Ebola is a disease that has been affecting the country recently in more ways than one might think. It originates from certain parts of Africa, and the first man in America to die from it was a Liberian man, Thomas Eric Duncan. Obviously the threat of Ebola is putting stress on the country as a whole, and the media doesn't exactly make people's anxiety about it go down, but there is another aspect to this new disease that many aren't thinking about. Ebola is starting to cause people to discriminate against african people.
Two students from Nigeria were recently refused admission to a Texas college simply because they were from a country with Ebola. The college's reasoning was that they don't want the disease to spread through their school, but is it fair for them to discriminate against these people? If they are refusing applicants from countries that have Ebola, shouldn't they not allow American applicants since there have been cases of Ebola here? Read the full story about the college here. From these questions much debate arises about what the right thing to do is and how to keep Ebola from spreading while trying not to discriminate on others. The possibility that any person originally from one of the Ebola countries, or possibly anywhere in Africa, could be discriminated against and treated unfairly is very much alive.
Should people from these countries not be allowed to come to the United States? Should anyone from these countries be quarantined, along with people who have been in contact with them? These are questions that need to be answered. Ebola causes much controversy because while the ideas that people have to stop it could be effective, they may infringe on certain people's constitutional rights. Ebola is definitely a serious issue and needs to be taken care of immediately, but the government as well as society needs to keep in mind the other affects that it is having and must not discriminate on people just because there is a possibility they have Ebola, because technically there is a possibility for any of us to have Ebola.

Today in class we had a moot court about the case Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy v. Ferguson was a Supreme Court case where a man who was only one eighths African American boarded a train in a whites only car and was asked to vacate and go to the blacks only car. He argued that this went against the equal protection clause as he was not being treated equally with the other white people.

Team Jefferson was arguing the points for Plessy in that the law is unconstitutional because it is a law of general applicability but it is not behaving like so because it is not content neutral. If there is going to be different cars for different races there should be an asian car, native american car, etc. The team said that the railroad is a common carrier for the public so it can not distinguish between race, as it goes against the equal protection clause. Also, Plessy is only 1/8 black, and 7/8 white. He was able to buy a ticket for the white car because he does not look like he is black. No real distinction could be made, and he can't stay in both cars. "Should 1/8 of him stay in the black car and 7/8 stay in the white car?" This just wouldn't happen, so he should not be discriminated against and should be able to stay in the white car because he is almost completely white.

Team Lincoln argued against Plessy saying that asking him to go into the other car did not violate the equal protection clause because the black car was equal to the white and Plessy was still allowed to stay on the train. One argument they made is that Plessy knowingly broke the law because he knew he was 1/8 black, so he should have known he was not supposed to be in the white car and he may have gone in to cause this disruption. Also, Plessy was simply asked to go to a separate and equal car, not leave the train altogether, so he had equal protection. They acknowledge that the law distinguishes between the two races, but does not discriminate between them. "The law does not stamp blacks with a badge of inferiority." The argument is that Plessy was not discriminated against, he was simply distinguished from the whites.

It seems like Team Lincoln's argument was better because they acknowledged what Team Jefferson said about distinguishing between race, and pointed out that it is not against the law to distinguish, as long as they are not discriminating. Today's moot court went very well because both groups had valid arguments and brought out all of the different points that could be made in this case.