Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s hard getting back to a normal routine after two weeks of holiday fun. But hey, it’s only a four-day workweek and after today you’re halfway through! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Megyn Kelly is Making a Switch

Yesterday, Fox News host Megyn Kelly announced that she is leaving the network to go to NBC instead. According to Fox News her last day on air is Friday. Her motivation for making the move? According to Kelly, one factor was that she’ll now be working during the day, and will have more time to spend with her three young children.

She will play several roles at NBC, including hosting a daytime program and a Sunday evening news show. Kelly was with Fox News for over 12 years and became one of TV journalism’s biggest voices, especially during the 2016 presidential campaign when she sparred with President-elect Donald Trump.

An ending, and a new beginning… pic.twitter.com/clyKaDpQTW

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 3, 2017

This will probably be a hard blow for Fox News, after months of drama surrounding its founding chairman Roger Ailes. Multiple women, including Kelly, have accused Ailes of sexual harassment. Ailes denied all of the accusations but eventually resigned.

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 RantCrush Top 5: January 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

I never thought I would have anything in common with a Kenyan who was born and raised in a small African village, has two master’s degrees from the University of Nairobi in Kenya and University of Pretoria in South Africa, worked on environment and development policy in East Africa, and now is a technical leader working in the elevation and advancement of the links between population and environment. But on June 23 we had something in common–we were both sipping ginger ale and conversing over the intersectionality of women’s empowerment and climate change. 

Hours before, Clive Mutunga was one of a dozen expert panelists present for “At The Eye of the Storm: Women and Climate Change,” an event geared towards fostering conversations about how women are most affected by climate change and the role they play as victims. According to his fellow panelist Jacqueline Patterson, director of the NAACP’s Environmental and Climate Justice Program, “Climate change exposes gender vulnerabilities.”

“Women are resilience personified.” Roger-Mark De Souza opens Wilson Center #EyeOfTheStorm event pic.twitter.com/QAjWDypkfm

— UniversalAccessProj (@UnivAccessProj) June 23, 2016

The experts in attendance consisted of both men and women who held distinguished positions at the Department of Defense, Congress, Project Concern International (PCI), University of Hawaii Law School, Tetra Tech, and Solar Sister. Most of them appeared to be young and in their thirties, yet they had already accumulated impressive resumes consisting of environmental and humanitarian jobs aimed at helping women effected by climate change. Sono Aibe, a senior advisor at Pathfinder International perfectly encapsulated the ideology of the event saying, “There is no justice in climate change. Nature does not choose its victims, we do.”

Elhers: Women aren’t invisible. We just aren’t listening. @NewSecurityBeat #EyeOfTheStorm

— Maria Prebble (@maria_prebble) June 23, 2016

In developing countries, most women must rely on collecting natural resources (water, food, and energy for cooking and heating) to sustain their livelihood and the livelihood of their families. Uncertain rainfall, drought, and deforestation–all common symptoms of climate change–make it harder for women to maintain their livelihood. Compared to men in these poor countries, women are disadvantaged because of their limited access to education, economic assets, and a place at the table to make decisions on how to combat the problem.

At the event, there were three different panels that looked at the different angles in which climate change disproportionally impacts women.

Women in Crises: Conflict, Disasters, and Complex Emergencies

Most of the panelists on this panel had traveled to remote parts of the world, and experienced first-hand how women were at the center of the effects of climate change in some of the poorest areas. They also shared stories of how violence against women during times of environmental crisis are happening right in our backyards. Patterson elaborated on this by sharing a startling stat from Hurricane Katrina–nearly 300 women were raped during and after the lawless days of the storm.

Similar violence happened to women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Kelly Fish, a gender technical advisor for PCI, recounted one story about an African woman she worked with who had to walk for miles to collect firewood in order to cook for her family. Sadly, the same wood that she had walked miles to retrieve, was used as a tool for violence–her husband beat her with it every night.

Walks to collect water from miles away can also be dangerous for women, Fish explained. Women in the area were encouraged to wear female condoms when walking to collect water because the risk of rape was so high.

