Carroll's Coin Game of Life

 

Objectives: As a result of participation in this game and follow-up discussion, students will be able to:

 

1. state examples of laws that include discriminatory categories

2. explain how the legal system determines whether such laws violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

Procedures:

  1. Tell everyone to stand up and take out a coin.  Those without coins may borrow one.
  2. State that the group will play a game, and to determine a winner, rules reflecting life in America will be used.
  3. " Anyone holding a penny, (write "penny" on the board) give your coin to someone next to you, and sit down. Nice try!" Repeat this several times (each time write on board in a vertical column the key words) with examples such as. . "ancestry that is African, Asian or Eastern European," "Hindu, Jewish or Catholic," "glasses," "women," etc until only one person remains: a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Then ask the group to applaud our winner (be sure coins are returned at some point).
  4. Ask for opinions (usually unnecessary I for participants are complaining by now). Someone should say it's "unfair." Ask why. Response: "Discrimination." Look puzzled and state that although the rules may discriminate, there are laws that also discriminate according to these same categories.
  5. Ask what each of the rules symbolize (e.g., penny--economic status or poverty). On the board, to the right of the column of rules (penny, etc.), make a second vertical column, listing the categories symbolized by the rules (e.g., religion, sex, physical handicaps, etc.).
  6. Repeat again, "Don't we have laws that discriminate in these categories?" Seek examples (e.g., poverty or economic status: Medicare, taxes, school lunch; sex: the registration for the military; etc.). Mention that sometimes there is "benign discrimination" (based on good intentions).
  7. How does the court determine whether policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?- Answer in chart:

 

 

 


 

1. Is there a reasonable purpose for the policy?

1. Is there a compelling state interest for the policy

2. Is the discriminatory category reasonably related to attaining that Purpose?

2. Is the discriminatory action the only way to attain the purpose?

 

 

*Suspect categories are race and ethnicity.  All others are not.