When Dyne Suh, a law student who lives in Riverside, California, booked a stay at an Airbnb for a skiing vacation with her fiance, she asked the host whether it would be okay to bring two more guests. The host answered that it would be no problem and said they would only have to pay a little bit extra. Suh thought everything was fine but then in February, as the four friends were driving up to Big Bear, California for their trip, she texted the host again to confirm the arrangement and to ask how she wanted them to pay and how much. Suh was shocked when she got a response.

“And she says, ‘Absolutely not… You must be high if you think that that would be OK in the busiest weekend in Big Bear.’ Then she said, ‘No, we’re done,’ and she canceled the trip,” Suh said, recounting the conversation. Suh then told the host she would complain to the company and the host answered, “Go ahead. I wouldn’t rent to u if u were the last person on earth.” Then she added, “One word says it all. Asian.”

“I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners,” the host texted. “It’s why we have Trump.” https://t.co/tMKVeThnPr

— HuffPostWomen (@HuffPostWomen) April 10, 2017

As if that wasn’t enough, the host wrote, “And I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners. It’s why we have Trump.” Suh posted screenshots of the conversation on Facebook. A video of Suh telling her story while stranded in the snowstorm quickly went viral.

Coincidentally, Suh is a law student who focuses on race relations. She says she is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the country since she was three years old, but argues that where she’s from shouldn’t matter. “This is home to me,” she said in an interview with NBC4 Los Angeles. “No matter how long I’ve lived here, for me to be treated this way just because of my race?”

Christopher Nulty, a spokesperson for Airbnb, called the host’s behavior “abhorrent and unacceptable” in a statement to NBC4. He added, “We have worked to provide the guest with our full support and in line with our non-discrimination policy, this host has been permanently removed from the Airbnb platform.”

Airbnb has had some problems dealing with racism and discrimination among its hosts, but in September the rental site announced new guidelines to help identify and fight racial bias. The changes came after many people started using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to share their experience being discriminated against. Now it seems like there is still some work to do.

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 Airbnb Bans Host Who Canceled a Reservation Because of a Guest’s Race appeared first on Law Street.

A study released Tuesday by the National Registry of Exonerations found that black Americans are more likely than white Americans to be wrongfully convicted of murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes.

The study  broke down the exonerations that are listed in the National Registry of Exonerations’ records by demographic. The results were striking: despite the fact that black people make up 13 percent of the population in the U.S., they make up 47 percent of innocent defendants convicted and then exonerated. You can read the full study here, but here are some of the other illuminating findings:

• Innocent black defendants are roughly seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white defendants. Black defendants are most likely to be wrongfully convicted if they are accused of killing white victims.
• Black prisoners are 3.5 times more likely to have been wrongfully convicted of sexual assault than white prisoners. The study attributes this disparity to issues with witness identification. According to the study: “Assaults on white women by African-American men are a small minority of all sexual assaults in the United States, but they constitute half of sexual assaults with eyewitness misidentifications that led to exoneration.”
• In regards to convictions of drug crimes, the study determined that black people were 12 times more likely to be wrongfully convicted than white people. The study notes that this disparity likely comes from the fact that “police enforce drug laws more vigorously against African Americans than against members of the white majority, despite strong evidence that both groups use drugs at equivalent rates.”

The study also concluded that innocent black people usually spend a longer period of time incarcerated than innocent white people before being exonerated.

This study obviously cannot account for innocent people who have not been exonerated, which is likely a fairly large population. We don’t know definitively what that population looks like. But this study does point to a troubling picture: almost across the board, it’s more likely that black Americans are wrongfully convicted of crimes than White Americans.

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 Study Finds Black Defendants More Likely to Be Wrongfully Convicted than White Defendants appeared first on Law Street.

Mississippi Representative Tom Weathersby proposed a bill last week that would prohibit sagging pants in the state. Anyone who commits the offense would be subject to fines up to $100 and psychological and social counseling.

According to Mississippi Today, the GOP lawmaker filed House Bill 1353 in response to a constituent’s encounter with a group of young men who “wore their pants too low” and became belligerent after they were asked to pull their pants up.

“Personally, I like to see people dressed when they’re in public and I like to see people with their pants up,” Weathersby told Mississippi Today.

“Anti-sagging” provisions have gained some traction over the past couple years. As the Huffington Post points out, communities like Opa-Locka, Florida and Wildwood, New Jersey have adopted bans on sagging pants, and two high school students in Tennessee, both black, were jailed for “indecent exposure” because of their low-riding clothing.

Hinds County, Mississippi made an effort to outlaw sagging by proposing a $10 fine on those who violated the ordinance. In that 2012 case, local government officials equated sagging pants with the Jackson area’s youths’ inability to get jobs.

The Mississippi chapter of the ACLU pushed back, warning that the ordinance may–as ACLU representative Bear Atwood told ABC News–“end up targeting black neighborhoods and, for kids who have done nothing other than wear their pants too low, brings them into contact with the police unnecessarily.” The ordinance was eventually voted down.

Mississippi state’s most recent anti-sagging bill invites a multitude of questions. How low do pants have to be to be considered “indecent and vulgar”? What will psychological and social counseling actually do to prevent this low-hanging atrocity from persisting?

Perhaps, a more prudent question is why do legislatures and local municipalities think it’s okay to legitimize respectability politics in black communities?