Our Bodies, Our Planet: Climate, Gender, and Health

With the U.S. Agency for International Development, Mutunga works in areas where contraception isn’t easily accessible, or there is a lot of ignorance surrounding it–many women end up raising eight or nine children in poverty-stricken areas. It’s not unusual for the daughters who grow up in these families to be sold off as child brides, because as he described during this panel, “Marriage means one less mouth to feed in a poverty-stricken family.”

He added that when women have children young, and have lots of them, it decreases their chances of staying in school and in the workforce–perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

Prez @SuzannePAI discussing the importance of #familyplanning in mitigating effects of climate change #eyeofthestorm pic.twitter.com/PV9zaKjRE8

— PAI (@popact) June 23, 2016

Climate Champions: Women Entrepreneurs & Climate Solutions

The stories of women who had been victimized by the effects of climate change were important to the context of the event, however, the point was not to dwell on the tragedies, but to offer solutions.

“It’s important that we be climate victors and not climate victims,” said Sherri Goodman, former deputy under Secretary of Defense, at the event’s final panel.

Neha Misra, Co-Founder and Chief Collaboration Officer of Solar Sister, a company that provides clean energy technology to remote areas of Africa to help empower women, emphasized that the response to fighting climate change “has to include women.”

“I believe in a world where women, girls, and their communities have access to the sustainable energy they need to create a prosperous life,” she added.

Another panelist, Swathi Veeravalli, a research scientist for the Army Corps of Engineers found in her research that sometimes simple solutions can make a big difference. “If you provide access to lighting, just lightbulbs the incidents of rape go down immediately.”

Roger-Mark De Souza, Director of Population, Environmental Security, and Resilience at the Wilson Center went as far as saying, “every problem we have is linked to climate change.”

The debate over whether or not climate change is real is essentially over, but it is just the beginning when it comes to grasping what the consequences are. Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO of the Wilson Center, said women should be at the forefront of creating climate change policy. Harman stated,

Climate change is coming to all of us, but women are the ones who are disproportionally hurt— we bare the burden of sick relatives and personal issues. Women as parents and sisters and caregivers, we are qualified to make security policy and to sit at any security policy table in the world. Who should be the leaders in the climate change policy debate? I would say women.

Following the three panels there was a Happy Hour for the panelists to mingle with the audience. I showed up to the event that day wearing a t-shirt, blue jeans, and dirty converse. To say I didn’t fit in with all of the expert panelists and well-dressed young professionals there is an understatement. However, I felt almost a little guilty for worrying about what I showed up in after learning about the women all over the world who have much bigger problems that affect their well-being.

That’s how I started my conversation with Mutunga, and he responded in a thick Kenyan accent, “Think how lucky those women would be to worry about what they were wearing.” After an inspiring chat with him and learning what I did at the panels, I left the event feeling grateful and motivated to make sure I do my part in helping women impacted by climate change.

Editor’s Note: This post has been edited to reflect that one of the featured quotes was said by Sono Aibe, a senior advisor at Pathfinder International. 

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Victimization of Women From Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Former University of Mississippi student, Graeme Phillip Harris, has announced he will plead guilty to a charge of using a threat of force to intimidate African-American students and employees at the university. Harris, who is white, was charged after hanging a noose around a college statue dedicated to integration and diversity. In February of 2014 Harris placed a noose and the former Georgia state flag that featured the Confederate battle emblem on the James Meredith statue on the Ole Miss campus in Oxford, inciting anger and horror.

James Meredith is a civil rights activist who made history when he enrolled as the first African-American student at Ole Miss in 1962. The Meredith statue was erected in 2006, although not without controversy.

Harris, originally from Alpharetta, Georgia, may face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Because he is pleading guilty he likely won’t be prosecuted for the other charge from his March indictment, conspiracy to violate civil rights, which could have landed him in prison for 10 years.

Harris was a member of the Sigma Phi Epsilon chapter during his time at Ole Miss. After three of the chapter’s members were accused being involved with this incident, the national office of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity suspended the chapter. The names of the students were not released at the time but The Washington Post reported that all were expelled. Sigma Phi Epsilon CEO, Brian C. Warren Jr., said it was “embarrassing” that they were members. Harris withdrew from the university last spring following the incident.

