On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube features a “restricted mode” that is supposed to make the content that it displays family friendly. You would think that just means no violent or sexual content. But it seems like the filter often sorts out content made by or for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and over the weekend many users complained about the issue. Some of YouTube’s biggest stars posted screenshots of what their feed looks like in the restricted mode.

Just looked at my videos with the “restricted mode” on. Seeing a bit of a theme here…

LGBT+ content not safe for kids @YouTube? pic.twitter.com/KnhayE4h1y

— fiona (@neonfiona) March 16, 2017

On Sunday, YouTube said that this filter only affects videos with sensitive content, such as politics, health, and sexuality. But some users called its bluff. Singer-songwriter duo Tegan and Sara, two sisters who are both gay, said that several of their music videos disappeared in the restricted mode. The pair pointed out that the only gay content in the videos is them.

If you put @YouTube on restricted mode a bunch of our music videos disappear. I checked myself. LGBTQ people shouldn’t be restricted. SAD!

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 19, 2017

Many users didn’t accept YouTube’s explanation that it was looking into the problem, or that it only affects a small group of users. But the video sharing website has always maintained that the LGBTQ community is important and did so again on Sunday evening.

A message to our community … pic.twitter.com/oHNiiI7CVs

— YouTube Creators (@YTCreators) March 20, 2017

Transgender YouTube star Gigi Gorgeous is one of the people whose videos were blocked, and she said that maybe her clips describing her transition were the reason. But, she said, those videos could be very helpful for young people struggling with their own gender identity, who might not know that there are more people like them out there and are looking for role models.

Some people pointed out that the censoring of innocent videos featuring LGBTQ personalities could help increase stigmatization for young gay or transgender people who look to the internet for advice or inspiration. YouTube described the filter as “an optional feature used by a very small subset of users who want to have a more limited YouTube experience.” Apparently the restricted mode relies on users “flagging” certain posts, so it’s not farfetched to believe that some people with anti-gay sentiments are sitting there flagging posts that upset them.

On Monday, YouTube tweeted again that it’s looking into the issue, but many people want more answers about how it could prevent this from happening in the future.

Glad u guys are looking into your mistake. But perhaps u should also share how u will determine what is “sensitive” and will b restricted? https://t.co/ZARor0Lf1E

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 20, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is YouTube Restricting LGBTQ Content? appeared first on Law Street.

Last year, the Academy Awards faced a lot of criticism for being too white, as not a single person of color was nominated in any category as an actor. But this year saw a dramatic change, with a record high number of people of color being recognized. And a record-breaking total of six black actors were nominated across the acting categories.

It was an evening of firsts: Viola Davis won the Oscar for best supporting actress in “Fences,” which makes her the first black woman to win an Oscar, Emmy, and Tony for acting. Mahershala Ali became the first Muslim actor ever to win an Oscar, for his supporting role in “Moonlight.” It was also the first time a wrong winner has been announced. After it was announced that “La La Land” won for best film, the movie’s cast and crew were already halfway through their victory speeches when staff ran up on stage to announce that “Moonlight” was the real winner.

What is now being talked about as the worst blunder in Oscars history took away some of the epic-ness of “Moonlight’s” win–it was the first movie with an all-black cast to win. “La La Land” producer Jordan Horowitz said into the microphone, “There’s a mistake. Moonlight, you won best picture,” before insisting it wasn’t a joke. “Moonlight” director Barry Jenkins was clearly taken aback and walked to the stage to standing ovations. “Very clearly, even in my dreams this could not be true,” he said.

The event was hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, who attempted to save the situation, joking “I blame Steve Harvey for this,” referring to when Harvey announced the wrong winner in the 2015 Miss Universe pageant. Then he jokingly shouted at Warren Beatty, who had read the wrong envelope, “Warren, what did you do?!” The incident shocked many people on social media.

This is still my reaction to that mixup and #moonlight winning the Best Picture Oscar almost 30 min later #Oscars pic.twitter.com/nnW2clUhIS

— Betty Bloop (@flgal83) February 27, 2017

Throughout the evening, Kimmel repeatedly made jabs at President Donald Trump, starting off with, “this broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us.” He also called for people to give the totally “overrated actress” Meryl Streep a round of applause, referring to when Trump criticized her after the Golden Globes.

#Oscars @jimmykimmel takes down “overrated” Meryl Streep’s “lackluster” career in film: https://t.co/qQpyXghz4Y pic.twitter.com/JLyrSCIoAM

— Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) February 27, 2017

Later Kimmel said he was worried about the president because he hadn’t seen a tweet from him for several hours, so he tweeted at him on live TV.

Hey @realDonaldTrump u up?

— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) February 27, 2017

But not even Kimmel made it through the whole evening without a gaffe. After Mahershala Ali’s acceptance speech, Kimmel joked about his name, and immediately faced backlash from the internet for his rather tone deaf joke:

Jimmy Kimmel thinks Mahershala is a weird name? Jimmy Kimmel sounds like dog treats.

— Cari Nation (@cari_nation) February 27, 2017

Even though it can be seen as a victory that many movies by and about black people won awards on Sunday night, those movies have taken a long time to make and were already in the works last year during the #OscarsSoWhite controversy. Like the creator of the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite, April Reign, pointed out on social media, they didn’t win because of last year’s backlash but because they absolutely deserved it.

Viola, Mahershala, and the wins for Moonlight happened because they were DESERVED. Not because of #OscarsSoWhite. I want that very clear.

— April (@ReignOfApril) February 27, 2017

And the fact is that the Oscars are still pretty white. Dev Patel, a British actor of Indian heritage who starred in the movie “Lion” was nominated in the supporting actor category. But actors of other ethnicities, including Hispanic and Asian, were largely absent. And diversity of gender is still lacking as well–on Sunday, only one female screenwriter was nominated, and not a single female director. Hopefully things are moving in the right direction–but there’s still so much work to be done.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 89th Academy Awards: Were They Still #OscarsSoWhite? appeared first on Law Street.

