Final answer:
Governments can engage in legal discrimination, like minimum age requirements for drinking and driving, when it serves the public interest or safety. Educational institutions' admissions criteria also constitute legal discrimination, setting standards for knowledge and skill levels. MADD's push for uniform drinking age laws is an example of legal discrimination for public welfare.
Step-by-step explanation:
The federal, state, and local governments engage in legal discrimination under certain circumstances due to the reality that not all discrimination is illegal or unjust.
Discrimination based on age, for example, is considered to be in the public interest for health and safety reasons, such as the minimum age laws for smoking and drinking alcohol. The concept of equal protection allows for these discrepancies when they are reasonable and serve a legitimate government objective.
Likewise, education institutions set admission criteria as a means of ensuring that students have the requisite skills and knowledge bases to succeed in their programs, which is likewise considered a reasonable form of discrimination designed to maintain academic standards.
An additional example includes the impact of MADD advocating for the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which led to uniformity in the legal drinking age as a measure to improve public safety.
Though this act has been debated, with some arguing that it prevents young adults from learning responsible consumption behaviors, the goal was to reduce instances of driving and underage drinking.
Hence, legal discrimination, such as setting a minimum age for drinking, can be enforced by the government when it is justified by a greater good, like public welfare and safety.