Ole Miss officials stated that they turned the case over to federal prosecutors. Since the statue was not damaged or broken, prosecutors said vandalism charges didn’t apply, but the intimidation and conspiracy charges were applicable. There were also no state charges filed because no state laws were broken. James Meredith, who is now 81, said Friday that that it appears the only justice black people could expect is from the federal government and not from state officials.

When the indictment was first released, then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder explained his frustration stating:

This shameful and ignorant act is an insult to all Americans and a violation of our most strongly-held values. No one should ever be made to feel threatened or intimidated because of what they look like or who they are.

University of Mississippi Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Brandi Hephner LaBanc, said,

I can’t help but feel the pain of the student and the parents who will now feel the full weight of our justice system, but also feel the pain of our campus community and the entire Ole Miss family, which suffered greatly from the terrible act committed a year ago. We’re hopeful that this indictment will begin to bring closure and the next step in healing for our university.

Mississippi’s NAACP branch has called Harris’ actions a “racial hate crime.” FBI statistics relating to hate crimes show that nearly half of the victims were targeted because of their race. Hates crimes are happening everywhere for varied reasons such as the victim’s race, sexual orientation, and religion. Whether they occur at a college campus, workplace, or even at home it is important that those who commit these crimes are persecuted. Harris will pay the price for his actions, and hopefully dissuade others from committing similarly upsetting crimes.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Ole Miss Student to Pay the Price for Hate Crime appeared first on Law Street.

There has been a lot of speculation with regard to the Rachel Dolezal case. Some say that she lied about her race; lied about who her father was; and maybe even took her adoptive brother and claimed him as her own Black son. She may have also disowned her White parents, and she verbally identifies as African American. She has been pulling the wool over people’s eyes for years about her race, and now that they know the truth, they are mad.

When her parents revealed the truth about her ethnicity, they said that what she was doing was very “puzzling and sad”. Understandable. They went on to say the following:

Her passion for civil rights is influenced by her years in Mississippi, where she advocated for equal rights and participated in community development…She has over the past 20 years assimilated herself into the African American community through her various advocacy and social justice work, and so that may be part of the answer.

Based on the memes, jokes, and rants on Twitter and other social media sites, it seems as if the Black community more or less is not responding well to the NAACP Spokane Branch President lying about her ethnicity. One tweet goes as far as to say:

Just a friendly reminder that a black person passing as white was once a criminal offense. Enjoy ur day. #RachelDolezal

— Amanda Seales (@amandaseales) June 12, 2015

She lied and lied and lied…and continued to lie. Then when she got caught, she lied some more. That definitely isn’t okay, but does it really make Dolezal a bad person? Some people say “lying is lying;” that it’s wrong and because she did it she’s in the wrong. I am not necessarily sure if that is true. Lying is not okay, and it was clearly not the best way for her to accomplish what she was trying to do. But my thing is, didn’t just last week Bruce–I mean Caitlyn–Jenner come out and reintroduce herself as a woman? Yes, she received a lot of negative backlash, but at the same time there was so much support and positivity surrounding her. Revered as a hero to some who struggle with gender identification, others hold her up as a brave soul who has a lot of courage to reveal who she really felt she was inside. It seems to me that if Dolezal personally identifies as Black, she has every right to pursue that, same as Caitlyn Jenner.

Some Black people have been quick to respond, saying things like “they want to be us so bad,” upset with White America for ignoring Black culture, and instead reestablishing it as their own. Without getting too off subject, here’s an example of what that means exactly.

It’s been a little over a year since Marc Jacobs revealed models for his 2015 Spring line featuring “mini buns,” also known as Bantu Knots. Giving this hairstyle a new title, Jacobs completely discredited its African roots. 

I wonder how many Bantu Knots it took for #RachelDolezal to achieve this look… pic.twitter.com/XlkhMKqFK7

— banjila davis (@TiatheDiva) June 12, 2015

@TiatheDiva didnt you know thye called mini buns now inspired by marc jacobs

— Lovely Murrell (@NatRemedieCoach) June 12, 2015

But this is not that. She is not “stealing” Black identity, but instead is accepting and fully embracing this ethnicity because this is the race she identifies with the most. Although it was misleading, Dolezal appears to be transracial. Social media has been quick to address the topic and reactions varied.

