Your text refers to the fact that members of Congress have an absolute privilege against defamation for anything said on the floor of the House or Senate. This is found in the Speech & Debate clause of the Constitution. Basically, a member of Congress can lie during debate in either house. If I was a member of the House of Congress, and I was speaking on the floor, I could blatantly lie and not be subject to being sued. For instance, if I was introducing a bill strengthening the federal governments health laws, I could talk about a restaurant here in Sarasota that is filthy. I can talk about how it's roach-infested and filled with rats. In reality, the restaurant is immaculate and has never had a cleanliness problem. However, a reporter from the Sarasota herald-Tribune writes a story about what I said, and the restaurant is seriously hurt by the bad, and false, story. I am absolutely protected from being sued by the restaurant's owner because of the Speech and Debate clause. Please comment on your feelings about this protection.

2. The University of California was concerned about the fact that most of the students accepted to the medical school were Caucasians. They felt that whites had a historical advantage over minorities because of differences in educational opportunities, etc. In response, the Board of Regents put into place a policy that said 16 of the 100 openings in the medical school each year would go to "non-whites." In 1973, one student, a Caucasian, was denied admission because of the new policy. However, his grades, test scores, etc. showed he was clearly better qualified than some of the people admitted under the Board's policy of reserving 16 spaces for minorities. The Caucasian student sued the Board. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, and the Board of Regents was ordered to admit the student. This has been referred to as a case of reverse discrimination. Please comment on your feelings about the Court's opinion.