BRIA(14:1) Kennewick Man, witch hunts, Proposition 187, immigrants, rights

In a free and diverse society such as ours, conflicts are inevitable. Clashes can erupt between economic classes, science and religion, or ethnic groups. Often the courts are called upon to intervene. In this issue of Bill of Rights in Action, we examine some current and historical controversies that have led to court actions.

This issue of the Bill of Rights in Action is made possible by a generous grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation.

On July 28, 1996, two young college students, Will Thomas and Dave Deacy, were wading in the Columbia River near the town of Kennewick, Washington. They had come to watch a hydroplane race. Near the bank of the river, Thomas spied what looked like a smooth, round rock. He picked it up for a closer look and discovered he was holding a human skull.

Thinking that they might have discovered the body of a recent murder victim, the two young men notified the county sheriff. Soon the Kennewick police were on the scene and discovered more bones. They called the county coroner and a local anthropologist, James Chatters, to help investigate. It soon became clear that the remains had been in the earth for some time—the bones showed deep discoloration and were encrusted with soil. Because the skull showed features common to Europeans, a long narrow face, receding cheek bones, a high chin and a square jaw, Chatters began to think that they had discovered the skeleton of an early pioneer.

Because the bones were found on federal land, Chatters applied for and received a permit to excavate the site. He returned to the river bank several times and recovered more bones, laying them out in his basement for further study. The pelvis demonstrated that the skeleton belonged to a man. The length of the leg bones showed that he had been 5 feet 9 or 10 inches tall. Teeth and bone formation indicated that he died when he was between 40 and 55 years old. Chatters also discovered a spear or arrow point lodged in the man's pelvis. The wound had healed over and was not the cause of death. It reinforced Chatter's belief that the Kennewick skeleton belonged to an early pioneer, who might have survived a battle with Native American Indians. Then the picture began to change.

Chatters shared the bones with another anthropologist, Dr. Catherine MacMillan. Although she agreed with many of Chatter's conclusions, including that the bones were of a European type, she believed that the spear point might be very old. It seemed to be like those made during the Cascade period in ancient America, sometime between 4,500 and 9,000 years ago. This raised a serious question. Most scientists believe that Europeans did not arrive in the new world before 1000 A.D when the Vikings began to explore the continent. How could a person with European characteristics get wounded by a projectile at least 2,500 years older?

To solve the puzzle, Chatters sent a small bone from the hand of the skeleton to the University of California, Riverside, for radiocarbon dating. All living matter contains a radioactive element called carbon 14. When the organism dies, this element begins to decay at a constant rate. By measuring the amount of carbon 14 left, scientists can tell how long ago the organism died. In this case, the test results showed that the Kennewick man had been dead for up to 9,300 years. This dating made the skeleton one of the oldest ever found in North America.

Maybe the bones were not those of a European, but belonged to a long-dead American Indian whose ancestors migrated to America as early as 10,000 years ago. But, another anthropologist, Grover Krantz of Washington State University, confirmed that the bones did not match any existing tribe in the area or any western Native American type.

While the mystery of Kennewick Man began to grow, events took another turn. Before the scientists could conduct further studies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took custody of the bones.

The corps was acting under the authority of a federal law called the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA). Among other things, this law requires federal agencies, in control of lands where human remains are found, to make a determination whether or not they are of Native American origin. If the remains are of Native American origin, the agency must notify the Indian tribe associated with the remains. Then, upon request of the Indian tribe, the remains must be returned to the tribe for burial according to its customs. Under the act, the tribe owns the recovered remains.

NAGRPA, enacted in 1990, was designed to correct a long-standing grievance of Native Americans. Ever since the 19th century, Indian burial sites throughout the United States had been plundered of human remains, sacred relics, and pieces of art. Some of the material ended up in private collections. But many items, especially skulls and bones, were sent to museums for study. Scientists used the remains to learn about the Indian populations of North America.

Many Native Americans were offended by these practices. They believed that the souls of their ancestors could not find peace unless their remains rested in proper graves. They believed that keeping the remains for study showed that white people did not respect Indian culture or practices. How would whites feel, they argued, if Native Americans dug up white cemeteries and kept the bones or put them on display? NAGRPA addressed these concerns. It also applied to federally funded museums, which were required to make an inventory of their collections, identify the source, and return items to the appropriate tribe.