Hollywood’s elite gathered last night in Los Angeles, California to celebrate the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, and the stars that hit the stage made it very clear that politics were on their minds.

The ceremony, hosted by Jimmy Kimmel in the Microsoft Theater, celebrated shows such as HBO’s political satire “Veep” and epic fantasy drama “Game of Thrones”–winning two and three awards respectively. Ryan Murphy’s crime anthology “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” scored big and won five awards, the most awards of the night.

Kimmel was quick to set the tone of the show during his opening number–a quick-witted video that showcased television’s favorite faces as the late-night host hitchhiked his way to the award ceremony. Kimmel eventually found himself in the presence of “Veep” President Selina Meyer’s motorcade, driven by former GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

The comedian stressed the importance of his arrival due to his hosting gig and nomination. Bush displayed excellent comedic timing and quipped, “If you run a positive campaign, the voters ultimately will make the right choice,” before telling a hopeful Kimmel that he was joking. The jab directed at Republican nominee Donald Trump, referenced his hostile tone and critical analysis of Bush’s energy.

Watch Kimmel’s Road to the Emmys below

Kimmel’s opening monologue proved to be successful. He garnered laughs from the crowd with jokes about diversity and the making of Donald Trump.

“If it weren’t for television, would Donald Trump be running for president? No,” Kimmel said. “He would be at home right now quietly rubbing up against his wife, Malaria, while she pretends to be asleep.”

Kimmel proclaimed the person who should be blamed for the Trump phenomenon was sitting in the audience–hidden amongst the sea of nominees.

“That’s right. That guy. Mark Burnett, the man who brought us ‘Celebrity Apprentice’,” Kimmel said. “Thanks to Mark Burnett, we don’t have to watch reality shows anymore, because we’re living in one. Thank you, Mark.”

The nominees who hit the stage only added to the fire.

“Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus joked about life imitating art during her acceptance speech. On the topic of the current election she said:

I’d like to take this opportunity to personally apologize for the current political climate. I think “Veep” has torn down the wall between comedy and politics. Our show started out as political satire, but now feels more like a sobering documentary. So I certainly do promise to rebuild that wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Best comedy series writing winner Aziz Ansari also touched on politics during his acceptance speech, by declaring onstage “after careful consideration, I’m going with Trump!” He then went on to demand that they remove all Muslim and Hispanic nominees from the Emmy ceremony which he said would make things so much easier–“like the Oscars.”

“Transparent” star Jill Soloway took home Best Director of a Comedy Series. Soloway’s speech focused on the importance of LGBTQ+ issues and encouraged the toppling of the patriarchy.

Backstage she made bold statements about the current election cycle and drew upon the connection between Trump and Hitler. “It’s so incredibly timely, the notion of otherizing people to gain political power,” Soloway said. “Jews were otherized in Nazi Germany to gain political power, and right now Donald Trump is doing the same thing.” As an example, she said, “He calls women pigs if they don’t look like beauty-pageant contestants. He blames Muslims and Mexicans for our problems. He makes fun of disabled people. This is otherizing with a capital O. It has been used in our history before to start and win wars. “

Reactions from the public ranged. Users on Twitter were quick to praise the Emmys for celebrating diversity, as well as criticize the award show for the one-sided political storyline.

Last night’s wonderfully inclusive, diverse #Emmys was a rebuke of everything Trump stands for: https://t.co/sA03obd0VC

— Marlow Stern (@MarlowNYC) September 19, 2016

At #Emmys, @jillsoloway called Trump “an inheritor to Hitler.” No comment on HRC calling an aide, “f—g Jew bastard,” calling Jews greedy?

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) September 19, 2016

As we inch closer and closer to the upcoming election, we should expect to see more political rhetoric filtering into our entertainment.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmy Awards Provide A Platform For Political Agendas appeared first on Law Street.

The #OscarsSoWhite movement criticizing the lack of diversity in this year’s Academy Awards nominations has really had an impact in Hollywood. Reforms are already being made for next year’s nomination process, and the Academy has pledged that by 2020 it will have doubled its female and minority members. Still, there are some people out there who don’t see a need for any diversity enhancements to the Oscars, or anything else for that matter.

Black actress and FOX commentator Stacey Dash is one of these people. During an interview on FOX & Friends, Dash criticized Jada Pinkett Smith’s boycott, calling it ludicrous. Dash continued saying,

We have to make up our minds. Either we want to have segregation or integration. If we don’t want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the [NAACP] Image Awards, where you’re only awarded if you’re black. If it were the other way around, we would be up in arms, it’s a double standard.

She then took it a step forward adding, “There shouldn’t be a black history month. We’re Americans. Period.”

Needless to say the blowback was immediate, however, BET’s “Being Mary Jane” star Gabrielle Union’s response to the scandal showed us sometimes it’s better not to even dignify these kinds of people with a response.

When asked how she felt about Dash’s comments at the Sundance Film Festival, where her critically acclaimed movie “The Birth of a Nation” was being shown, the actress answered simply, “Who’s that. Who’s Stacey Dash? Is she like related to Dame Dash? Was she on Roc-A-Fella?” Adding, “I heard of a crazy lady once, maybe last week. But I don’t know what her name is.”

Gabrielle Union was asked about Stacy “Clueless” Dash pic.twitter.com/B04lfFpSfV

— KANYE ASADA (@gilossal) January 26, 2016

Then she turned off the shade for a second to get real, saying,

It’s why there’s a need for Birth of a Nation, and why there’s a need for the Country Music Awards, and the ALMA Awards. If you don’t see yourself reflected in mainstream awards, you tend to create your own.

After that, Union’s comments were quickly turned into the trending hashtag #WhoIsStaceyDash, where people pretended to be clueless as to who the “Clueless” actress was.