Black Twitter bemoaned that switching race does not work like switching gender, noting that Black people can’t pretend to avoid discrimination.

My prob w/ #Transracial: Black folk cant decide to be white when the cops raid their pool party. But a white woman can be NAACP president.

— |L I Z Z O| (@lizzo) June 12, 2015

If #RachelDolezal can do it, so can I. I am now a white American. Give me: good credit, the ability to swim, and police NOT beating me.

— PrestonMitchum (@PrestonMitchum) June 12, 2015

Some in social media have accused Dolezal’s actions of being despicable and offensive, because Black rights can still be supported while being White. But aren’t there Black people who bleach their skin so they’re lighter? Michael Jackson? Those people don’t actively give back to the race they claim to identify with; those people are not civil rights activist. The lines of being transgender are not as black and white as the lines of being transracial, but that doesn’t mean that this identification does not exist.

After taking a look at her LinkedIn profile, her entire life’s work appears to be socially reconstructing and advocating for the Black community. She has a Master’s Degree from Howard University and has spent over 20 years as an instructor and expert on African American culture. She represents the black community publicly and vocally, including as a spokeswoman on race-influenced police violence.

Look at all of the hard work she has put in. She may not have gone about it in the best way, but that does not mean that Rachel Dolezal’s intentions or what she did was wrong.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rachel Dolezal is Transracial and it Doesn’t Negate Her Justice Work appeared first on Law Street.

The biological parents of civil rights activist Rachel Dolezal, president of the NAACP’s Spokane, Washington chapter, have revealed shocking news about their daughter’s true racial identity. Dolezal, 37, is the chair of the Office of Police Ombudsman Commission and professor of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University, where she specializes in Black Studies and African American culture. She has regularly spoken out on local media about racial justice, but it turns out that there is information that she may have been keeping from everyone.

In a recorded interview with the local Spokane news channel KREM 2 News this week, Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal said their daughter’s biological heritage is not African American, but German and Czech, with traces of Native American ancestry.

“Our daughter is Caucasian” say parents of Spokane NAACP President Rachel Dolezal. pic.twitter.com/6VHxm9v4Wt

— Taylor Viydo (@KREMTaylor) June 11, 2015

Her parents said Rachel had black adopted siblings, a social circle consisting primarily of African Americans, and she was formerly married to a black man. After her divorce in 2004, Rachel began identifying herself differently. She started claiming to be partially African American and the daughter of biracial parents. According to her mother,

It’s very sad that Rachel has not just been herself. Her effectiveness in the causes of the African-American community would have been so much more viable, and she would have been more effective if she had just been honest with everybody.

The Dolezals state that they do not have a problem with their daughter being an advocate for civil rights; their problem is that she is being deceptive about who she really is. The same day the Dolezals were interviewed, Rachel told KREM 2 News that due to an on-going legal issue she does not speak to her parents. She brushed off the controversy surrounding her racial identity as part of a family dispute. Rachel would not directly answer the newspaper’s questions about her ethnicity and said she wanted to talk to local NAACP leadership first. “I feel like I owe my executive committee a conversation.”

In an interview with KXLY, she spoke about multiple alleged racist threats made against her, including nooses found near her home. Each case was closed by police because of insufficient evidence to prosecute and some even questioned if she did these things herself. When asked during the interview if she is African American, Dolezal said that she did not understand the question and walked away. Mayor David Condon and the council president Ben Stuckart said in a joint statement,

We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated. That information will be reviewed by the city council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions.

The former president of the Spokane NAACP, James Wilburn, told the CDA Press that although it is traditional to have a person of color in Rachel’s position, that has not always been the case. Wilburn believes that Dolezal’s race was not what had qualified her for the job.

Dolezal has been trending all over social media, with some people even seeing it as a comical matter.

This morning #RachelDolezal woke up, opened her eyes, took her durag off & wished ystrdy was just a bad bad dream.

— Amanda Seales (@amandaseales) June 12, 2015

People seem to believe that Rachel would have been more effective in white communities challenging white supremacy, rather than identifying herself as black. Most are upset that Rachel was claiming an oppression that she never truly endured.

