Child Marriage Facts and Causes

Child Marriage Facts and Causes The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (among other charters and conventions) all directly or indirectly forbid the degrading and mistreatment of girls inherent in child marriage. Nevertheless, child marriage is common in many parts of the world, claiming millions of victims annuallyand hundreds of thousands of injuries or deaths resulting from abuse or complications from pregnancy and childbirth. Facts About Child Marriage According to the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), 100 million girls will be married before the age of 18 in the coming decade. Most will be in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asian Subcontinent (Nepal, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh). In Niger, for example, 77% of women in their early 20s were married as children. In Bangladesh, 65% were. Child marriage also occurs in parts of the Middle East, including Yemen and the rural Maghreb. In the United States, child marriage is still permissible in some states, with parental or judicial consent.Globally, according to UNICEF, 36% of women aged 20 to 24 were married or in a union, forced or consensual, before theyd reached 18.An estimated 14 million girls between the ages of 15 and 19 give birth each year. They are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth than women in their 20s.Girls who marry between the ages of 10 and 14 are five times as likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth as women in their early 20s. Causes of Child Marriage Child marriage has many causes: cultural, social, economic and religious. In many cases, a mixture of these causes results in the imprisonment of children in marriages without their consent. Poverty: Poor families sell their children into marriage either to settle debts or to make some money and escape the cycle of poverty. Child marriage fosters poverty, however, as it ensures that girls who marry young will not be properly educated or take part in the workforce.Protecting the girls sexuality: In certain cultures, marrying a girl young presumes that the girls sexuality, therefore the girls familys honor, will be protected by ensuring that the girl marries as a virgin. The imposition of family honor on a girls individuality, in essence, robbing the girl of her honor and dignity, undermines the credibility of family honor and instead underscores the presumed protections actual aim: to control the girl.Gender discrimination: Child marriage is a product of cultures that devalue women and girls and discriminate against them. The discrimination, according to a UNICEF report on Child Marriage and the Law, often manifests itself in the form of domestic violence, marital rape, a nd deprivation of food, lack of access to information, education, healthcare, and general impediments to mobility. Inadequate laws: Many countries such as Pakistan have laws against child marriage. The laws are not enforced. In Afghanistan, a new law was written into the countrys code enabling Shiite, or Hazara, communities to impose their own form of family lawincluding permitting child marriage.​Trafficking: Poor families are tempted to sell their girls not just into marriage, but into prostitution, as the transaction enables large sums of money to change hands. Individual Rights Denied by Child Marriage The Convention on the Rights of the Child is designed to guarantee certain individual rightswhich are abused by early marriage. Rights undermined or lost by children forced to marry early are: The right to an education.The right to be protected from physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, including sexual abuse, rape, and sexual exploitation.The right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.The right to rest and leisure, and to participate freely in cultural life.The right to not be separated from parents against the childs will.The right to protection against all forms of exploitation affecting any aspect of the child’s welfare.The right to eventual employment. Case Study: A Child Bride Speaks The 2006 Nepal Report on Child Marriage includes the following testimony from a child bride: I was married to a nine-year-old boy when I was three. At that point of time, I was unaware of marriages. I dont even remember my marriage event. I just remember that as I was too young and was unable to walk and they had to carry me and bring me over to their place. Getting married at an early age, I was destined to suffer a lot of hardships. I had to carry water in a small clay-pot in the mornings. I had to sweep and swap the floor every day. Those were the days when I wanted to eat good food and wear pretty clothes. I used to feel very hungry, but I had to be satisfied with the amount of food that I was provided. I never got to eat enough. I sometimes secretly ate corns, soybeans, etc that used to grow in the field. And if I was caught eating, my in-laws and husband would beat me up accusing me of stealing from the field and eating. Sometimes the villagers used to give me food and if my husband and in-laws found out, they used to beat me up accusing me of stealing food from the house. They used to give me one black blouse and a cotton sari torn into two pieces. I had to wear these for two years. Never did I get other accessories like petticoats, belts etc. When my saris got torn, I used to patch them up and continue wearing them. My husband married three times after me. At present, he lives with his youngest wife. Since I married at an early age, early child-delivery was inevitable. As a result, I now have severe back problems. I used to weep a lot and consequently, I faced problems with my eyes and had to undergo an eye operation. I often think that if I had the power to think like I do now, I would never go to that house. I also wish I had not given birth to any children. Retrospective sufferings make me wish not to see my husband again. Nevertheless, I do not want him to die because I dont want to lose my marital status.

