before it — a structural change in how the Act works.
📄 Court document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf (the slip opinion — supremecourt.gov)
🎥 Watch / listen: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96 — Listen: the actual oral argument — Oyez

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2023)

The facts: An organization sued Harvard and the University of North Carolina, challenging admissions programs that considered applicants' race as one factor, on a record covering the programs' objectives, categories, and effects.
The question: Do the programs violate the Equal Protection Clause — for Harvard, Title VI, which is coextensive with equal protection?
The ruling and the outcome: Decided June 29, 2023, the Court reversed the First Circuit (decided together with the UNC case): the programs violate equal protection because they lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives, employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. The decision did not bar considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected their life, tied to character or unique ability, and did not address the military academies.
Why it matters to you: SFFA is the current law on race in public and federally funded admissions, and its majority and dissenting opinions are the strongest attributed statements of both sides of the live debate in Part 4.
📄 Court document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1199 (the opinion — Cornell Legal Information Institute)

The law itself — read the real words

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, including subsection (k) (Title VII) — unlawful employment practices; subsection (k), added by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, codifies the burden of proof in disparate-impact cases. Read it: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:2000e-2)
42 U.S.C. § 3604 (Fair Housing Act) — discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, the statute construed in Inclusive Communities. Read it: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:3604)
42 U.S.C. § 1981 — equal rights under the law, including the right to make and enforce contracts. Read it: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter21/subchapter1&edition=prelim
42 U.S.C. § 1983 — civil action for deprivation of rights under color of state law. Read it: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter21/subchapter1&edition=prelim
52 U.S.C. § 10301 (Voting Rights Act § 2) — nationwide ban on voting practices that result 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)
52 U.S.C. § 10304 (Voting Rights Act § 5) — the preclearance requirement, inoperable without a coverage formula after Shelby County. Read it: https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-52/subtitle-i/chapter-103/sec-10304/

Where to read the real thing, free: supremecourt.gov (https://www.supremecourt.gov), CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com), Oyez (https://www.oyez.org), U.S. Code — House (https://uscode.house.gov), Constitution Annotated (https://constitution.congress.gov).

Try this — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

☐ Sort six short scenarios into "constitutional claim — needs purpose," "statutory claim — effects test," or "both," using Parts 1–2, and write the case that decides each track.
☐ Read § 2000e-2(k) in the U.S. Code and rewrite its three steps in your own words.
☐ For one debate in Part 4, write each side's strongest argument in two sentences, attributed by name — then check you could defend either summary to a person who holds that view.
☐ Read Qur'an 49:13 in Pickthall and Galatians 3:28 in the World English Bible side by side, and note in one sentence what each text itself makes the measure of a person.
☐ Find the Census Bureau's latest homeownership release and write down the three rates in Part 7 with the quarter and year, so your copy stays dated and honest.

Resources to keep — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

911 — if you or someone else is in danger right now.
988 (call or text) — Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, if a discrimination fight becomes a personal crisis.
EEOC — eeoc.gov — filing a charge of employment discrimination, including disparate-impact claims under Title VII.
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination — mass.gov — discrimination complaints in Massachusetts under ch. 151B.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division — justice.gov — voting, housing, and employment enforcement information.
HHS OCR 1-800-368-1019 — civil-rights complaints in health and human services programs.
National Archives — archives.gov — the constitutional text and historical records cited in this unit.

What you earned / what's next — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

✅ How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far complete (quiz score 80% or higher): You can state the strict-scrutiny frame and the Davis intent rule with the Arlington Heights factors, distinguish constitutional from statutory disparate-impact claims after Griggs and Inclusive Communities, state precisely what Shelby County and Students for Fair Admissions held and did not hold, summarize each live debate with both sides attributed, quote the verified scripture passages accurately, and read the Gallup, Federal Reserve, and Census series in Part 7 with their publishers and years attached.

Your certificate

Minister Destiny Testimony Schools Certificate of Completion — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

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 weighed hard cases, heard every side in its own strongest words, and kept every number tied to its source. That is the discipline of a fair mind — carry it into every room where these questions are decided. — 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