The question that everyone wants answered is simply why? I truly hope that Rachel will be able to comfortably embrace who she is while still being an advocate for civil rights.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Community Reels After Local NAACP President’s Parents Reveal She Isn’t Black appeared first on Law Street.

Reverend Al Sharpton is having a rough week. The controversial civil rights activist, along with Comcast and Time Warner Cable, has just been hit with a huge $20 billion racial discrimination lawsuit. This news came among amidst rumors he’s next on the MSNBC show canceling chopping block.

The lawsuit was filed last week in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are the National Association for African-American Owned Media (NAAAOM) and Entertainment Studios Network, which was founded by comedian Byron Allen. They argue that Comcast and Time Warner paid activists like Sharpton large amounts of money to “whitewash” their practices by making it appear like the companies were promoting diversity when in actuality they weren’t. According to the plaintiffs, Sharpton and his fellow defendants helped facilitate Comcast and Time Warner’s “racist practices” by refusing to contract with 100 percent African-American owned businesses. The two media giants are currently being reviewed by U.S. regulators for a $45 billion merger.

The lawsuit states:

Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively spend approximately $25 billion annually for the licensing of pay-television channels and advertising of their products and services ($20 billion licensing and $5 billion advertising), yet 100% African American–owned media receives less than $3 million per year.

The plaintiff goes on to argue that the only fully black-owned channel picked up by Comcast is the Africa Channel, which is owned by Paula Madison, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer of Comcast/NBC-Universal. The lawsuit alleges Madison is part of the supposed scam stating:

[Madison] was directly involved in putting together the sham MOUs and obtaining government approval for the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, thus creating a serious conflict of interest. In other words, aside from a channel that is owned and operated by the former Comcast/NBC-Universal executive who authored the MOUs, Comcast has not launched a single 100% African American–owned channel—by way of the MOUs or otherwise.

NAAAOM also claims Comcast used other black channels with black celebrities as “fronts” to “window dress” the truth that those channels are majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses. Sharpton wasn’t the only one accused of receiving “whitewash” money. The lawsuit also alleges that the NAACP, National Urban League, and National Action Network had a hand in the supposed scam, signing phony diversity agreements with Comcast in exchange for donations.

In an interview with Variety, Comcast rebutted NAAAOM’s claims calling them “frivolous” while Sharpton called the lawsuit a “bogus statement from a person [Allen] who has no credibility”.

This lawsuit couldn’t have come at a worse time for Sharpton, whose MSNBC show appears on the verge of cancellation. According to the Daily Beast, low ratings have forced MSNBC to give up on trying to be the Dr. Jekyll to FOX News’ Mr. Hyde, veering away from ultra liberal commentary in favor of a more traditional type of news. As a result they’re planning to nix left-wing programming and liberal commentators, possibly including the famed Reverend’s lackluster show “PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.” Neither MSNBC nor Sharpton have confirmed these rumors but the Daily Beast credits “knowledgeable sources at the Comcast-owned cable network” with the information leak. These same sources according to the Daily Beast speculate:

[Sharpton] could eventually be moved from his weeknight 6 p.m. slot to a weekend time period, as MNSBC President Phil Griffin attempts to reverse significant viewership slides by accentuating straight news over left-leaning opinion.

As a whole, it’s not looking too good for Sharpton, even though the outspoken reverend has weathered several controversies in the past. It will be interesting to see what evidence NAAAOM has to support their claims. If found guilty of racial discrimination, Sharpton’s career as a civil rights activist may be unable to survive the irony.

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 Civil Rights Activist Al Sharpton Sued For Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

A bomb went off at a Colorado chapter of the NAACP yesterday. The office is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and although there were no injuries or deaths reported, there was minor damage to the offices, as well as to a hair salon located in the same building. The FBI has announced that it believes that the bomb was “deliberate.”

What exactly that means, however, no one is completely sure. The FBI has said that it could have been some sort of domestic terrorism, but they’re not able to be sure yet. Amy Sanders, media coordinator for the Denver office said:

Certainly domestic terrorism is one possibility, among many others. We are investigating all potential motives at this time.