To start to define “respectability politics,” we can look to the statement that the Mississippi chapter of the ACLU shared in its response to the Hinds County proposed ordinance:

We all want to see our young people grow into productive, engaged citizens, but this is not the way. Saggy pants bans will have long lasting harm in our communities. Such bans will divert precious resources from law enforcement. Let’s spend those resources on education, after school activities or new text books. Rather than open doors for youth, saggy pants bans will close doors of opportunity.

The Mississippi ACLU statement begins an argument that helps to pinpoint the nucleus of what is wrong with the respectability politics argument: Why should forcing black communities to adapt to standards of “respectability” be a focus for legislation when the culture of poverty is created and exacerbated by discriminatory policies that result in the lack of resources afforded to these communities?

Politics of respectability seek to blame the condition of black lives in America solely on black people–as if their agency is not limited by institutions and structures that are the result of years of discriminatory policies. This presents a flawed reality in which equality for African-American can be achieved if only young black men pulled up their pants and if young black women dressed better.

It also puts the onus on marginalized people to aspire to standards set in the interest of maintaining hierarchy in order to gain some semblance of equality and respect. Respectability politics defines racism as something black Americans will just have to overcome. As Mychal Denzel Smith writes in his book “Invisible Man Got the Whole World Watching,” “It’s only when [black people] live up to the stereotypes that we limit our opportunities.”

Mississippi is a state where African-Americans, who make up almost 40 percent of the state’s population, still suffer from the residual effects of the state’s “Black Codes” and brutal implementation of Jim Crow. It is a state whose flag waves proudly while containing a tribute to the Confederate flag and has school districts that, even 62 years after Brown v. Board of Education, only recently “officially” desegregated. It is also home to one of the nation’s highest poverty rates and worst public school systems.

In HB1353, we see Mississippi’s desire to focus its energy not on actions that will make any attempt to alleviate its many problems, but on bills that criminalize certain choices and create a measurement of a human being’s deservedness of fair and equal treatment based on how many inches one’s pants falls below one’s butt.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Mississippi’s Proposed Sagging Ban is Legitimizing Respectability Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” That may be true, but it is not a smooth trajectory. Nor can you set society on the path to more justice and expect it to progress to your goal unsupervised. Creating a just society is not a one-time event. It is a constant process that requires continued maintenance.

More than 60 years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education we still face the challenge in the United States of ensuring that students of all races have the same access to a quality education. In many places, the gains that were made in the 1960s and 1970s have been eroded. In some places, it is as though no change took place at all.

Not only is segregated schooling contrary to our laws, it is contrary to our most deeply-held values as a nation of liberty and equity. And if neither the legal nor the moral argument persuade you that this should concern you, consider the self-interest argument. Because the children that we refuse to invest in today are the ones who will be unable to invest back into our society tomorrow.

All Deliberate Speed

This video is long, but if you are interested in a thoughtful discussion of the history of school integration and the challenges that we still face in making its promise a reality it is well worth watching.

Brown vs. Board of Education was in many ways a radical decision, and in some ways not radical enough. It refuted the earlier Supreme Court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson, at least in the context of public education. In Plessy, the court had held that requiring black and white passengers to use separate accommodations on trains was not unconstitutional so long as the separate facilities were also equal. Thus the question became, in a discrimination case, a question of fact as to how the accommodations actually compared. Requiring black students to use facilities that were of markedly different quality wasn’t permissible, although in practice happened often, but if the facilities were equivalent then separate wasn’t discriminatory.

Brown changed this in the arena of public education. The rationale for opposing the segregation that existed was not merely because the resources provided to children of color were unequal–although that was the case and represented the primary, practical motivation for challenging the status quo–it was that having separate schools, even if those classrooms were identical, was inherently unequal. That separating American children based on race, even if all the other factors of their education remained the same, was in and of itself something that was damaging. In fact, evidence was produced to show psychological harm to black children from their segregated schooling. The practical effect for a school that could have been shown to be unequal in resources would have been the same with a Plessy standard. The school would have to be integrated or given more resources, the same way it would be forced to integrate under Brown. But in terms of what society was now willing to accept as equitable and just, Brown represented a profound change.

But Brown provided no roadmap for how to get from the world of 1954 into a modern, integrated society. And with the use of the now infamous phrase “all deliberate speed,” the court gave the societal forces who opposed integration ammunition in their fight to slow it down or halt it completely. Sixty years later there is still a backlash to integrating our schools.

Take a look at this video that highlights the situation in one town in Alabama that is still struggling with integration.

The Scope of the Problem

If you think that integration is a problem only in the South, think again. In the period from 1968 to 2011 school segregation actually increased in the Northeast–the percentage of black students in schools with at least 90 percent minority students went from 42.7 to 51.4 percent. In New York, 64.6 percent of black students go to a school that fits this definition of “hyper-segregation.”

If you attend a segregated school you are put at an immediate disadvantage, especially if you are a member of a minority group. You are segregated not only by race but also often by class, doubling down on the negative effects of growing up in a low-income neighborhood. Not only do you miss out on the social and cultural stimulation of meeting people who are different from you, you miss out on more tangible perks of a good school as well. Good teachers, good materials, and good courses aren’t on offer for you. The message is no less clearly received by children just because it is not said out loud: You don’t matter.