The Army Corps of Engineers decided that this law applied to the Kennewick Man. It based its finding on the fact that the Kennewick bones were over 9,000 years old and were found on the traditional tribal lands of the Umatilla Indians. They reasoned that this was too old for the remains to have been anything other than Native American. As a result, the corps notified several Washington state and northern Oregon tribes about the find, including the Umatilla Indians. The tribes demanded a halt to the study of the bones and asked that they be returned, some wanting immediate reburial. The corps seized the bones and stored them for the required 30-day waiting period for other claims as required by the law. During this time, the corps refused any further scientific study, nor would they permit the bones to be photographed.

The scientists who had been studying the remains became frantic. Much more work had to be done before they had any hope of uncovering the secrets of Kennewick Man. Appeals to the corps to allow further study failed. On October 16, 1996, to stop the delivery and burial of the bones, eight scientists, all employed by major universities or museums, filed a federal lawsuit. The suit asked the court to review the actions of the Corps of Engineers and for an order barring the delivery of the bones to the Native American groups. The suit also requested that the scientists gain access to the remains for further study.

Lawyers for the scientists argued that the Corps of Engineers had made a mistake in determining that Kennewick Man could be traced to any existing Indian tribe or group. The mere facts that the bones were old and found on tribal territory proved nothing, according to the scientists. In fact, the bones were too old to be related to the Umatilla or the other tribes, they argued, and only further study would reveal whether the bones are even those of a Native American within the meaning of the act. If the bones are not, argued the scientists, they have a right to study them.

Lawyers for the Corps of Engineers opposed the call for a restraining order. They argued that there was no need for one because the government had no immediate plans to deliver the remains to the tribes and would need more time to consider the various claims to the skeleton.

After a series of hearings, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his ruling on June 27, 1997. He ordered the Corps of Engineers to conduct a new review of its actions concerning Kennewick Man and to provide a 14-day notice before transferring the remains. He also questioned whether the corps had acted too quickly and failed to consider all relevant information. He refused the scientists' request to study the bones, but ruled it could be raised again in the future.

On a legal basis, the fate of Kennewick Man may rest on the language contained in NAGRPA. The act applies to "Native American" remains and artifacts. According to the act "Native American" means "of, or relating to, a tribe, people or culture that is indigenous to the United States." That is, did the tribe, people or culture originate in America?

Most scientists believe that the ancestors of Native Americans crossed over to North America by means of the Bering land bridge. It stretched from Siberia to Alaska some 12,000 years ago and is now covered by water. Migrating from Asia, these ancient wanderers were classified by scientists as of "Mongoloid" stock. So are the modern Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Because of many physical similarities, particularly relating to features on the skull, modern American Indians were also classified as Mongoloid.

In recent years, scientists have begun to reconsider these beliefs. Many now believe that the prehistoric migration to America was much more complex and may have taken place at different times and involved different peoples. A number of ancient American skeletons have been discovered that, like Kennewick Man, have non-Mongoloid features.

Scientists are divided about what this means. Some believe that the evidence is building to show that some of the earliest Americans were of Caucasoid stock. These people are related to those of Europe and the Middle East. Some scientists believe that the Caucasians were more widespread in Asia than previously thought and could have come over on the land bridge, perhaps in an early wave. According to this theory, the Caucasians mingled with various Mongoloid groups and both became the ancestors of Native Americans.

Other scientists argue that Caucasian features do not prove that the skeletal remains are truly Caucasoid. They argue that the long heads and angular faces may have developed naturally in the Asian population and are not related to Caucasians at all. This would explain other groups, such as the Polynesians and the Ainu of Japan, who do not look like modern Asians and have some Caucasian characteristics.

Both groups of scientists believe that much more study is required before any of these questions can be settled. For them, Kennewick Man may provide an important piece to the puzzle.

Another controversy has re-emerged in the wake of finding the bones of Kennewick Man. It is a clash of values.

For scientists and many others in the modern world, the search for knowledge is supreme. For them, it is crucial that humans unlock the secrets of the past to better understand the present and future. For them, science provides the key.

For others, including the Umatilla Indians, religion is more important. According to Armand Minthorn, a religious leader of the Umatilla, his people believe that Kennewick Man is not a Caucasian, but a Native American. According to their elders, "Indian people did not always look the way we look today."

Based on his religious beliefs, Minthorn rejects the theory of a Bering land bridge or that American Indians originated in Asia. Citing oral histories that he claims go back 10,000 years, he believes Native Americans were created in North America.

