1. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, according to Gilmore?

Gilmore suggests that “whiteness” functions as a political and economic category that benefits from racial inequality, not simply a skin color or identity. When she says capitalism stops being racial capitalism only when white people “disappear from the story,” she means that systems of power stop privileging whiteness as the default group that must be protected. In her view, racism is tied to the way society distributes resources unevenly along racial lines, with “whiteness” historically used to justify exclusion and inequality.

2. How does the criminal justice system create new ‘criminals,’ according to Gilmore? Do you agree?

Gilmore argues that prisons help produce criminals by labeling people as “criminal,” isolating them, and making it harder for them to survive once they return to society. After incarceration, people face barriers to housing, jobs, education, and voting, which pushes many back into unstable or illegal situations—essentially reinforcing the same cycle that put them in prison. Whether you agree depends on your perspective, but many people believe her argument makes sense because structural barriers can trap people in the system rather than rehabilitate them.

3. What do you think Gilmore means by “liberation struggle”?

Gilmore uses “liberation struggle” to describe the ongoing work of fighting systems that produce inequality, harm, and exclusion—especially those tied to racism and the prison system. She sees liberation as a collective effort to transform society so that safety comes from strong communities and shared resources, not punishment or prisons. In other words, liberation is about building a world where people have what they need to live, not a world that cages people when they fall through the cracks.

The Supreme Court decided that roughly 1.5 million female employees could not bring their discrimination claims as a single, nationwide class-action lawsuit, and it justified this decision by concluding that the women did not meet the legal requirement of commonality, which requires all members of a class to share a common question that can be answered in the same way for everyone. The Court explained that Wal-Mart did not have a uniform, company-wide discriminatory policy and that decisions about pay and promotions were made independently by thousands of individual managers, meaning the women could not show they all experienced the same kind of discrimination in the same way. Because of this lack of a shared, central issue, the Court ruled that the group could not proceed as a class.

1. What is the difference between gender and sex?

Sex is a biological classification based on physical characteristics such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive anatomy.
Gender, on the other hand, is a social and cultural concept that refers to the roles, identities, and expectations that society associates with people.
In simple terms, sex relates to biology, while gender relates to identity and social roles.

2. Describe the difference between a cisgender and a transgender person.

A cisgender person is someone whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth.
A transgender person is someone whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth.
This means that while a cisgender person’s internal sense of gender aligns with their assigned sex, a transgender person’s internal sense of gender differs from it.

3. What is gender expression?

Gender expression is the outward way a person presents their gender through actions, clothing, hairstyle, voice, and other forms of appearance or behavior.
It is how someone chooses to show their gender to the world, and it may or may not align with that person’s gender identity.

The court system is better suited to protect individual rights than the elected branches of government because judges are guided by the Constitution and the law, rather than public opinion or political pressure. Elected officials, such as members of Congress or mayors, often make decisions based on what the majority of voters want in order to stay in office, which can sometimes harm the rights of individuals or minority groups. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though many elected officials in the South supported segregation at the time. This showed how the courts can protect individuals from unfair treatment, even when it is unpopular. Although federal judges are not elected, this system is designed to keep them independent from political influence. As discussed in Federalist No. 10, the Founders wanted to prevent factions and majority rule from threatening individual rights, so they created a judiciary that could act as a neutral guardian of the Constitution. While this makes the courts less democratic in the sense that citizens do not vote for judges, it helps ensure that justice is based on law and principle, not politics or popularity.

The court system is better suited to protect individual rights than the elected branches of government because judges are guided by the Constitution and the law, rather than public opinion or political pressure. Elected officials, such as members of Congress or mayors, often make decisions based on what the majority of voters want in order to stay in office, which can sometimes harm the rights of individuals or minority groups. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though many elected officials in the South supported segregation at the time. This showed how the courts can protect individuals from unfair treatment, even when it is unpopular. Although federal judges are not elected, this system is designed to keep them independent from political influence. As discussed in Federalist No. 10, the Founders wanted to prevent factions and majority rule from threatening individual rights, so they created a judiciary that could act as a neutral guardian of the Constitution. While this makes the courts less democratic in the sense that citizens do not vote for judges, it helps ensure that justice is based on law and principle, not politics or popularity.

Unlike traditional wars fought between nations, the war on terror targets scattered terrorist groups with no fixed country, clear battlefield, or uniformed army. It also lasts indefinitely because there is no specific enemy country to defeat or treaty to sign.

Roving wiretaps allow the government to monitor a person’s communications without specifying the device or location, possibly tapping phones of innocent people nearby. This seems to violate the 4th Amendment because it weakens the requirement for specific warrants based on probable cause.

“Sneak and Peek” warrants let agents secretly enter a home, search it, and delay telling the person. This also appears to violate the 4th Amendment because people have a right to know when their property is searched and to be protected against unreasonable searches.

The Establishment Clause prevents the government from creating, supporting, or favoring any religion. The Lemon Test says a law is unconstitutional if it lacks a secular purpose, has a primary effect of promoting/inhibiting religion, or causes excessive government involvement with religion.

Yes, burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment as symbolic speech. The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot punish someone for flag burning just because others find it offensive.

Saying “I’m taking the Fifth” means a person is using the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. They do not have to answer questions that could make them appear guilty or incriminate themselves.