#whoisStaceyDash Yaass @itsgabrielleu pic.twitter.com/qz7mf5tJsI

— Starlynn (@SavvyStarMUA) January 27, 2016

#WhoIsStaceyDash is she lady that makes those seasonings? — comin up trillhouse (@2Fat2Furiosa) January 27, 2016

Is this her? #WhoisStaceyDash pic.twitter.com/Sk0WRd9pnr

— Eric Isaac (@ericisaac) January 27, 2016

#whoisStaceyDash A woman that used Black spaces to advance her career and now sh*ts on them for #foxnews pic.twitter.com/fxXFPFisI6

— Ricky Riley (@epicarthouse) January 27, 2016

#WhoIsStaceyDash? Y’all were in a movie together pic.twitter.com/bHu3etz0te — Raymond Price (@Raymond__Price) January 26, 2016

“What do I think of Stacey Dash? …I don’t.” #WhoIsStaceyDash pic.twitter.com/yaqQmSWMza

— iconick (@NICKWALSH) January 27, 2016

Preview of my interview with @ArevaMartin. Subscribe here: https://t.co/XMlFonugSQ #WhoIsStaceyDash @Adele pic.twitter.com/RCaVLgvBxQ — Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) January 27, 2016

The #WhoIsStaceyDash hashtag is the best fruit the shade tree has dropped in a good long while.

— Kylo Brin (@Brindolyn) January 27, 2016

But BET may have had the best comeback of the bunch when it published a slideshow on its website titled “Every Time Stacey Dash Proved She Was Clueless.” The network then took it one step further by calling out Dash for guest starring in one of its most popular shows “The Game.”

Soooooo @REALStaceyDash can we get our check back… or nah? #Remember #YouWereOnTheGame   #AndWeDontMeanTheRapper pic.twitter.com/2vWq03J0c9 — BET (@BET) January 20, 2016

Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. Hopefully next time Dash will think twice before mouthing off some of her controversial opinions. But who are we kidding, because after all, she is on FOX News.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shade Alert: Gabrielle Union Wants to Know #WhoIsStaceyDash? appeared first on Law Street.

When the Academy Awards revealed its nominations last week for the 88th Oscars, people couldn’t help but notice that all of the actors and actresses named have something in common:

All of them are white.

That’s right, for the second year in a row not a single person of color was nominated for any of the four highly coveted acting categories–and the industry isn’t happy about it.

Nominations are #OscarsSoWhite all over again https://t.co/o6MImkEfYR pic.twitter.com/vHsB1orcLv

— Mashable (@mashable) January 14, 2016

The diversity shutout spawned critics to start the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite to voice their disapproval, and on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday Monday, filmmaker Spike Lee and actress Jada Pinkett Smith both announced in separate statements that they would be boycotting the February 28th ceremony.

In an Instagram post Lee explained that both he and his wife could not support the “lily white” awards, writing:

How Is It Possible For The 2nd Consecutive Year All 20 Contenders Under The Actor Category Are White? And Let’s Not Even Get Into The Other Branches. 40 White Actors In 2 Years And No Flava At All. We Can’t Act?! WTF!!

Spike Lee will not be attending the Oscars because #OscarsSoWhite pic.twitter.com/gODpStApjv — Black Ballad (@Blackballaduk) January 18, 2016

Lee continued:

Dr. King Said “There Comes A Time When One Must Take A Position That Is Neither Safe, Nor Politic, Nor Popular But He Must Take It Because Conscience Tells Him It’s Right”.

Pinkett Smith, whose husband Will Smith was not nominated for his leading performance in the NFL head injury biopic “Concussion,” echoed her disapproval over the votes in a Facebook video message.

The actress asked that people join her in boycotting the awards saying,

Maybe it is time that we pull back our resources and we put them back into our communities and our programs and we make programs for ourselves that acknowledge us in ways that we see fit, that are just as good as the so-called ‘mainstream’ one.

She then added,

Begging for acknowledgement, or even asking, diminishes dignity and diminishes power. And we are a dignified people, and we are powerful.

Fellow actors Idris Elba, who was snubbed for his acclaimed role in “Beasts of No Nation,” and David Oyelowo, who failed to get an Oscar nomination last year for his portrayal of MLK in “Selma,” also joined in on criticizing the all-white line up. But not everyone supported Lee and Pinkett Smith’s stand against the Academy.

Actress Janet Hubert, who played Will Smith’s mom on the hit show “Fresh Prince,” slammed her former costar’s wife in her own video response, calling Pinkett Smith’s boycott ironic.

Hubert took some nasty shots at the couple saying,

You ain’t Barack and Michelle Obama. And y’all need to get over yourselves. You have a huge production company that you only produce your friends and family and yourself. So you are a part of Hollywood, you are part of the system that is unfair to other actors. So get real.

On Monday, the Academy’s African American President Cheryl Boone Isaacs shared in a statement that she is “heartbroken and frustrated” over the lack of diversity. Boone promised to work toward reviewing the organization’s membership recruitment in order to ensure diversity is a priority moving forward, but as Oyelowo pointed out, the votes are not her fault.

Since the voters are made up of predominantly white males, it should come as no surprise that individuals getting the most nominations across the board happen to be both white and male. If the Academy can’t begin to accurately reflect the nation’s diversity, the integrity of its awards will continue to be called into question. With the award show still weeks away, it will be interesting to see how the boycott affects the night.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lack of Diversity in Nominations Has Black Actors Boycotting the Oscars appeared first on Law Street.

With the success of recent television shows like ABC’s “How to Get Away with Murder” and “Black-ish,” many in the industry are starting to reevaluate their positions on race in television. The “old guard” of television often said that the American people wouldn’t watch a television show that heavily featured characters who weren’t white — often relegating anyone who doesn’t fit into that box to a life of being the sidekick, or worse yet, losing all sense of identity and being whitewashed.

Characters on television shows need to be interesting, developed, and sympathetic. The diversity of a character does not only fall in ethnic background, but it is certainly a way to give that character a deeper history. Still — as someone who regularly watches television it is clear that on-screen diversity on screen is growing, especially when you consider shows like “Scandal”, “Glee”, “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Orange is the New Black”. It is pretty much expected now for a show to have one character who doesn’t fall into the cis-gendered straight white category.