In contrast, a student who attends an integrated school is given an advantage over his or her segregated peers, whether they are black or white. If you are black and spent a year in a desegregated school your chance of graduating high school went up by 2 percent, for each year you attended that integrated school. If you spent five years in that integrated school your future wages rose by 15 percent, or an extra $5,900 in annual family income. You also are probably less likely to have a criminal record, since for minority boys the racial makeup of their school can have a significant impact on whether they commit a crime. A nonwhite boy in a school that has 60 percent minority students, versus 40 percent minority students, is 16 percent more likely to commit a crime.

Given that schools that have a high minority population are also, by every metric, of lower quality, it is not surprising that parents try to get their children in school elsewhere. Parents diligently research local schools when purchasing homes, take part in lottery systems, advocate for “freedom of choice” in schooling with voucher programs, push charter schools, and sue to resist integration attempts. This impulse is so strong among white parents in particular that even if two schools are equivalent in test scores white parents will opt for the school that has the “right” ratio of white and minority students. Apparently, you want a little diversity, but not too much.

In the midst of this, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that two school districts could not use race as a factor in assigning pupils to schools. Racial discrimination is not, according to Chief Justice Roberts, an answer to racial discrimination.

Political Will

If taking the race of an individual student isn’t the answer, what is? Take a look at this PBS NewsHour interview that strives to answer that question.

Professor Noguera argues that the situation that we see here–where poor, minority children are unable to break out of a cycle of segregation and poverty–is because of a lack of investment and a lack of political will. Our Nordic neighbors would definitely agree. In Finland, a country that is generally lauded as having the most successful education system in the world, decisions are made very differently.

In her book, “The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life,” Anu Partanen explains the two different philosophical approaches to the question of education. The first approach is the “demand” approach. Education is an investment that parents are making in their children. And so to increase the quality of education you need to increase the demand for it made by those parents. Competition–charter schools, private schools, school choice vouchers etc.–will help to so this. In the United States many people, often Republicans but not exclusively so, support this theory. It allows parents to take the initiative to advocate for their children and to place them in the best possible circumstances.

Partanen’s critique of this approach is twofold. First, although parents are expected to make this investment they don’t directly benefit; it is the children and society at large who benefit from this investment–and not for 20 years or so. This may make the link between reward and investment tenuous for parents and perhaps discourage the investment. Which leads to the second, stronger criticism that it places all children at the mercy of their parents’ willingness and ability to invest in them. The most vulnerable children, children born to parents who do not have the means to invest financially in their education and/or do not have the inclination to do so, are just out of luck. Unless they happen to fall into a good school district, which is highly unlikely. Your entire academic fate rests on that first roll of the dice–who you were born to.

The Nordic Model

The alternate approach is the approach that holds sway in Finland and most other Nordic countries: the “supply” approach. Under this approach, education is viewed as the child’s right to receive an education, not the parent’s right to select the kind of education they want for their children. Because it is a right for the child, it is the government’s responsibility to supply the means to that education: high quality, equitable schools. Not the parents’ responsibility to demand it. While it by no means ensures an idyllic childhood for everyone it eliminates one of the principle vicissitudes of fortune, the quality of your education, that usually accompany your birth.

The keys to that approach being successful are having universally high-quality education, regardless of where the child is, and the decision by the government that a society as a whole is going to invest in its children. The fact that both of these are absent in the United States is what leads parents to play the game to get their children into predominately white public schools, or private schools, to give them the best shot of receiving a valuable education. In a society where all schools are excellent, there is no need to play that game. But because we do not practice what we preach–that all of our children are created equal–that society does not exist here.

The Gorilla In The Room

One problem with solving the issue of integration is that we have so far been unwilling to profoundly question how our schools are funded. School districts are largely funded with property taxes in that locality, so it creates a vicious circle of poverty and discrimination. Poor districts, with their disproportionate minority populations, raise less money than their wealthier and whiter counterparts. So they spend less per student, reducing the quality of education, and encouraging even more “white flight” from the area. Which, in turn, causes affluent parents in good school districts to turn a blind eye to the plight of other people’s children. Parents don’t feel that they need to worry about education and opportunity in a school their child doesn’t attend.

But whether they realize it or not, the middle class and the wealthy do have skin in the game. As both PBS video discussions make clear, these children may be other people’s children but they will not be someone else’s problem. They will be the workers who support social security in our old age. They will be the consumers acting as the engine of our economy. They will be the law-abiding citizens who participate in our democracy.

Or, because we did not invest in them, they won’t. And all Americans, not just those in the neighborhoods of these failing schools, will feel that burden.

Conclusion

The secret to America’s success is her dynamism and her diversity. We cannot be exactly like Finland, nor should we strive to be. But we are stopped from making reforms to our education, not by the things that make us different from Finland but by a lack of commitment to our own core values and a lack of political will. For example, rather than funding schools based on local property taxes a state could collect property taxes, pool them together, and divide the resources based on the number of students and student need as opposed to the accident of their geography. Another solution could be to reinstitute busing requirements for segregated districts. Or programs that encourage neighborhoods to not be so segregated in the first place.

These approaches may seem radical. And truthfully an overhaul of how schools are funded would be about as ambitious a project as one could undertake, politically and just logistically. But they are not radical if we decide that we are going to embrace the value of equity in our culture and treat education as something that every child, regardless of birth or circumstance, is entitled to. Not just because it is morally right in and of itself, although it is, but because our mutual investment in our children is to our mutual benefit.