Members of the NAACP have hinted that it could it have been a hate crime. Sandra Yong, President of the Denver Chapter of the NAACP said:

This certainly raises questions of a potential hate crime. But at this point we’re still gathering information. It’s a very sad situation, but we’re happy our people in Colorado Springs are safe.

She also stated that her branch:

Stands tall with the community of Colorado Springs in rejecting an attempt to create fear, intimidation and racial divisiveness. Although this is an active investigation, one thing is clear: This is an act of domestic terrorism.

However, the President of the Colorado Springs NAACP chapter, Henry Allen Jr., said on Tuesday after the incident that he wasn’t ready to call it a hate crime.

So, what exactly happened? What we know is that witnesses heard a booming sound around 10:45am and then saw smoke. In addition, the side of the building where the NAACP office is located appeared to be burnt. The bomb has been called by many news sources “makeshift” or “homemade.” It was placed next to a gas can, but luckily did not cause the gas can to ignite or explode.

There is a person of interest in the investigation. He has been described as a white man in his forties who drove a dirty white pickup truck and had a license plate that was covered or obstructed in some way. One witness said that he looked on the heavier side, and that he was wearing a Carhartt type jacket.

While no one’s certain that it was the NAACP that was targeted, it seems like the most likely target for the bomb. Most onlookers have pointed out that the nearby hair salon probably wasn’t the target.

The bigger story that has seemed to come out of the incident was the media coverage, or more accurately, the lack thereof. While this happened yesterday, it didn’t really get covered on last night’s news lineup. According to ThinkProgress:

A ThinkProgress search of television databases suggests CNN gave one cursory report on the incident at 6:34 a.m., while MSNBC and Fox News appear to have not mentioned the incident on air since it happened. Other networks, including Headline News, (HDLN) mentioned the incident in the morning news.

There were obviously other big news stories happening at the same time–the start of open-season on Congress, for example–but it still seems like a possible domestic terrorist attack should have gotten more than a “cursory report.” The hashtag #NAACPBombing is trending on Twitter, where many are coming forth to say that the social media tag is the first time that they’ve heard about the bombing.

Seriously, we should all be questioning WHY it took a trending hashtag for us to learn about the #NAACPBombing. We know the answer though…

— Derrick Clifton (@DerrickClifton) January 7, 2015

Here’s all the best media coverage of the #NAACPBombing that I’ve seen so far –> pic.twitter.com/6AtGymj8Jk

— Eric Wolfson (@EricWolfson) January 7, 2015

Despite the fact that the manhunt is still underway in Paris for the men who committed a terrorist attack there this morning, it is a bit weird that there’s been little coverage of the NAACP incident.

Given that the suspect is still at large, one of the best ways to keep people on alert and on the lookout is to spread the news. While the proliferation through Twitter has been great, and an amazing look at the way in which the internet has made it so much easier to communicate, it’s not quite enough.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NAACP in Colorado Bombed: No Injuries But Also No Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Attention all young lawyers: do you have any ambitions of making it to the bench? Or maybe another plum political position? Is that the kind of career you want? If you answered no to those questions, you can stop reading here. You can go on with your day, and you don’t need to heed the warning I’m about to give.

But if you answered yes, there’s something you really need to consider. Watch everything you do closely, because as we learned in the Senate this week, participating in a single controversial case has the potential to invalidate your entire career.

Debo Adegbile, a well respected Civil Rights lawyer who was nominated by President Barack Obama to head the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, was rejected by the Senate yesterday. His nomination was blocked through a procedural vote that fell 52-47. The reason given for his rejection was the fact that he was involved in an appeal to get Mumia Abu-Jamal, a man who was found guilty of murdering a cop in Philadelphia, off death row. That involvement was enough to render the rest of his qualifications utterly irrelevant.

Here are the top 5 reasons why Debo Adegbile’s rejection by the Senate was dead wrong.

5. His involvement in the Abu-Jamal case was pretty minor. 

Debo Adegbile worked for the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund — a widely respected institution. The NAACP routinely takes on controversial cases. This should come as a surprise to no one.

The Abu-Jamal case has been contentious for years, receiving both national and international condemnation and applause. Abu-Jamal’s supporters have alleged that the trial was marred by flawed jury selection and instruction and lack of impartiality.