And we are noticing — think back to all of the press and negative coverage that “Girls” received (and still receives) because of its lack of ethnic diversity. But “Girls” is just one in a long line of history.

Still, one must consider some of the most popular television shows in the last two decades. These shows, the ones that get the push from the individual stations and the media, are still white. “Seinfeld,” “Friends,” “Will & Grace,” “How I Met Your Mother,” and “Sex and the City” were all the most popular shows when they were airing, and they all featured white friends in New York City.

But why is this still happening when, according to Nielsen, white people don’t even make up the majority of the viewing audience?

“It’s not only that the African-American audience watches more TV, but it’s substantially more — two hours over other groups,” Ron Simon, head curator at the Paley Center for Media, told theGrio in an interview. “It’s known in the industry, but it certainly hasn’t gotten the attention I think that it deserves.”

Race and Watching Habits

Race is a social construct — that is the first thing we need to realize if we are going to discuss race at all. It is a way to categorize people into neat groups.

Except those groups aren’t so neat anymore.

Here are some pretty startling statistics about race and television in the United States:

This is a problem. When you look at the statistics, stations like Mundo, which focuses on the Latino community, or BET, which focuses on the black community, sometimes overtake shows on mainstream networks that are fledgling. According to the report, African Americans watch 37 percent more television than other demographics, which means that they are watching shows that don’t always represent them in the best light. Or worse — they are watching shows that don’t represent them at all.

Whitewashing

Whitewashing happens when an actor or actress is completely stripped of his or her ethnic qualities and either declared or assumed white by the writers and viewers of the show. Whitewashing is a dangerous happenstance because it not only eliminates the ethnic identity of the actors, but it also impacts the fans of the show. As we become more and more connected to our television shows through social media, and we know more and more about the actors, it seems harmful to completely remove their cultures. However, what about the people who don’t follow the actors and know their backstories — they simply never realize that they are watching someone who isn’t just white.

“Vaguely Eurasian”

One of the better shows on television when it comes to portraying diversity is Fox’s “Glee.” The show has been groundbreaking (though sometimes problematic) in giving light to all different types of characters. There’s no doubt that Kurt Hummel will go down as one of the revolutionary LGBT characters on television. But what about his boyfriend? Darren Criss, the actor who plays Blaine Anderson, is half Irish from his father and Filipino from his mother. Early in his tenure on the show, he is referred to as “Vaguely-Eurasian” by another character. Vaguely-Eurasian. It seems like a slap in the face because Darren Criss is clearly part Filipino. He has almond eyes with extravagant lashes, medium gold toned skin, and thick black curls. Many just assumed his character had the same history that he did.

Until the next season, when they cast Matt Bomer as his brother. Matt Bomer is a fantastic actor, but he is English mixed with Welsh, Scottish, and German. Now this wouldn’t be a problem if the show had given context for his family, but they haven’t. One cannot assume that there was a remarriage or they are step brothers. They are called brothers in canon, so that is what the viewer must take them to be. Could it possibly be that Fox didn’t want to push the boundaries by showing a couple that was gay AND two different races? Not so fast — another couple on the show, Brittany and Santana, fit that bill. So why whitewash Blaine Anderson? Is it because Darren Criss could pass as white? Is it because Darren Criss is the heartthrob of the show, and the heartthrob couldn’t possibly be anything other than white? Is it a push from Fox? Or are they not whitewashing him, just not talking about it? Glee isn’t the only show that does it, and it isn’t always a problem. But there is the question: why did they choose to whitewash him on a show where diversity is celebrated?

Awards and the Changing Times

The Emmy Awards are always a point of contention for viewers of television shows. The same complaints always arise during nominations — “why wasn’t [insert name here] nominated?” or, “Wow! [insert name here] was snubbed!”

One of the biggest snubs of the 2014 Emmys was of sitcom actress Mindy Kaling.

Kaling was a surefire nomination for her show “The Mindy Project” because she had been tapped to announce the nominees. When it came time to announce the category she was supposed to be nominated in, her name was nowhere to be found.

Is this a case of racism on television, or were there just more worthy nominees?

While we can’t get into the mind of the voters it is important to note that there has been only one non-white woman who has won an Emmy for acting in a leading comedic role: America Ferrera as Ugly Betty.

In fact, 2013 was the first time ever an African American woman won an Emmy for Best Actress in a Drama: Kerry Washington for “Scandal.”

Why don’t we have more diversity on TV?

Could the lack of diversity on television be caused by a lack of diversity among its writers? That is certainly a possibility. Shonda Rhimes is one of the only black female writers to get a television show of her own, and she now has three: “Grey’s Anatomy”, “Scandal,” and “How to Get Away With Murder” – all of which have strong, diverse characters.

So what are we to do to encourage more representation on television? Part of it is up to the viewer: demand it. Don’t watch shows that feature people of color in supporting roles that are degrading. Tweet about it to the companies, the actors, and the writers. Support shows that do provide a realistic depiction of diversity.

We need to also encourage more children of color to go into the arts, whether it be acting, writing, or directing.

The steps aren’t going to happen overnight, sadly, and the momentum is shifting — we just need to continue pushing.

Resources

Primary 

Critical Media Project

Center for Media Literacy: Does TV Shape Ethnic Images?

Additional

Salon: Whitewashed TV Isn’t Just Racist. It’s Boring! 

The New York Times: Minorities in Movies and Television

Grio: Nielsen Report Confirms Blacks Watch More TV Than Any Other Group

Hollywood Reporter: The Emmy’s Rocky Race Relations

Lee & Low Books: Where’s the Diversity? A Look at the Emmy Awards and TV 

San Jose Mercury News: Fall TV 2014: Diversity, is all the Rage–Finally

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Diversity on TV: The New Normal? appeared first on Law Street.