He rejects the scientific argument that by stopping further study, the Indians will destroy evidence of their own history. "We already know our history. It is passed to us through our elders and through our religious practices."

For him, Umatilla religious beliefs forbid scientific testing on human remains and require that Kennewick Man be re-buried quickly. And for him, no compromise is possible.

Not all Native American leaders share Minthorn's views. Others believe that compromise is possible and have worked together with scientists to study the ancient people of America. In fact, several of the tribes involved in the Kennewick case are interested in a scientific study of the bones.

Still, it is unlikely that the controversies surrounding Kennewick Man will be resolved any time soon. Even when they are, an important question for our society will remain: When science and religious beliefs are in conflict, whose truths will prevail?

2. Should the NAGRPA law be applied to the bones of Kennewick Man? Why or why not?

3. What other science versus religion controversies are common in society today? How do they compare to the one in the reading?

Abrams, Garry, "The 'Unknown Hominid' Suffers A Fate Worse Than Death," Los Angeles Daily Journal, 9/12/97.

Murphy, Kim, "Skeleton Embodies Debate on America's First People," Los Angeles Times, 8/13/1997.

Imagine that you are part of a working group charged with proposing a compromise to the conflict in the Kennewick case. It is your job to come up with a plan that 1) Provides assurance that any study of the Kennewick remains will be sensitive to the religious beliefs of Native Americans and 2) Provide scientists with sufficient freedom and access to the remains for proper study.

4. Share and discuss your plan with the class. Create a class plan incorporating the best elements proposed.

Witch Hunt

It is 1645 in the County of Essex, England. At the jail in the town of Chelmsford, the following prisoners are delivered under indictment.

Anne Leach of Mysley, a widow, on June 20 bewitched John Edwardes, the infant son of Richard, a gentleman. The indictment was endorsed by Matthew Hopkins, John Sterne, Richard Edwardes and Susan Edwardes, his wife.

Elizabeth Gooding, on October 5 did entertain two evil spirits each in the likeness of a young cat, one named Mouse and the other Pease. The indictment was endorsed by Susanna Edwardes, Matthew Hopkins, Grace Norman, Jonathan Freelove, and John Sterne.

Anne Therston, a spinster, did entertain two evil spirits in the likeness of a bird and a mouse and bewitched to death one black cow. Both indictments were endorsed by John Alderton and Samuel Wray.

All three were sentenced to be "hanged by the neck until they be dead," along with 23 other prisoners. For the people of England and much of Europe, there was an evil on the land: witchcraft.

The belief in witches is ancient. As shown by the quote from the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites believed in witches, so did the Babylonians and the Romans. While witches have been prosecuted from the earliest times, the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe and England marked a peak. It has been called "the great witch craze." Before it was over, thousands would be executed or imprisoned. These centuries also marked the years of the High Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Scientific Revolution.

Scholars are divided about what caused "the witch craze." Some point to the turbulent changes taking place in the societies of the 16th and 17th centuries. In such stressful times, people and institutions often look for others to blame and make scapegoats out of them. Since most of the victims of the witch craze were women, many of them unmarried or widows, some experts have argued that its cause can be traced to the hatred of woman by the male-dominated societies of the time.

Other experts believe that the "witch craze" had deeper roots. They claim that it represented a clash between established religions, Catholicism and Protestantism, and older folk culture and beliefs. Before the spread of Christianity near the end of the Roman Empire, a variety of older religions held sway in Europe. Most worshipped a variety of gods and had their own religious practices. For example, the Celts, who lived in parts of Germany, France, Spain, Scotland, and Ireland, held ceremonies every fall to appease the spirits of the dead by building bonfires on tall hills. The ancient Wicca religion worshiped nature and held rituals to ensure good harvests. By the time of the 16th century, many of these practices had been suppressed or adapted by the church. For example, All Souls Day, a Catholic religious holiday, has its origin in old Celtic practices. Nevertheless, some rituals continued to be practiced, especially in rural areas. They became associated or confused with devil worship and the church viewed them as a threat that had to be severely repressed.

While the general cause of the witch craze may be debatable, many historians think it was energized by the actions of Pope Innocent VIII in 1484. In that year, the Vatican became increasingly concerned about what it perceived as the growing problem of sorcery and witchcraft, particularly in Germany. In December of that year, the pope issued a Bull (decree) condemning the practices of witchcraft and ordering the clergy to assist in stamping it out. While not the only church decree on the subject of witchcraft, it was the most powerful and influential.