Resources

Cornell Law School: Plessy v. Ferguson

Cornell Law School: Brown v. Board of Education

Slate: Brown v. Board of Education: On 60th Anniversary Schools Are Segregating

New York Times Magazine: Choosing a School For My Daughter in a Segregated City

Goodreads: Savage Inequalities

PBS: The Return of School Segregation in Eight Charts

The Washington Post: How Segregated Schools Turn Kids Into Criminals

Slate: When White Parents Have a Choice They Choose Segregated Schools

CQ Press: Racial Diversity In Public Schools 

NPR: Supreme Court Quashes School Desegregation

Goodreads: The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life

Goodreads: The Shame Of The Nation

Atlantic: The End of Busing in Indianapolis

The Washington Post: ‘Don’t Force Us to Give Up Our School’ a Mississippi Town is Being Forced to Integrate 

PBS: A Return to School Segregation in America

USA Today: Still Apart: Map Shows States With Most-Segregated Schools

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post How Can We Fix Racial Segregation In American Schools? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Los Angeles Times published a powerful op-ed by actress Gabrielle Union in which she addressed the recent rape allegations against movie director, writer, and actor Nate Parker. Parker was Union’s director in the movie “Birth of a Nation,” the highly-anticipated Oscar favorite about Nat Turner, an enslaved man who started a slave rebellion. Union plays a rape victim that throughout the film is silent, symbolizing situation many survivors of sexual violence find themselves in.

In her op-ed, Union reveals that she herself was sexually assaulted in her youth. She describes how 24 years ago she was raped at gunpoint in the back room of the shoe store where she used to work. She took the role in “Birth of a Nation” to provide a voice to all the voiceless women out there who have been victims of sexual abuse or rape. When the allegations against her director Nate Parker resurfaced, she says she was shocked. She wrote:

Since Nate Parker’s story was revealed to me, I have found myself in a state of stomach-churning confusion. I took this role because I related to the experience. I also wanted to give a voice to my character, who remains silent throughout the film. In her silence, she represents countless black women who have been and continue to be violated. Women without a voice, without power. Women in general. But black women in particular. I knew I could walk out of our movie and speak to the audience about what it feels like to be a survivor.

She went on to say that she couldn’t take these allegations against Parker lightly, arguing that although no one knows what actually happened that night many years ago, this is an opportunity to educate people about consent. Silence does not mean “yes.”

The rape accusation against Parker is 17 years old but recently resurfaced in the media. At 19, he and his college roommate Jean McGianni Celestin were accused of raping a woman who allegedly was too drunk to stand up straight. Parker has always maintained his innocence, saying it was consensual. He was acquitted of all charges, but Celestin was convicted of sexual assault. Celestin also helped make the movie that is now in the running for Academy Awards. One part that is particularly controversial is that they allegedly harassed the woman afterward. She later committed suicide in 2012.

Parker has tried to explain the difference between his 19-year-old self and the Nate Parker of today. He posted a statement on his Facebook page expressing his shock when he heard of the young woman’s passing. Some have accepted this as an apology, while others have said it’s just empty talk to try and save his movie. In light of the recent controversy, several locations have canceled screenings of “Birth of a Nation” and Q&A’s with Parker, such as the American Film Institute.

Gabrielle Union is married to NBA player Dwyane Wade and is the stepmother of his three sons. She said in raising them, she and Wade have educated them strictly about manners, drugs, and making the right choices. But lately, she realized this is not enough, and that they also have to teach them about boundaries between the sexes. She said:

To that end, we are making an effort to teach our sons about affirmative consent. We explain that the onus is on them to explicitly ask if their partner consents. And we tell them that a shrug or a smile or a sigh won’t suffice. They have to hear ‘yes.’

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 Gabrielle Union Speaks Out About Nate Parker’s Rape Allegations appeared first on Law Street.

Studying life expectancy allows us to understand what factors help people live longer and how changes in conditions affect people’s lives. Recent research shows how life expectancy varies among different groups of Americans, sparking some important questions about future policy decisions. While life expectancy has increased overall over the past several decades, those gains tend to vary widely among certain groups. This research has implications on a range of issues from public health and inequality to Social Security. 

Read on to find out more about the current U.S. life expectancy, how it has changed over time, and how American lifespans compare to those of people in other countries, particularly other advanced nations.

How long do People Live?

The most common way to measure how long people live on average is through life expectancy, which is the amount of time in years a newborn baby is likely to live based on current conditions and health trends. The average life expectancy at birth for Americans as of 2014 was 79.68 years, meaning a child born in 2014 in the United States could be expected to live to that age. While this provides a baseline, the numbers can be further divided among a variety of demographics, which tell a more in-depth story.

Life expectancies tend to vary among different groups, particularly when categorized by race, sex, and income levels. In the case of race, there is a wide disparity between black and white Americans. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report in 2009 found that the average life expectancy for black Americans was 75 years old, which was the same as it was for white Americans back in 1979. According to the CDC, the reasons for this disparity are higher rates of cancer, diabetes, homicide, heart disease, and perinatal conditions. Racial disparities are considerably larger when you further divide by education. Some of the largest gaps in life expectancy exist between white Americans with more than 16 years of education and black Americans with fewer than 12. One dynamic keeping this gap from becoming even larger is the much higher rate of suicide for whites.

