Sign up for our eNewsletter

Become a fan
Follow us on Twitter
We're on YELP

How to Play CIVIO

There are a variety of ways to play CIVIO - A Civil Rights Game based on the age and gaming experience of the players...

About the game

Buy CIVIO

Playing instructions

Animated quick tutorial (req. Flash)

Other ways to play:

Research the CIVIO cases and laws

Become a facebook fan

Learn history with CIVIO

 Email Article To a Friend View Printable Version 

These three CIVIO cards form a three card set or precedent...

Brown v Board
of Education
Lemon v
Kurtzman
Zelman v
Simmon-Harris

How are these cards related to each other?

Answer:

Brown v Board of Education was a landmark 1954 case that ruled segregation in schools to be unconstitutional. However, desegregation did not instantly occur.

Lemon v Kurtzman was a 1971 case ruling that legislation primarily benefiting the Roman Catholic (private) schools represented an "excessive entanglement" of church and state. As part of this ruling, the Court also pointed out that some states had historically used the ploy of channeling public education money into private schools as a way to avoid the desegration mandated by Brown v Board of Education.

Zelman v Simmon-Harris in 2002 found School Voucher programs to be constitutional. This made it possible for public school moneys to be diverted into private schools. The power of Lemon v Kurtzman was reduced by the ruling. The 1st District Court of Appeals in Florida recently challenged Zelman v Simmon-Harris and found Florida's voucher program to be unconstitutional.


Try a similar exercise with these card sets...

  • Jim Crow, Plessy v Ferguson, Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Shelley v Kraemer, Heart of Atlanta Motel v US, 14th
  • Gideon v Wainwright, Escobedo v Illinois, Miranda v Arizona, In re Gault
  • Justice, Gregg v Georgia, Furman v Georgia, 8th
  • Katz v US, California v Greenwood, 4th
  • Board of Ed v Barnette, Goss v Lopez, Bethel School v Fraser
  • Censorship/Nat'l Security, NY Times v US, Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, Press
  • Tinker v Des Moines, Board of Ed v Pico, Hazelwood School v Kuhlmeier
  • Espionage Act of 1917, Schenck v US, Gitlow v NY
  • Reno v ACLU, Expression, 5th
  • Smith Act, Dennis v US, Brandenburg v Ohio
  • Race, Executive Order 9066, Korematsu v US, Civil Liberties Act of 1988
  • US v O'Brien, Texas v Johnson, Marbury v Madison (wild card)
  • Mapp v Ohio, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade
  • School, Engel v Vitale, Religion
  • Webster v Reproductive Health Svcs, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Privacy, 9th
  • Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Regents of UC v Bakke, Weber v Kaiser Aluminum, Equality
  • Elections, Buckley v Valeo, 1st
  • Reynolds v Sims, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Shaw v Reno, 15th/19th
  • Baker v Carr, US v Nixon, Fair Procedures, 6th
  • Gender/Sex/Orientation, Hurley v Irish-American Gay Group, Association
  • Loving v Virginia, Bowers v Hardwick, Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas




Green America approved