Now the NAACP, not Adegbile himself, but the institution for which he worked, became involved in the appeals process in the Abu-Jamal case in 2006, roughly 25 years after Abu-Jamal’s original conviction. Adegbile didn’t become involved in the case until 2008, when he signed onto a brief. When the NAACP became more involved in 2011, eventually working to get Abu-Jamal’s death sentence overturned in favor of life in prison, Adegbile wasn’t even on the defense team. He was barely involved with this case.

4. Adegbile was doing his job.

Let’s also consider what the NAACP was arguing, what the brief that Adegbile was tangentially involved with consisted of. They were arguing that Abu-Jamal did not receive due process of law — not that he was innocent. They didn’t argue that the conviction was wrong, they argued that the sentencing was wrong. As Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick so perfectly put it, “What he did do — which fits pretty readily within the historic mandate of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund — was to help ensure that the American criminal justice system, and especially the death penalty, is administered fairly and constitutionally.” By being even slightly involved in this case, Adegbile was doing the job that he agreed to do at a respected institution with a worthy cause.

Furthermore, Adegbile was doing his job as a lawyer. Attorneys pledge to uphold the constitution, to make sure that clients get fair treatment, and have a legal obligation to do so. Lawyers, and their clients, have the right, if not the obligation, to question cases in which there is a possible loss of liberty and legal protections.

I’m not saying that any lawyer should get a free pass for cases they take, or that every lawyer would be qualified for the position for which Adegbile was nominated. But it’s pretty clear that Adegbile was doing his job, for a respected institution, with a valid legal argument, on a case which eventually was found to have been unfair to Abu-Jamal. And he’s now being punished for that.

3. Every lawyer has some controversial cases. 

I am pretty sure it’s impossible to be a prominent lawyer in the United States without at some point being involved with a controversial case. In fact, prominent cases are often the catalyst for becoming a prominent lawyer. So let’s check out arguably the most prominent legal figure in the United States right now: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John G. Roberts.

When Roberts was in private practice, he helped represent a convicted killer in Florida named John Ferguson, who killed eight people. He put in 25 pro bono hours for his work on the case, and it never came up in his confirmation hearings, and rightly so.

And Roberts isn’t the only one. Controversial cases abound, and if lawyers do their due diligence, and make appropriate legal arguments, such cases shouldn’t hamstring them and prevent them from ever serving in a political position.

2. The vote was a transparent political move. 

With the way that Congress has been behaving recently, this is almost a useless point, but I’m going to make it anyway. Adegbile lost 52-47. Now obviously all the Republicans voted against him — but so did eight Democrats: Harry Reid (Nev.), Chris Coons (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.) and John Walsh (Mont.).

Of those eight, only three are up for reelection in 2014. But all eight of them live in relatively purple or red states. The only exception would be Coons, but it’s important to remember that his state falls within Philadelphia’s media market, where Abu-Jamal’s crime occurred. The Democrats who voted against Adegbile may have done so from their consciences, that really may be the case. But if they didn’t, and if this was a political move, they deserve ire.

And it’s looking like that might be true. A senior aide to one of the Senators who voted against Adegbile anonymously stated, “It’s a vote you didn’t have to take. It’s a 30-second ad that writes itself.”

1. The message this vote sends to lawyers. 

The failed nomination of Adegbile for, as stated by the dissidents, his involvement in the Abu-Jamal case says a lot. If he had been rejected based on his qualifications, fine. That wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. But let’s be very clear about this: he was rejected because he did his job as a lawyer.

Watch this video of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin exclaiming his disgust over the decision. It’s long, but it’s worth it, because it sums up this entire issue near perfectly.

What does that mean for our young ambitious attorneys, our best and brightest, our potential nominees in 20 years? Well, this rejection sends them the message to watch their backs. To stop and think before they take every single case. It requires them to anticipate the future. And it tells them not to take chances, not to fight for the cases they’re passionate about. It tells them to stop taking the actions that make our legal system so great. That’s what it says. So future lawyers, current lawyers, potential lawyers: heed my warning. Watch what you do, or pay a price in the future.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What the Senate’s Rejection of Debo Adegbile Teaches Future Lawyers appeared first on Law Street.