To aid in these new efforts, the church had two inquisitors, Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, who would lead the campaign against witchcraft. Both senior churchmen of the Dominican Order, Kramer and Sprenger pursued their duties with energy and determination. The first task was the writing of the Malleus Maleficarum (The Witch Hammer), published as early as 1486. It was a handbook to be used by church and civil authorities alike for identifying, trying, and punishing witches. Widely distributed, the book continued to be printed and used well into the 1700s. Oddly, it was also widely used in Protestant countries.

By the mid-1500s, efforts to stamp out witches in Europe had reached their height. Some experts have estimated that as many as 300,000 people were tried and executed, usually by burning. The peak of the witch craze in England did not come until later. In 1559 during the reign of Elizabeth, concerns arose that laws against witchcraft were not strong enough, so a new statute was passed making witchcraft a felony. Over the next decades and well into the 1600s, prosecutions increased. While earlier historians believed that up to 100,000 people accused of witchcraft were killed, usually by hanging, modern estimates are much lower. Research of court records puts the number closer to 1,000 executions between 1542 and 1736.

Procedures for trying witches varied from place to place. In this period, the distinction between religious and civil authority was blurred. The monarch of the land had both. Cases were controlled by overlapping religious and civil laws. In general, church authorities were responsible for the souls of witches. The civil authorities were responsible for their bodies. A church court would try to determine if a person was a witch, get the person to confess the sin, and assign penance. People convicted would then be turned over to civil authorities for punishment. In England, after the passage of the statute making witchcraft a felony, the civil courts also began trying witches.

To modern eyes, the case procedures in a witch trial may seem both bizarre and unfair. But they were based on deeply held beliefs and could be quite complex. A case would often start with an accusation of a witness. A person could be accused of acts of sorcery, magic, using charms, or making a pact with the devil. Most often a person was accused of causing harm by using witchcraft. Failing crops, a horse gone lame, a dead cow, a person suddenly falling ill, or an unexpected thunderstorm—all could be the product of witchcraft. Sometimes the authorities employed professional "witchfinders." These experts could supposedly spot evidence of witchcraft and identify the person responsible. Matthew Hopkins served this role in England in the mid-1600s.

Once accused, the person could be held for examination. Conducted by judges or magistrates, the examination went through several stages. It began with the questioning of witnesses. The Malleus urged judges to carefully question witnesses to find out if they were being truthful or making claims based on a grudge against the accused. However, a person could be convicted of witchcraft on the words of a single witness.

The next stage involved questioning the accused witch. If the witch confessed, the process would end. If not, the questioning would proceed with the aim of gaining a confession. Because it was assumed that a witch would try to conceal the crimes of witchcraft, the court was prepared to go to great lengths to get to the truth. The accused were often deprived of sleep and questioned repeatedly. The court also could order any number of tests to determine if the person was a witch. He or she could be bound with cords and thrown into water. If the person floated, it proved he or she was a witch, if the person sank, and maybe drowned, it showed innocence. This test was based on the belief that water would not accept the witch's evil. Other tests included searching the accused's body for the "Devil's Mark." Moles, birthmarks, or odd scars could prove the person guilty.

If tests showed that the accused was a witch, but the person refused to confess, the process moved to the next stage: torture. First, the accused was shown the instruments of torture and questioned again. If that did not work, light torture was used, perhaps thumbscrews or an iron foot clamp. Then the questioning began again. As a last resort to get a confession, a judge could order the "third degree." Here the accused would suffer the agony of the rack, or being burned with red hot tongs, or being crushed by heavy weights. Few failed to confess during the third degree. In England, torture ran contrary to the common law and was rarely used against suspected witches. Still, many were roughly and brutally treated during examination. Those who confessed were encouraged to name other witches, sometimes with the hint of lighter punishment. But often, they were executed anyway.

By today's standards, those accused of witchcraft had few rights. There was no presumption of innocence, no juries as we know them, and no right to an attorney. In fact, the Malleus counseled judges to keep lawyers or friends of the accused out of the courtroom so as not to confuse the process. In addition, those accused could be forced to testify against themselves, by torture or brutal treatment, if necessary. In truth, these rights of due process, as we know them, had not yet developed.