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke The Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke (1978), was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The decision had historical and legal significance because it upheld affirmative action, declaring that race could be one of several determining factors in college admission policies, but rejected the use of racial quotas. Fast Facts: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Case Argued: Oct. 12, 1977Decision Issued: June 26, 1978Petitioner: Regents of the University of CaliforniaRespondent: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old white man who had applied twice for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis and was rejected both timesKey Question: Did the University of California violate the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakkes application for admission to its medical school?Majority Decision: Justices Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackman, Powell, Rehnquist, StevensDissenting: Justice WhiteRuling: The Supreme Court upheld affirmative action, ruling that race could be one of several determining factors in college admission policies, but it rejected the use of racial quotas as unconstitutional. Case History In the early 1970s, many colleges and universities across America were in the beginning stages of making major changes to their admissions programs in an effort to diversify the student body by increasing the number of minority students on campus. This effort was particularly challenging due to the 1970s massive increase of students applying to medical and law schools. It increased the competition and negatively impacted the efforts to create campus environments that promoted equality and diversity. Admission policies that relied predominantly on candidates grades and test scores was an unrealistic approach for the schools that wanted to increase the minority population on campus.   Dual Admission Programs In 1970, the University of California Davis School of Medicine (UCD) was receiving 3,700 applicants for a mere 100 openings. At the same time, UCD administrators were committed to working with an affirmative action plan often referred to as a quota or set-aside program. It was set up with two admissions programs in order to increase the number of disadvantaged students admitted to the school.  There was the regular admissions program and the special admissions program.Each year 16 out of 100 places were reserved for disadvantaged students and minorities including (as stated by the university), blacks, Chicanos, Asians, and American Indians. Regular Admissions Program Candidates who quailed for the regular admissions program had to have an undergraduate grade point average (GPA) above 2.5. Some of the qualifying candidates were then interviewed. Those who passed were given a score based on their performance on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), science grades, extracurricular activities, recommendations, awards and other criteria that made up their benchmark scores. An admissions committee would then make a decision on which candidates would be accepted into the school. Special Admissions Program Candidates accepted into the special admissions programs were minorities or those who were economically or educationally disadvantaged. The special admissions candidates did not have to have a grade point average above 2.5 and they did not compete with the benchmark scores of the regular admission applicants.   From the time that the dual admissions program was implemented the 16 reserved spots were filled by minorities, despite the fact that many white applicants applied for the special disadvantaged program. Allan Bakke In 1972, Allan Bakke was a 32-year-old white male working as an engineer at NASA, when he decided to pursue his interest in medicine. Ten years earlier, Bakke had graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in mechanical engineering and a grade-point average of 3.51 out of 4.0 and was asked to join the national mechanical engineering honor society. He then joined the U.S. Marine Corps for four years which included a seven-month combat tour of duty in Vietnam. In 1967, he became a captain and was given an honorable discharge. After leaving the Marines he went to work for National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) as a research engineer.   Bakke continued going to school and in June 1970, he earned his masters degree in mechanical engineering, but despite this, his interest in medicine continued to grow. He was missing some of chemistry and biology courses required for admission into medical school so he attended night classes at San Jose State University and Stanford University. He completed all the prerequisites and had an overall GPA of 3.46. During this time he worked part-time as a volunteer in the emergency room at El Camino Hospital in Mountain View, California. He scored an overall 72 on the MCAT, which was three points higher than the average applicant to UCD and 39 points higher than the average special program applicant. In 1972, Bakke applied to UCD. His biggest concern was being rejected due to his age. He had surveyed 11 medical schools; all who said that he was over their their age limit. Age discrimination was not an issue in the 1970s. In March he was invited to interview with Dr. Theodore West who described Bakke as a very desirable applicant who he recommended.  Two months later, Bakke received his rejection letter. Angered by how the special admissions program was being managed, Bakke contacted his lawyer, Reynold H. Colvin, who prepared a letter for Bakke to give to the medical schools chairman of the admissions committee, Dr. George Lowrey. The letter, which was sent in late May, included a request that Bakke was placed on the wait-list and that he could register during the fall of 1973 and take courses until an opening became available. When Lowrey failed to reply, Covin prepared a second letter in which he asked the chairman if the special admissions program was an illegal racial quota. Bakke was then invited to meet with Lowreys assistant, 34-year-old Peter Storandt so that the two could discuss why he was rejected from the program and to advise him to apply again. He suggested that if he was rejected again he may want to take UCD to court; Storandt had a few names of lawyers that could possibly help him if he decided to go in that direction. Storandt was later disciplined and demoted for displaying unprofessional behavior when meeting with Bakke. In August 1973, Bakke applied for early admission into UCD. During the interview process, Lowery was the second interviewer. He gave Bakke an 86 which was the lowest score Lowery had given out that year. Bakke received his second rejection letter from UCD at the end of September 1973. The following month, Colvin filed a complaint on Bakkes behalf with HEWs Office of Civil Rights, but when HEW failed to send a timely response, Bakke decided to move forward. On June 20, 1974, Colvin brought suit on behalf of Bakke in Yolo County Superior Court. The complaint included a request that UCD admit Bakke into its program because the special admissions program rejected him because of his race. Bakke alleged that the special admissions process violated the U.S. Constitutions Fourteenth Amendment, the California Constitutions article I, section 21, and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.   UCDs counsel filed a cross-declaration and asked the judge to find that the special program was constitutional and legal. They argued that Bakke would not have been admitted even if there had been no seats set aside for minorities.   On November 20, 1974, Judge Manker found the program unconstitutional and in violation of Title VI, no race or ethnic group should ever be granted privileges or immunities not given to every other race. Manker did not order to admit Bakke to UCD, but rather that the school reconsiders his application under a system that did not make determinations based on race. Both Bakke and the university appealed the judges ruling. Bakke because it was not ordered that he be admitted to UCD and the university because the special admissions program was ruled unconstitutional.   Supreme Court of California Due to the seriousness of the case, the Supreme Court of California ordered that the appeals be transferred to it. Having gained a reputation as being one of the most liberal appellate courts, it was assumed by many that it would rule on the side of the university. Surprisingly, the court upheld the lower-court ruling in a six to one vote. Justice Stanley Mosk wrote, No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race.   The lone dissenter, Justice Matthew O. Tobriner wrote, It is anomalous that the Fourteenth Amendment that served as the basis for the requirement that elementary and secondary schools be compelled to integrate should now be turned around to forbid graduate schools from voluntarily seeking that very objective. The court ruled that the university could no longer use race in the admissions process. It ordered that the university provide proof that Bakkes application would have been rejected under a program that was not based on race. When the university admitted that it would be unable to provide the proof, the ruling was amended to order Bakkes admission into the medical school.   That order, however, was stayed by U.S. Supreme Court in November 1976, pending the outcome of the petition for a writ of certiorari to be filed by the Regents of the University of California to the U.S. Supreme Court. The university filed a petition for writ of certiorari the following month.