Sex also plays a role in how long the average person can expect to live. In 2012, the average life expectancy for a male in the United States was 76.4 years and 81.2 years for women. This gap is not uncommon, however, as women tend to live longer than men for a number of reasons. One such reason is that women generally engage in less risky behavior and suffer fewer car accidents. These numbers hold even though more baby boys are actually born than baby girls, although that is mostly the result of female embryos having slightly higher rates of miscarriage than male embryos.

A third major factor that relates to life expectancy is income. In a recent study based on data from 2001 to 2014, researchers found that the average life expectancy for the richest men in the United States is approximately 87 years, which is about 15 years longer than the poorest. To put that in a clearer context, rich men in the United States live longer than men in any other country, while poor men live, on average, the same number of years as men in countries like Sudan and Pakistan. The numbers are similar among wealthy women who have an average life expectancy of 89 years old, 10 years longer than women in the lowest income group. Although researchers have not drawn a causal line between life expectancy and income to explain what drives this gap, a clear correlation exists between the two.

The accompanying video summarizes the study’s findings:

The numbers can also be parsed further. Although the rates for the richest men and women vary little depending upon the geographical area, the same is not true for the poor. On average, low-income people live shorter lives in the middle of the country compared to those who live in rich coastal cities. The study’s authors note that most of the geographical differences may be behavior-related and potentially explained by factors like rates of smoking and obesity. They also note that in wealthy cities with high levels of education and public spending, those at the bottom of the income scale tend to live longer than their counterparts in less affluent cities.

Changes in Life Expectancy

Life expectancy in the United States has changed dramatically over time. For example, in the 1930s, when Social Security was first introduced, the average man only lived to be 58 years old and the average woman 62 years old. Ironically, the retirement age for Social Security was set at 65. Another important consequence of the gap in life expectancy for the rich and poor is its effect on economic inequality and Social Security. As wealthy people live longer, they also receive more in Social Security benefits because they get additional payments over the course of their lives. Depending on how large the gap is, wealthy people may end up taking out a larger share of what they contributed relative to their income, which could reduce the progressivity of the Social Security program. This gap also has important consequences for the debate about retirement age, which many argue is necessary to keep the program funded as baby boomers retire.

While life expectancy has changed a lot over the past several decades, it has affected different groups in distinct ways. The clearest explanation comes in the same three characteristics mentioned earlier: sex, race, and income. In this instance, sex and race tend to blend together. Traditionally, white women have lived the longest, however, a recent study found that life expectancy for white women actually went down by a month. While this group still lives longest by far, the number has shrunk slightly due to a combination of factors, including rising suicide, drug overdose, and liver disease often caused by alcoholism. While white people, in general, suffer from these problems more than other groups, women have been particularly susceptible. This dip in life expectancy is actually the first one since totals have been calculated and happens at a time when other health concerns such as strokes and heart disease are causing fewer deaths.

The video below looks at this unexpected change:

While white women saw a reduction in life expectancy, several other groups saw an increase. Namely, black males and Hispanics of both sexes are expected to live longer. The third group, made up of white males and black females, saw no change in their life expectancy. Aside from sex and race, income level’s influence on life expectancy also changed. In the case of income, the richest people in America have gained three years in life expectancy from 2001-2014, while life expectancy for the poorest Americans did not change.

The United States Compared to the Rest of the World

Reliable data for life expectancy covers a relatively short time in history. In fact, for the United Kingdom, the country with the farthest reaching information, rates only go back to the 191h century. In the U.K., and virtually every other country, life expectancy was very short in the early 1800s, averaging between 30 and 40 years old; in South Korea and India, it was as low as 23. However, as healthcare and science improved, especially regarding infant mortality, life expectancy rose dramatically across the globe around the beginning of the 20th century.

This rapid improvement occurred in the United States as well, but the U.S. average of 79.68 years currently ranks 43rd relative to the rest of the world. Although countries with longer life expectancies may not be as large and diverse as the United States, it is important to ask why–for such a rich country–the U.S. life expectancy is relatively low, particularly compared to other developed nations.

The answer, according to the CDC, is threefold: drug overdose, gun violence, and car crashes. These three categories lead to injuries that account for roughly half of the deaths for men and a fifth for women in the United States. Americans, on average, live two years fewer than people in similarly developed countries. The effects of these, particularly drug overdoses, have been most acutely felt among middle-aged white Americans. Another important factor that contributes to America’s lower life expectancy is smoking tobacco. Many people in the United States started smoking earlier and in larger numbers than in other places.

Another major factor affecting life expectancy and keeping the United States behind other developed countries is the infant mortality rate. The infant mortality rate “compares the number of deaths of infants under one-year-old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year.” The infant mortality rate for the United States is 5.87. Although that is historically low, it is less impressive compared to other countries–the United States has the 167th highest rate out of 224 countries, and is a far cry from most other developed nations that average between two and four. Like life expectancy in general, infant mortality rates are also affected by things such as race and income with more affluent and white babies at a much lower risk of death than lower-income and black babies.