As New York Fashion Week draws to a close and all of the celebrities, bloggers, and street style photographers clear from Lincoln Center, it appears that there is the same unsolved issue every season: where is the diversity on the runway?

Surely, we have seen quite a few additions of minority and even plus-size models since the earlier years of fashion week, but we still have a long way to go. And although the runways seem to be slowly but surely diversifying, there’s no excuse why particularly the one fashion week that takes place stateside is so slow to change. They may be able to get away with it in Europe, but there are plenty of African American girls for New York designers and agencies to chose from.

In the Fall/Winter ’14 shows last February, 78 percent of runway models were white, a slight decrease from the previous season’s 79 percent. Meanwhile, there are several famous supermodels who are minorities, like Brazilian Gisele Bundchen, Somali-born Iman, and Naomi Campbell who is black and British. So what gives? Why do designers insist on maintaining such whitewashed runways?

One possible reason is that, as with racism in most cases, it is simply easy for designers to fall into the same trap of maintaining the status quo of what ‘looks good.’ While the point of fashion shows is to display designs, that doesn’t necessarily mean that minority models can’t walk the runway without looking “too exotic” and detracting from the clothes they are wearing. Designers and casting directors need to start making a conscious effort to chose models of varying races. After all, if uniformity is still a concern, that is what hair and makeup are for. Remember last season when Kendall Jenner hid among the models at Marc Jacobs and no one even recognized her because her eyebrows were bleached?

Another reason for the lack of diversity on the runway could be that there are not a lot of minority models attending castings in the first place. If that is true, then the fault would lie with the modeling agencies as opposed to the designers. According to the Wilhelmina Models site, 13 out of 51 of the models signed with them appear to be women of color, about 25 percent. That’s an under-whelmingly low proportion of minority models. So why aren’t model scouts finding more women of color?

"Be happy, be yourself" love Diane #NYFW #DVFW pic.twitter.com/ua2PP5xIZc

— DVF (@DVF) September 7, 2014

The notion that only pale and blonde women can be beautiful is apparently still very ingrained in the fashion industry. Despite the fact that the number of white models is slowly decreasing each season, there is still a lot that needs to be done in order to erase this mentality. While I don’t think using affirmative action or establishing a certain quota for the number of white models allowed in one show would work, perhaps the CFDA could work to change this practice.

Several companies are already starting to promote the idea of using normal-sized girls as models, so why not start a campaign encouraging diversity? The president of the CFDA herself, Diane von Furstenberg, had about a third of her models as women of color in her show on Sunday, so I hardly think she would be opposed to promoting diversity in fashion. Von Furstenberg should use her power to eradicate the racist mindset in fashion and get more women of color on the runways.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Fashion Week Still Doesn’t Promote Diversity appeared first on Law Street.

Movies are supposed to be an escape–a medium of entertainment where the viewer can suspend their own reality and delve into another. However, recently complaints have arisen that movie executives have stretched audiences’ imaginations too far. Instead of problems with the content however, these critics take issue with the actors who are delivering the performances. The silver screen continues to be inundated with white, heterosexual, male actors despite the diverse population of the United States and the world. Read on for an analysis of the racist, sexist, and discriminatory tendencies of the modern entertainment industry.

Race

When 44 percent of movie tickets are purchased by non-white customers, it would be plausible to think the ethnicity of actors on screen would reflect the diversity of the viewers. That is simply not the case.

American movies have a history of being dominated by caucasian actors and actresses. As a study by University of Southern California discovered:

• Out of the 565 directors of the 500 top-grossing movies from 2007 to 2012, 33 of them were black–and only two were black women.
• In 2012, the speaking characters of the top 100 grossing films were 76.3 percent white, 10.8 percent black, 4.2 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian, and 2.6 percent other ethnicities or mixed race.
• Hispanic actors and actresses are the most underrepresented group on screen.
• From 2007-2012 the ratio of non-black directors to black directors was 16:1.

Halle Berry became the first African-American to win an Academy Award for Best Actress in 2002. During her acceptance speech she reflected on her achievement and what it will mean for other minority women. She opined, “this moment is so much bigger than men…it’s for ever nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.”

However since this momentous achievement, every other recipient of the award has been white.

Unfortunately, that is not the only acting category lacking diversity. In 2001, Marcia Gay Harden and Benicio del Toro won Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor respectively, and there has not been a Latino, Asian, or Native American winner in any acting category since.

Juliet Lapidos of The New York Times pointedly stated,

“Hollywood’s great at congratulating itself for diversity; it’s just not great at actual diversity.”

Whitewashing

Although blackface is no longer deemed as acceptable, the entertainment industry continues to inaccurately depict minorities in films. In part this is done by whitewashing–casting white actors as characters in roles that were written for minorities.

There’s a very long history of white-washing in Hollywood–West Side Story, winner of 10 Academy Awards and one of the most beloved musicals of all time, is a famous example. Natalie Wood (who is of Russian decent) played the leading female character Maria, who is supposed to be Puerto Rican. Disney has also received some criticism for similar portrayals–Aladdin is a good example. The voice of the film’s protagonist is provided by Scott Weinger who, unlike the title character, is not of Arab decent.

More recently, Jake Gyllenhaal as Dastan in Prince of Persia, Ben Affleck as Tony Menendez in Argo, Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in a new Peter Pan project, and rumors of Angelina Jolie being cast Cleopatra are all examples of roles being white-washed.

In addition to being offensive, white-washing diminishes roles–leading to non-Caucasian performers being cast as minor characters that serve to supplement a white lead.

Gender

Women make up slightly more than 50 percent of the population in the United States, yet they continue to be sidelined by the entertainment industry.

Some findings surrounding the inequalities are:

• Women in the top 100 films of 2012 only made up 28.4 percent of roles with speaking parts.
• In 2013, 30.2 percent of women were dressed in sexualized clothing compared to 9.7 percent of men.
• A recent study of films from the past six years showed that 29.5 percent women and 11.7 percent men were shown partially or fully nude.
• In 2013, 16 percent of films had a balanced cast; an increase from 2010 when it was just 4 percent.