By the early 1700s the witch craze ended. In fact, America's own witch trials of 1692 in Salem came near the end of the cycle. While the witch craze ended at different times and for different reasons in other places, the Salem trials came to an end when the wrong people were accused of witchcraft and the authorities started asking questions. The young girls and woman who started the craze had accused hundreds of people. Some of them were important and wealthy. The accusers finally went too far when they claimed that Lady Phips, the governor's wife, was a witch. Unlike many of the previous victims who were poor and lacked political connections, Lady Phips was both well known and had powerful friends. It seemed inconceivable that she could be a witch. The authorities and people as a whole begin to question the whole process.

Soon the tide began to turn. Religious leaders and judges began to question the kind of evidence being used to convict witches. A minister, Reverend Petis, who had testified against six witches, admitted he had been in error and begged forgiveness. One of the witch trial judges, Samuel Sewell, confessed that he had wrongly convicted witches. Pending cases against accused witches were dismissed and several convicted were pardoned. The witch craze in Salem ended almost as suddenly as it had begun.

3. Do you think something like the witch craze could happen again? Why or why not?

Kramer, Heinrich and Sprenger, James, The Malleus Malleficarum, New York: Dover Books, 1971.

Shermer, Michael, Why People Believe Weird Things, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1997.

Historians and writers have compared the witch craze of the 16th and 17th centuries to various events in the 20th century. Working as individuals or in groups, select one of the following events and research and write a one-page report comparing and contrasting it with the witch craze.

Share your findings with the class. Debrief the exercise with the following question:

The Battle Over Proposition 187

The federal government has the responsibility of controlling U.S. borders and the flow of people across them. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) administers the many federal laws that determine legal status in the United States. But federal efforts have not been succeeded in controlling the number of illegal immigrants in California and in other areas including Texas, Arizona, south Florida, New York and Chicago. The INS estimated that California had roughly 1.6 million illegal immigrants in 1994.

This failure has prompted bitter fights at the ballot box and in the courts between those who favor strict measures to discourage illegal immigration and those who oppose such measures on humanitarian grounds.

Proposition 187 was the most controversial measure on the California state ballot in 1994. It served as a focus of a larger debate about what should be done about illegal immigration. Frustrated by a lack of federal action and the failure of state legislation, backers of tough measures against illegal immigrants decided to take their issue to the public.

Like many states, California has an initiative process. This allows groups to place proposed measures on the ballot for consideration of the voters. If approved, a proposition becomes law in California. For a proposition to be placed on the California ballot, its backers must qualify the measure. This means they must circulate petitions among registered voters. Backers must collect enough valid signatures to amount to 5 percent of the total number of voters who cast ballots in the last election for state governor. Proposition 187 qualified and was placed on the ballot.

The purpose of Proposition 187 was clear. It was designed to discourage illegal immigration into California by denying education, health, and social services to people who did not have legal immigrant status. Under the proposition, people without legal status could be barred from getting welfare benefits, from receiving non-emergency health service, and from attending public schools. To make this happen, the measure required educational, public health, and social service administrators, and law enforcement officials to check on the immigration or citizenship status of the people they serve. For example, school officials would have to check the status of all students. Social service workers would have to check the status of their clients. The names of all those suspected of illegal status would be sent to the federal immigration service and the California attorney general.

The supporters of Proposition 187 included former immigration service administrators Harold Ezell and Alan Nelson, Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy, Governor Pete Wilson, the California Republican Party, U.S. Senate candidate Mike Huffington, and the California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

Opponents of the Proposition 187 included the California Teachers Association, California Labor Association, California Medical Association, State League of Women Voters, California State Employees Association, Los Angeles City Council, President Bill Clinton, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the democratic candidate for governor Kathleen Brown.

Supporters of Proposition 187, called the Save Our State campaign, saw illegal immigration as a very serious problem, especially in California. They argued that the federal government has failed to deal with the problem. In general, they believed that illegal immigration places a drain on California taxpayers. They also believed that it is morally wrong and hurts the economy and the job market. They hoped that the measure would force the federal government to better control the borders. The law, they argued, would discourage illegal immigration and reduce the costs of public services by hundreds of millions of dollars. These savings, they argued, could be used to improve services to legal residents or to cut taxes.

Opponents of Proposition 187 may have agreed that illegal immigration is a serious problem, but they believed that the measure was unconstitutional and created bad public policy. They also worried that the proposition may violate federal law and that it could put California's federal funding in jeopardy at a potential cost of billions of dollars.