Conclusion

There is no conclusive way to say exactly how long a person will live, but life expectancy provides an effective measure to see how certain factors contribute to longevity. In the United States, these numbers have been broken down further to take into account the differences across a wide range of demographics. In general, the most recent data was positive, with groups either staying where they are or seeing life expectancy gains, except for a few cases. However, even these modest gains still leave the United States behind many other developed nations. The reasons for this shortcoming are manifold, ranging from high infant mortality rates to smoking tobacco. Regardless of the results, though, life expectancy can provide people with a good baseline for how long they might live and what factors contribute to longevity.

Resources

The World Bank: Life Expectancy at Birth

Infoplease: Life Expectancy for Countries, 2015

The Journal of the American Medical Association: The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014

Social Security Administration: Life Expectancy for Social Security

The Washington Post: The Stunning–and Expanding–Gap in Life Expectancy Between the Rich and Poor

CNN: White Women’s Life Expectancy Shrinks a Bit

NPR: Life Expectancy Drops For White Women, Increases For Black Men

CNN: Why Americans Don’t Live as Long as Europeans

Population Reference Bureau: Smoking-Related Deaths Keep U.S. Life Expectancy Below Other wealthy Countries

Central Intelligence Agency: World Factbook

Our World in Data: Life Expectancy

USA Today: Life Expectancy in the USA Hits a Record High

Population Education: Why Are More Baby Boys Born Than Girls

USA Today: Infant Mortality Rates hits Record Low, Although Racial Disparities Persist

Business Insider: Huge Racial Gap in Life Expectancy

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Explains Life Expectancy in the United States? appeared first on Law Street.

If they introduce the attorneys in a case like they announce an NFL team’s lineup before the game, it would look a lot like episode three of “American Crime Story: The People v. O. J. Simpson.” One by one, John Travolta’s plastic-faced Robert Shapiro assembles the behemoth legal team behind O. J. Simpson. We’re given the sense that the show is done revving its engine now, and it’s ready to speed along into familiar territory. The key here, building further on the earlier background episodes, is the word “familiar.” Is this where fatigue sets in?

When you’re telling people a story they already know, there is additional pressure to make your telling fresh. Since the show was announced, it has lived under the shadow of the public’s own knowledge of the case. It’s like watching a movie after reading the plot summary online. Or catching up on a TV show after your friend has spoiled the plot twists for you. As dramatic and intense the production becomes, it can’t escape the fact that it is by nature a surprise-less story. Therein lies the trouble for high-profile true crime: getting an audience to care again. “Serial’s”  first season, and “Making A Murderer” both focus on relatively low-profile cases—viewers don’t know what to expect and are surprised by each new witness or piece of evidence. That’s the trouble faced by “Serial’s” second season, in which they took on the high-profile case of Bowe Bergdahl.

The Challenge of Familiarity

With “American Crime Story,” audiences can’t be shocked. This alone doesn’t devalue the show, in fact, it makes the show better. That’s because the Clark’s team of prosecutors faces the same problem. Their witnesses are gabbing on television about what they saw, and the 911 tape is playing day in and day out on national television. Their jury will have already heard the story, already seen the evidence. By the time they’re in trial, it’ll be double exposure.

Ryan Murphy, the show’s producer, is Marcia Clark, and we are his jury. That might be why Clark is given a much more empathetic position, as penance for the “dowdy,” “bitchy,” and “shrill” comments hurled at her at the time. So how do Murphy and his team liven up an over-exposed story?

Much like the lawyers in O. J.’s case, “American Crime Story” needs to decide on a fresh narrative angle and make it stick. In its third episode, the show does just that, cementing several through lines. We’ve got the race angle, which builds as scheming lawyers construct a defense; the failure-of-justice angle, as we follow a cocky prosecutor losing her confidence; and the repercussions of fame angle, demonstrated most clearly through the Kardashian family’s rise to notoriety. And there’s a glimmer of themes to come, as the focus on Marcia Clark’s home life suggests the show will address sexism in upcoming episodes.

The race angle is “American Crime Story’s” most evident effort to make Simpson’s case relevant. The vignettes and quotes in episode three continue the pattern of looking at Simpson as both an example of and an exception to racial biases. For every TIME magazine cover darkening Simpson’s appearance, there’s a barb from Clark saying, “Doesn’t Simpson deserve a jury of his peers, you know, rich middle-aged white men?” That’s the balance struck by the show: when Shapiro tells Simpson “We get one black juror, we get a hung jury, you’re going home,” Simpson responds, “I’m not black, I’m O.J.” We see Shapiro dance around the word “black” as he explains why he wants Johnnie Cochran to join Simpson’s team.

Making it Resonate

As the titular dream team drums up sympathy for a ‘racist police’ defense, they’re riding on the coattails of earlier tragedies such as Rodney King and the Christopher Commission. This begs a valuable question: does it cheapen or invalidate the true injustices they’re referencing? To compare the sham of a racist cop defense with actual atrocities might lump those events together, in a disservice to the truly innocent victims of police violence. “American Crime Story” stays fresh because it makes us ask these questions about a decades-old case.

As for the miscarriage of justice, Clark’s confidence has been steeled even further since Simpson’s arrest. “A star is born” we hear her say. “He practically did my job for me” she boasts to co-workers as she delivers high-fives. A hyper-confident Clark at the beginning of the series builds tension in the viewer, who knows that failure is looming for her. We know she’ll fall, but just how and when remains to be seen.