The amount of women represented behind the camera faired even worse in 2013:

• Only 1.9 percent of directors were female
• Just 7.4 percent were women
• Women made up 19.6 percent of producers

While accepting her award for Best Actress during the 2014 Oscars, Cate Blanchett remarked:

For those of us in the industry who are still foolishly clinging to the idea that female films with women at the center are niche, they are not! Audiences want to see them and in fact they earn money. The world is round, people!

Actress Olivia Wilde is known for being a feminist and has spoken out multiple times about the quality of roles available to actresses in Hollywood. In the video below, she further explains the differences between roles normally crafted for male and female roles.

Bechdel Test

In 1985, Alison Bechdel created the cartoon Dykes to Watch Out For. From the comic strip the Bechdel test was created, which is a list of standards that determines gender bias in entertainment. Many feminists use it to analyze various forms of media.

The basic principal of the Bechdel Test it that the women depicted in Hollywood should not be clichés, but character who express genuine feelings about diverse areas of their lives.

The rules for the Bechdel Test are that the film:

1. Has at least two women
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

Magazine editor Nikki Baughan offered insight as to the importance of the test:

The Bechdel test acts as a magnifying glass; by breaking down a film in these simple terms, it draws attention to the shocking gender disparity that exists in the majority of cinematic narratives.

LGBT

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is incredibly underrepresented–and oftentimes misrepresented–in Hollywood. When an LGBT actor or character is written into a movie, they often serve as a token member of the ensemble. Their purpose is to represent the stereotypical trait habitually accompanied with their identity in the media.  

Depiction of race in LGBT characters does not differentiate greatly from heterosexual characters. In a study conducted by GLAAD, it was found that the races of LGBT characters were 76 percent white, 12 percent black, 8 percent Asian, and 4 percent Latino.

Derived from the Bechdel Test, GLAAD created the Vito Russo Test to examine the presence of LGBT characters in movies.

In order for the film to pass the Vito Russo Test, these qualifications must be met:

• The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
• That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity.
• The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.

Out of the films GLAAD assessed using the Vito Russo Test, less than half passed.

Rayon

Although hailed by mainstream critics, the recent movie Dallas Buyers Club received a combination of praise and condemnation from the LGBT community. The focus of criticism fell upon Jared Leto for his Oscar-winning portrayal of Rayon, a transgender woman.

Steve Friess of Time accused Leto of pandering to the transgender stereotype, stating, “she’s a sad-sack, clothes-obsessed, constantly flirting transgender drug addict prostitute…There are no stereotypes about transgender women that Leto’s concoction does not tap.”

Advocates were also dismayed that an actual transgender actor was not cast in the role. Since Rayon is a fictional character, the casting directors had a wide breath of opportunity and freedom in choosing an actor for the role, yet they chose not to include a transgender actor.

However, Mara Keisling, executive director at the National Center for Transgender Equality, had a contrasting view, saying, “to the film’s credit, I think it accurately showed what the life of this brave person [Rayon] must have been and how she was treated.”

In his Oscar acceptance speech, Leto took a moment to recognize the LGBT community, stating, “to those of you out there who have ever felt injustice because of who you are, or who you love, tonight I stand here in front of the world with you and for you.” Despite his accepting comments, reception to the portrayal remains mixed.

Oscars 2014

The 2014 Academy Awards appeared to be a step in the right direction. The year before, Cheryl Boone Isaacs became the first African American and third woman to ever be elected president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Not only did the Academy itself get a shake up, but the recipients of the awards did as well.

The movie “12 Years a Slave” won Best Picture, one of the most coveted awards. This was a significant victory, because before this film, a movie featuring a black leading man had not won Best Picture since 1967. Steve McQueen–the director, and co-producer–is the first director of African descent to have a movie win in the Best Picture category. The 2014 Best Director award went to Alfonso Cuaron, the first Mexican director to win the category.

Conclusion

In an industry that has such a drastic impact on our culture, it is disheartening to see Hollywood fail in diversity both in front of and behind the camera. Hopefully, future films will be created that cast individuals who accurately represent the audience viewing the films.

Resources

Primary

University of Southern California: Race/Ethnicity in 500 Popular Films: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content Held in the Hand of the Black Director? 

University of Southern California: Gender Inequality in Popular Films: Examining On Screen Portrayals and Behind-the-Scenes Employment Patterns in Motion Pictures Released between 2007-2013

Additional 

New Yorker: Lessons From Late Night

Mic: 6 Disney Films That Are Undeniably Racist and Sexist

The World Bank: Population, Female (% of Total)

Metro: The Bechdel Test and Why Hollywood is a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World

GLAAD: 2014 Studio Responsibility Index

GLAAD: The Vito Russo Test

KPCC: Oscars 2014: 8 Ways They Made Diversity History

TIME: Don’t Applaud Jared Leto’s Transgender ‘Mammy’

IndieWire: 10 Trans Actors Who Could Have Played Jared Leto’s Role in ‘Dallas Buyers Club’

Huffington Post: Jared Leto’s Oscar Win For ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ Criticized by Transgender Community

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Diversity in Hollywood: A History of Failure appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I was just doing my normal internet surfing, riding the news wave and trying to find something that hasn’t bombarded your TV or social media outlets yet. What I stumbled upon is so ridiculous and infuriating I just could not let it go.

So, the University of Wisconsin – Madison has come up with a new policy that states good grades should be distributed equally among different races. Known as the “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence,” this policy calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”

I’m sorry, WHAT!?! Obviously colleges like the idea of diversity — they promote it every chance they get — but if you go back and actually read what the policy calls for then you’ll see that while they may be promoting diversity, they are also promoting racial oppression. “Historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups” — it is stated right there. In most cases white people have not been historically underrepresented. So what UW-Madison is saying is let’s give out free grades to students who are not white and who may not have worked as hard as other students. What about those students who are “historically underrepresented” who work their asses off to get those good grades? Why should they have to work so hard for their grades but their peers simply get handed the same grade because of their race or ethnicity?