The opponents pointed to an existing U.S. Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe (1982), which held that the children of illegal immigrants could not be denied access to public education. They argued that this decision showed that Proposition 187 is unconstitutional and would never go into effect. Opponents also argued that Proposition 187 is bad public policy because it required public service employees to enforce it, turning them into law enforcement officers. They predicted that if illegal immigrants were denied health services, disease rates might increase. Or, if students were forced out of school and onto the streets with nothing to do, crime rates might increase. Finally, opponents argued that the measure could increase prejudice against brown-skinned residents whether they are citizens, legal residents, visitors, or illegal immigrants.

In the November 1994 election, Proposition 187 passed by a nearly 3-2 margin, but almost immediately it was challenged in federal court. The court challenges kept most of its provisions from being enforced.

Political controversy over the new law also continued after the election. Some Latino opponents of the new law urged a boycott of tourism to California; others urged a boycott of certain corporations that had contributed to the campaign of Governor Pete Wilson, a supporter of the measure. Some Latino groups opposed the boycotts, fearing it would increase unemployment in the state. From the other side of the issue, some supporters of the new law urged recall campaigns against public officials who joined in lawsuits to stop the law from going into effect.

After the passage of Proposition 187, the U.S. Congress also became involved in the question of public benefits for undocumented immigrants. In 1996, a new federal welfare reform law went into effect. Called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, it too restricts the rights of illegal immigrants to receive various public benefits. In some ways, it even went further. It not only applied to illegal immigrants, but also to "not-qualified" non-citizens who are legally residing in the United States on a temporary basis. However, unlike Proposition 187, the welfare reform law did not ban children of illegal residents from public schools.

As these events took place, the federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 187 continued. Then in November 1997, two years after the measure passed in California, federal Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer issued a ruling. In a 32-page opinion on the case, the judge declared Proposition 187 "not constitutional on its face." She struck down all of the law's major provisions including the ban on public school attendance and health and social-service benefits. She did let stand less-controversial elements of the law, which established criminal penalties for the use of false immigration documents.

Judge Pfaelzer rested her ruling on what is called the federal "preemption doctrine." Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause. It holds that laws passed by Congress are the supreme law of the land and that, if they conflict with laws passed by the various states, the state laws are invalid. Under the authority of the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal laws can "preempt" state laws. For example, the power to regulate interstate commerce is given to Congress under the Constitution. If a state were to pass a law trying to regulate interstate commerce, that law would be preempted because Congress already exercises its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and the state laws could conflict with federal law. Preemption does not only apply to commerce matters, but to areas traditionally left to federal control including bankruptcy, patent and trademark, admiralty regulation, and immigration.

According to Judge Pfaelzer's ruling, because Proposition 187 attempted to regulate immigration, it was preempted by federal law. "California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," stated the judge. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits." To support her ruling, the judge cited the recent federal welfare reform act as demonstrating Congress's intent to regulate in this area.

Supporters of the Proposition 187 vowed to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether in the courts or in the political arena, the debate over Proposition 187 and other similar measures is likely to continue for some time.

Introduction: Proposition 187 is an example of a public policy. Public policy is a governmental law, rule, or action on a particular issue. Because public policy can affect many lives and have widespread impact, there are often many opinions about what is good or bad policy. When thinking about public policy, it is important for everyone to ask some tough questions about it. This should happen at every stage of policy making: when it is proposed, or adopted, or even after it goes into effect. Remember: Laws and policies, even when enacted, can be changed or repealed or overturned.

All of us should be involved in policy making. We do this when we vote. We do this when we write to our elected officials or newspapers. We do this when we work on elections or join with others to speak our minds.

To be real players in helping shape public policy, we need to be informed about the issue. We need to think through issues and proposed policies. We need to be able to discuss and effectively state our views. This will help to persuade others.

Instructions: Imagine that a law similar to Proposition 187 were being considered where you live. Imagine that you have been appointed to a Citizen Advisory Panel to make recommendations about the proposed law. Based on what you have learned about Proposition 187, work in small groups to answer the following questions. Similar questions can be used when you are analyzing any policy. Make sure you think about and answer each question. Be prepared to share your answers with the class.

3. Does the proposition address the causes of the problem? Does the proposition help lessen its negative effects?

6. Based on the answers to the previous questions, would you support or oppose the proposition?

Bill of Rights in Action

Fall 1998 (14:1)

Culture Clash

Witch Hunt

The Battle Over Proposition 187