While it makes for gripping television, the actual Marcia Clark clarified in an interview with Vulture that she was nowhere near as confident as her character on the series:

I’m sorry, the truth is, we were not [confident]. We’ve got to look confident, though. I’m not going to go out to the press and say, Oh, we’re going to lose! I have to present a confident case.

And finally, fame. Fame has long been a favorite topic of Murphy’s, ranging from “Nip/Tuck” to “Glee” to “Scream Queens.” An obsession with celebrity, along with its perils, has always been on the forefront of his productions. As for “American Crime Story,” the show deals best with fame when it discusses its intersection with race and gender and justice. It falters when it delivers us scenes that feel like prequels to “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” Like David Schwimmer’s professorial delivery of a diatribe to his children about the trap of fame exemplifies this issue. Saying, “We are Kardashians, and in this family being a good person and a loyal friend is more important than being famous” is so egregiously ironic that viewers may need to visit an optometrist to address eye-rolling-related strain.

As for additions to the already star-studded cast, some new faces get screen time in this episode. Nathan Lane provides a delightful and nuanced F. Lee Bailey, Evan Handler gives us Alan Dershowitz–the most lawyerly lawyer I’ve yet seen on television–and Selma Blair is handed a few lines, with which she plays Kris Jenner better than Kris Jenner could.

And now that the show has found its footing, confidently asserting exactly the story it’s telling and why you should be watching, we’ll be able to see the ensemble cast flourish in the part of the rich trial drama that America knows so well.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Hits its Stride as the Dream Team Assembles appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, 167 million people watched a white Bronco carry his team to victory. Then on Tuesday, a few million people watched a white Bronco carry a fugitive along Interstate 405.

If you had asked me yesterday about O. J. Simpson’s breaking-news car chase in 1994, I could have probably told you that he drove down a Los Angeles highway in a white Ford Bronco, with officers in hot pursuit. I bet if you asked my parents to describe the same event, they’d paint a picture much closer to the events in episode two of “American Crime Story: The People v. O. J. Simpson.”

They’d mention how everyone was glued to their televisions, that the news networks all broke away from their scheduled programming for the live chase. They’d know that the chase was more of a motorcade, as the LAPD kowtowed to the demands of Simpson, who had a gun to his own head in the backseat of the car. They’d add that for six hours, the question of life or death for the actor and athlete was up in the air. Before watching “American Crime Story,” I knew none of these details, as many people my age fall into an O. J. knowledge gap that I mentioned when I covered the first episode of the series.

I was very skeptical when I heard that “American Crime Story” would weave real footage from the news into its dramatization. It could’ve been exploitative, dragging unsuspecting bystanders back into the fray, and might lend undue credibility to the drama’s version of the events. After watching two episodes, I’ll admit I was wrong. The footage is seamlessly integrated with the fiction, and I think it was the only way to give me some understanding of how it must have felt to watch the chase live.

Seeing Tom Brokaw and Bob Costas announcing the chase and read the news as their younger selves was also momentarily off-putting. It’s like seeing a young photo of Maggie Smith or Joe Biden–we understand that all older people were once young, but it’s still bracing to actually see their younger self. Being able to recognize the newscasters makes the viewing experience more immersive.

As for the part where we see the tiny Kardashian kids watching their father read an apparent suicide note on television; to me, the children chanting “Kar-da-shi-an!” breached the limits of the narrative–winking a bit too strongly at the modern audience, who might feel as though the television is constantly chanting “Kardashian” at them today.

Still, the Kardashian connection may become more meaningful if the show bridges their fame with the rise of 24-hour media and the dawn of reality TV. For months, The O. J. arrest, trial, and verdict dominated newspapers, magazines, and especially television. One character in “American Crime Story,” a television producer, said it best when he demanded that ABC’s feed change to the Bronco chase: “O. J. is news, entertainment, and sports.” This perfect storm of America’s obsessions: celebrity, race, crime, and politics set the fuse for the explosion of constantly breaking news and national television moments. Remember, this is well before “American Idol” capitalized on the unifying nature of live television.

And of course, the topic of race is discussed further in this second episode, as we meet Christopher Darden’s family and friends. They’ve got their television out by the pool, and they’re discussing the favorable treatment Simpson receives. “When he got rich, he became white” one character added. “The police are chasing him—he’s Black now!” another retorts. It’s curious to see the intersection of wealth and race in Simpson’s case, especially considering that most of the victims Black Lives Matter focuses on belong to a lower socioeconomic class.

Johnnie Cochran wastes no time in excusing Simpson’s actions by placing them in the context of race relations between the black community and the LAPD. Cochran evokes the story of Leonard Deadwyler, a black man who was shot while speeding his pregnant wife to the hospital. The series walks a fine line, as the defense’s claim of police racism is weakened by the fact that most Americans believe O. J. Simpson committed the 1994 murders. As the show moves into new territory, especially the specifics of the trial, we’ll see whether “American Crime Story” treats the defense’s case as a smokescreen or a real social injustice.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Episode Two: The Bronco Chase appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, is evidently considering an independent run for President in 2016. According to sources close to the politician and media mogul, he “sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg’s views.” While nothing is definite yet, the moves that Bloomberg and his people are making indicate that he is seriously considering that third-party bid.