By all means please promote diversity at a university, it is one of the best ways for people to learn from one another. But handing out grades based on race is a slap in the face to every student and professor at any university.

W. Lee Hansen, professor of economics at UW-Madison, was outraged by this policy and shared his opinion. “Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the ‘equity’ policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their ‘difference’ group.” Professor Hansen goes on to say, “Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, ‘historically underrepresented racial/ethnic’ students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.”

How would any professor or student be okay with even the idea of this policy? How did UW-Madison get away with putting this policy into effect! Each student had to work hard to get into the university but now all of a sudden the school is saying that no matter what you did in the past if you are considered “historically underrepresented” you can simply show up to class and still get a good grade.

What’s the point of going to college if this is how it is going to be? These kids are going to end up with a four-year degree that they did not earn but simply purchased. If that’s the case why not just close down all institutions and require people to write a check for $80,000 – $125,000 to the government and have them hand out degrees.

Instead of promoting hard work, dedication, and real education, UW-Madison has basically said, “Come to UW-Madison where you pay tuition and we will give you the grades.” Is this really the kind of reputation that a university wants to have? Is this the kind of reputation that any student graduating from this institution wants to have? I know if I were ever in a situation where I was going to hire someone I would never want to hire the graduate from UW-Madison because he may not have understood the purpose of college and may not have learned anything except that things can apparently just be handed to you.

Life does not work that way. Life is not easy or fair and part of that statement includes the idea that school is not easy. You get the grade you worked for, not the grade that was assigned to you because of your race.

Too many of today’s youth are just expecting a hand out. They aren’t being taught the value of a dollar or a strong work ethic. Here comes the reference again, Idiocracy at its finest.

I also find it very interesting how hard generations before us fought for equality but here we are creating more separation than ever before. Is it not obvious to the world that subtle lines are being drawn in the sand? No one is created equal anymore. We might as well throw out the Declaration of Independence and forget about our past because nothing has really changed. People talk about how racism and sexism are still very alive in our world and how things need to change for the better. But how can anything change when universities are promoting policies that demonstrate separation over equality? Equality is not being promoted in this “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence” policy at all.

You want to be equal? Take the same classes as your peers, work as hard as you can and get the grade you deserve. That makes you equal with your peers, not waiting around for a professor to give you an A for a class that you probably barely attended, never studied for and possibly slept through.

Shame on you University of Wisconsin – Madison for not only promoting racial and ethnic oppression but for also basically telling your students that they aren’t smart enough to get the grades on their own. Not to mention telling the world that handing out grades because of race or ethnicity is okay, thanks for basically showing the world that the fight for desegregation in all aspects meant nothing. I’m sure Medgar Evers, Betty Friedan, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr. are all turning in their graves.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Okandasan via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Wisconsin Policy Calls for Grade Distribution by Race and Ethnicity appeared first on Law Street.

The topic of diversity in law schools is one that I have a vested interest in. I’m a Black male. I went to what, in my opinion, was an excellent law school in the District of Columbia. My law school was one of the “better” ones when it came to both racial and gender diversity: more women than men and more Latino students than even Black students. I don’t think I ever felt isolated. I certainly never felt my views were discounted or presupposed to be a certain way based on my race. However, I also recognize that my experience in law school may have been unique in many regards.

Far too often, minorities in law school do feel isolated. The comments of their classmates often betray the sheltered upbringing they have had when it comes to issues of race or gender and the law. One’s experiences shade what one considers reasonable, or appropriate, or even fair. I think the most eloquent expression of what many minorities face in law school came in the form of a video produced by law students at UCLA. Take a look:

The discussion about diversity in law school is often seen through the lens of statistics — minority applicant numbers, average LSAT scores, yield rates, and so on. But what that video beautifully illustrates is the human perspective behind the debate. Through first-hand testimonials, it shows just how striking the effect of underrepresentation can be on the student. Yet many still ask: “Why should there be more minorities in law schools?” “If there aren’t more,” they say, “there must not be many qualified applicants applying.” But even this notion fundamentally misunderstands the call for greater minority representation in law schools and the legal community.

While I’ve noted that diversity in law classrooms should be more than about sheer numbers, numbers certainly help inform the debate. So a certain amount of counting must be done to set the stage for the analysis.

In fall 2010, when a young Dominic began law school in the nation’s capital, the Law School Admissions Council reports that 60,400 individuals were admitted to law schools across the country. Of those admitted applicants, a scant 4,680 self-identified as African American. I’m not so good at math [that’s why I chose the law] but the calculator app on my iPhone says that’s around 8 percent of admitted students. Some might say that is pretty good, but let’s drill down and take things school by school.

According to the most recent data provided to the American Bar Association, Harvard Law School reports that 8.9 percent of its JD enrollment identify as African American and 8.8 percent as Hispanic. At Columbia University, 7.1 percent identify as African American and 7.4 percent as Hispanic. Moving over to the west coast, Berkeley School of Law reports that a mere 3.9 percent of its JD enrollment identify as African American.That’s 33 individuals out of about 900 total. At the University of Michigan Law School, only 36 of 1,124 students identify as African American. The University of Chicago Law School: 38 of 610. Without belaboring the point, from these numbers it is quite easy to see how these students might yearn for more diversity in their 1L classes.

What becomes problematic for the minorities pursuing their legal education are the responses they often receive from peers and commentators in the media. Much of the response to the UCLA law students was centered on the theme of “you-should-have-known-what-you-were-getting-into.” Because putting the onus on the student for the amazing lack of diversity is sooooo the right thing to do.

The personal reasons a student of color might want diversity in the classroom are adequately portrayed in the video. From a macro perspective, the nation’s premier law schools feed into the nations’ premier law firms and the halls of government. From my humble perspective, it only makes sense that as our country becomes more diverse, the people who largely write our nation’s laws and set the national debate at the highest levels should reflect that very same increase in diversity. Not for selfish reasons, or from some sense of racial entitlement, but rather from a pragmatic perspective.

