Why is the concept of race so prevalent in modern society when anthropologists refute its use in virtually all
instances? Where it is used by anthropologists, what is the context? What is the rationale for its use within
those situations? How is the concept of population similar to, or different than, race? How does using the
statistical concept of ‘population’ to group people instead of race change how you think about human variation
– or does it change it at all? Are we just substituting one word for another? How can we begin to move away
from the concept of race?
The landmark case that set precedent for school prayer was Engel v. Vitale. The argument originated in the Herricks school district and was decided by the Warren Court in 1962. The conclusion was that public schools are not allowed to hold prayer, regardless of whether participation was required or not or religious affiliation. The policy of school prayer in a government-funded school oversteps the very clear line between Church and State (Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). The constitution is very clear about congress making no laws that establish any kind of official religion or spiritual activity, thus spending government money (aka taxpayer money) supporting religious practices in schools (such as prayer) does constitute the government supporting religion. Many believed that even though the students could leave during the prayer, the very circumstance of the prayer happening in state-sponsored schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the purpose of the clause is to keep the government completely separate from religion and religious institutions. Currently, the standing is that, under no circumstances can public schools hold prayer. People are free to practice as they please, but the government cannot be affiliated with religion or it’s institutions. The landmark case concerning defamation was New York Time Company v. Sullivan. It took place during the 1960s. An ad with frequent, minor discrepancies in its information was published, which also criticized Sullivan’s employees. As a result, Sullivan felt like he had been slandered. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the New York Times was not liable for defamation. The consensus was that when regarding a public figure, the person wanting the statement removed must determine either knowledge of or gross neglect of the documents’ validity. Part of the reason this ruling was so important was because set the foundation for multi-faced media coverage of the civil rights movement. Many other news outlets (particularly in the South) had been facing defamation suits by local leaders and police departments because they covered the violence taking place when African-americans peacefully protested. Obviously, this level of brutality and violence against blacks (including women and childr>GET ANSWER