OpenStax, American Government, ch. 5 "Civil Rights" — strict scrutiny, de jure / de facto distinction, and the affirmative-action arc (Bakke → Grutter → SFFA) checked for Parts 1 and 4.
Baháʼí International Community — statement to the United Nations World Conference Against Racism (2001), via the Australian Baháʼí Community publication (https://bahai.org.au/Portals/0/oneness_humanity.pdf) — oneness of humanity as the pivotal principle, Part 5; see also Baháʼí Reference Library (bahai.org) for the condemnation of all forms of prejudice as an essential element of the teaching.
Sikh Dharma International (sikhdharma.org) — "Guruka Langar" (https://www.sikhdharma.org/guruka-langar/) — langar, pangat, and equality of all before God regardless of birth, gender, faith, or status, Part 5.
Goldenberg, David M., The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton University Press) — the racial reading of Genesis 9 documented as a later construction; the text curses Canaan, not Ham, Part 6.
Association of Religion Data Archives (thearda.com) — denominational timelines: Methodist division of 1844 and the Southern Baptist Convention's formation on May 8, 1845, over slaveholders as missionaries, Part 6.
Southern Baptist Convention — Resolutions archive (sbc.net) — 1995 Resolution on Racial Reconciliation, Part 6.
City of Evanston, Illinois — Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program (approved March 22, 2021): up to $25,000 in housing grants; eligibility tied to residence in Evanston 1919–1969, direct descent, or post-1969 city-policy housing discrimination; $10 million commitment funded in part by the municipal cannabis tax — Part 4, as reported in the program record and the Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences study of the program.
California Reparations Task Force — Final Report (2023), California Attorney General (oag.ca.gov) — lineage-based eligibility recommendation, formal apology, and itemized compensation calculations for housing discrimination, mass incarceration and overpolicing, health harms, and other categories, Part 4.
Texas Senate Bill 17 (2023) and Florida Senate Bill 266 (2023) — state laws restricting DEI offices, statements, trainings, and expenditures at public institutions of higher education, described by type in Part 4.
Gallup (news.gallup.com) — "U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%" (2021; poll conducted July 6–21, 2021) (https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx) — 4% in 1958, 20% in 1968, majority in 1997, 94% in 2021, Part 7.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — "Greater Wealth, Greater Uncertainty: Changes in Racial Inequality in the Survey of Consumer Finances" (2023, 2022 data) (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/greater-wealth-greater-uncertainty-changes-in-racial-inequality-in-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20231018.html) — median wealth $285,000 white / $44,900 Black / about $61,600 Hispanic families, Part 7.
U.S. Census Bureau — Quarterly Residential Vacancies and Homeownership, Fourth Quarter 2023 (census.gov; table reproduced in the Fourth Quarter 2024 release at https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/qtr424/Q424press.pdf) — homeownership 73.8% non-Hispanic white / 45.9% Black / 49.8% Hispanic householders, Part 7.
Qur'an 49:13 (Surah Al-Hujurat) — Marmaduke Pickthall translation (1930, public domain), verified at quran.so — quoted verbatim in Part 5.
Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28; Acts 10:34–35 — World English Bible (public domain), verified at ebible.org and wd.bible — quoted verbatim in Part 5.
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) — discriminatory purpose required for a constitutional equal-protection claim.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) — the circumstantial-evidence inquiry for discriminatory purpose; Fair Housing Act claim left for remand.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) — disparate impact under Title VII; job-relatedness required.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (U.S. Supreme Court 2015) — disparate-impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, with safeguards.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) — § 4(b) coverage formula unconstitutional; § 5 left without an operating formula; § 2 not at issue.
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (U.S. Supreme Court 2023) — Harvard and UNC race-conscious admissions programs violate Equal Protection / Title VI.
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (U.S. Code) — equal rights under the law, including making and enforcing contracts.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (U.S. Code) — civil action for deprivation of rights under color of state law.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (U.S. Code), including § 2000e-2(k) — unlawful employment practices; disparate-impact burden of proof codified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (text at EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/civil-rights-act-1991-original-text).
42 U.S.C. § 3604 (U.S. Code) — Fair Housing Act prohibited practices.
Voting Rights Act § 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (U.S. Code) — nationwide results test for vote denial or abridgement on account of race or color.
Voting Rights Act § 5, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (U.S. Code) — preclearance; and § 4(b), 52 U.S.C. § 10303 — the coverage formula held unconstitutional in Shelby County.

Your Progress — On Your Device Only — How Racism Is Fought — Governments, Religions, and the Record So Far

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

state the strict-scrutiny test for express racial classifications and the Washington v. Davis discriminatory-purpose rule, with the Arlington Heights evidentiary factors;
explain disparate impact under Title VII after Griggs and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k), and under the Fair Housing Act after Inclusive Communities, and outline 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983;
state precisely what Shelby County v. Holder held about § 4(b), § 5, and § 2, and describe post-2013 voting-law changes neutrally by type;
state the Students for Fair Admissions holding precisely, including what it did not bar and the military-academies footnote, and summarize the affirmative-action, DEI, and reparations debates with proponents and critics attributed;
quote Qur'an 49:13 (Pickthall) and Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28, and Acts 10:34–35 (World English Bible) accurately, summarize the Farewell Sermon teaching without presenting it as a verbatim public-domain quotation, and describe Baháʼí oneness and Sikh langar from their sources;
describe the religious double history — the "curse of Ham" misuse and the 1844–1845 denominational splits, and abolitionist and civil-rights religious leadership — as documented fact;
report the Gallup (2021), Federal Reserve (2023), and Census Bureau (Q4 2023) figures in Part 7 with publisher and year, and state the unit's evidence-based synthesis.

Study time: Approximately 1.5 hours — 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.