Without a doubt some law schools are trying, but in today’s competitive law school market, where spaces at premier schools are finite and legal jobs even more so [I’m pretty sure something is either finite or it isn’t, but whatever], law schools are struggling to keep standards high. Often this means sacrificing other metrics that might enliven the discourse in the classroom. Racial identity and socioeconomic status are eschewed in favor of median GPAs and LSAT scores — each student boiled down to what US News says a law school should value rather than recognizing the unique contribution minority students can bring to classrooms.

Alas, it seems minority students at law schools around the country may continue to feel like they have to be the lone voice for their race in a world that has not had to listen to their perspective very much before. Studying the law is an endeavor that should lead to cross-cultural communication. I always felt law school should be more than just learning the black letter, but asking why the law is as it is. Whom does the law serve? Whom does the law benefit? Without a vibrant and active minority opinion present to challenge assumptions, browner voices are often drowned out or discounted. What we don’t want is for law schools to become increasingly more homogeneous with the same views reifying institutions that have always existed to serve the majority.

Maybe more students at more law schools should make more videos.

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In the Law School Classroom, Color Counts appeared first on Law Street.

While most of my posts concern the intersection of race and criminal law in America, I could not help but be moved to write this post on a video that has gained national attention. This video, featuring some of the Black male students at the University of California, Los Angeles, is a veritable cry for help that represents the pathos of Black males throughout most of the nation’s prestigious institutions of higher learning. Take a look at this powerful video first.

There are some stunning statistics in this video that bear repeating. Of the more than 19,000 male  students at the University, only a scant 3.3% are Black. Also, of the 48 Black male freshmen who enrolled last fall, only about 35 are expected to graduate. Some might wonder what the problem with these numbers are. They might point to the demographics of the state, or the admissions policies of the University. Or they might even go so far as to say all of the “qualified” Black males who applied got it, and there just must not have been thousands of qualified Black males applying to the school.

All of these responses are bullshit.

According to the Census Bureau, the total percentage of California’s population that is African American is 6.6%. So even if proportional representation meant true diversity [which it decidedly does not], the University would still be behind the curve. The admission’s policies of the University are of course set by the institution, and, since it is a school in the University of California system, governed by the Constitution of the State of California as a state entity. That’s where the problem lies. The video raises questions about the true meaning of “diversity” and whether Affirmative Action policies can, or even should, play a part in achieving that elusive goal.

Before November 1996, when California’s Proposition 209 passed, the public universities in California could pursue affirmative action policies consistent with the California Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue. The most famous case dealing with California was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). There, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Affrmative Action policies in a general sense, but specifically invalidated the quota system that was in place at the time at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine. The medical school there was setting aside 16 of the 100 seats in the medical school for African Americans. The Supreme Court squarely rejected this quota system. What emerged in later cases from the Court as acceptable were Affirmative Action policies that considered race in a nuanced way and that aimed for a “critical mass” of minorities such that the diversity pursued educational goals of limiting minority isolation and tokenism.

Nonetheless, in 2009, the citizens of California decided enough was enough when it came to helping those minorities that had historically been systematically excluded from the avenues of higher education, and passed Prop. 209. This ballot initiative banned state institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. Proponents of the the initiative considered it consonant with the Civil Rights Act in banning discrimination. However, it had the terrible effect of banning Affirmative Action policies in California’s public universities. This is how we got here.

Despite Affirmative Action being under attack across the country, officials at UCLA still want to pursue diversity. They lament the statistics highlighted in the video. But their hands are chained by the change to the California Constitution initiated by Prop. 209. More’s the pity.

Diversity is extolled as a virtue in every aspect of society, from academia to the private sector. But I ask, do they want diversity for the inherent benefit of expanding horizons and increasing cross-cultural understanding? Or do they want brown and black faces for brochures? The students in the video suggest the latter. In my own experience, having attended “diversity receptions” at BigLaw firms my 1L year, the answer is complicated. Have I felt that some of those firms truly valued diversity: yes. Have I also felt the push for diversity was an utter joke upon entering the reception and meeting the one female partner and two Black associates: yes. In higher education, diversity should be pursued even more vigorously than in the workplace. It is in the classroom that people engage in the freest flow of ideas and where one, often in close contact by living in dorm rooms with others, can most reach out and experience the life and culture of another. Having only a few token minorities does not accomplish this goal.

The sentiment portrayed in the video has been reinforced in my own experience. I attended a Historically Black College. Some of my other Black friends attended what we call PWI or Predominantly White Institutions. Yet it is often these PWIs that identify themselves as paragons of “diversity” despite many of the nation’s top state schools being mostly white. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is 66% White, for example. The University of Virginia: 61% white. The University of Georgia: 74% white. UCLA’s highest demographic is Asian. UC Berkeley: 37% Asian and 30% White. Despite the admitted mix, many of these institutions have minority enrollment in single-digit percentages. Not quite the melting pot they tout themselves to be.

More subjectively, the video illustrates the pervasive feelings of isolation that can stem from such limited minority enrollment. The men in the video make the analogy to Rosa Parks. Still more troubling can be the feeling of spokesmanship. In this instance, one must always signal that one is not speaking on behalf of the entire race. Similarly, one often encounters tokenism – the feeling from Whites that the minority was less qualified and got in solely based on race – whether or not race-based Affirmative Action policies are even legal or practiced a the institution.

The video has gained national attention and in many ways has fed the flame of the debate over Affirmative Action and the place minorities have in higher education. But have no fear, Black men out there, as the video poignantly notes, if you can play football extremely well, you can write your own ticket to just about any flagship state school in the nation.

Better start practicing, brothas.

—

Featured image courtesy of [BrokenSphere via Wikipedia]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Cry For Help appeared first on Law Street.