Bloomberg’s concerns about the nominees extend to both parties–he reportedly doesn’t want to see a race that comes down to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz on the Republican side vs. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. Edward G. Rendell, the former Governor of Pennsylvania and a past DNC chair told the New York Times that he believes:

Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders. If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.

However, as much as he may dislike Donald Trump, Bloomberg’s campaign would take a page out of the Republican front-runners book–he would allegedly self-finance his campaign with the $37 billion he has acquired from his media businesses.

If Bloomberg were to join the race as an independent, he would be almost certain to take votes away from whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee. While Bloomberg has bounced around from party to party over his time in politics, many of his positions are significantly more attractive to Democrats than they are to Republicans. For example, he has long been a supporter of stricter gun controls, has donated money to Planned Parenthood, and worked to combat climate change. While he has also held some positions that are more moderate-right leaning, such as support for the financial services industry, it’s presumed that should he run as an independent, he’d draw voters more from the Democratic base than Republican.

Many are saying that the fact that Bloomberg is even considering a run is bad news for Hillary Clinton, who has seen her poll numbers take quite a bit of a hit in recent weeks. But, the primaries still haven’t even officially started, so there’s still quite a long road to go, and probably a while before Bloomberg would make any official moves.

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 Will Michael Bloomberg Jump in the 2016 Fray? appeared first on Law Street.

Teachers are the key to educating and developing the minds of future generations. They are an invaluable asset to break down barriers, open minds, distill fear and misunderstanding, and to bridge the gaps across cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender disparities. Teachers are sometimes the only individuals within a child’s life, apart from parents or grandparents, that take on a quasi-parental role and are provided with an opportunity to teach children much more than a couple of history lessons. They can greatly influence the lens through which children see the world in adulthood, which can both be excellent and scary all in the same breath. This is especially true during times of great uncertainty–during times of terrorism and fear, teachers’ personal beliefs may end up being at issue as well.

In light of the growing rate of Islamophobia within the United States, the general population has become more aware, more critical, and more concerned with safety, particularly in the context of religious interaction. Accordingly, parents have been more demanding of the schools in which their children spend most of their time and the individuals who assume the roles of caretakers in school settings. Due to the heightened awareness and concern, regardless if justified, a Muslim New Jersey teacher named Sireen Hashem was reportedly fired for showing her class a video about Malala Yousafazi, a young advocate for children’s education worldwide and the youngest person to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy. Read on for a look at the case, including the Muslim teacher who was fired, the circumstances of her employment at Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and her lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination.

The Discrimination Battle

On December 14, 2015, Sireen Hashem filed a civil complaint against  Hunterdon County, the Board of Education, Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and four named individuals including the history department’s supervisor–Robert Zywicki, and Principal Suzanne Cooley. Here are the facts her complaint alleges:

Sireen Hashem, a Muslim American of Palestinian descent, had joined the Hunterdon Central Regional High School’s history department in September 2013. No stranger to criticism, Hashem has shared that she had experienced several complaints regarding her lesson plans, which she alleges were no different than and followed the same curriculum as her fellow history coworkers. Furthermore, the video about Malala that Hashem showed to her class, subsequent her own screening to make sure it fell in line with her lesson for the day, was suggested by her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworker, Lindsay Wagner, who had shown the exact same video in her class on the same day. Yet Hashem alleges she was the only teacher to suffer any reprimand.

According to her lawyers, many of the complaints against Hashem do not revolve around the lessons taught to her own classroom, but rather pertain to her assistance and help provided to other teachers. Hashem had been asked by a coworker to translate an interview of a Palestinian subject. She had also been asked to take part in a discussion about “The Lemon Tree” and assist in translating a Skype conversation that the students were able to have with a Palestinian character featured in the book, with which she complied. Parents were allegedly unhappy about Hashem’s participation in the Skype conversation.

Further, Hashem was allegedly criticized for her essay question asking students to “compare the actions of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry to the actions of Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001”–a document-based question used by a number of teachers across the United States. Despite her desire to help her coworkers to bridge gaps and build understanding across cultural, ethnic, and religious norms by engaging discussion around current events and educating her students to minimize misunderstanding, Hashem’s actions were allegedly interpreted to have political overtones and misrepresented agendas. As such, Hashem claims that she was subject to a heightened level of discrimination by the school relative to her coworkers and became the target for egregious public posts on a student Facebook wall stating that Hashem’s brother was a terrorist, that she was anti-Israel, and that she threatened students who had different opinions and views.

According to her complaint, eleven days after showing her class the Malala video, Hashem was called into her supervisor’s office who told her that because of her religion, national origin, and background, she was not allowed to teach current events in the same ways that her coworkers did. She says that was further told that she “she should not mention Islam or the Middle East in her class” and that she was not to “bring her culture, life experience or background into the classroom” by the principal.

Hashem received a written notice on April 21, 2015 that her contract with the school would not be renewed. Subsequently, she was informed of the reasons and provided an opportunity to speak in front of the Board of Education for review. She appeared in front of the board on June 15, 2015, with approximately 60 students present to show support for Hashem, however they were not allowed to enter the deliberations and only five could speak on her behalf. Deliberations were held behind closed doors. On June 17, 2015, Hashem received notice that her employment and contract would be terminated on June 30, 2015. Approximately one month later, two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents appeared at Hashem’s home because of an alleged threat she had made to the Board during her meeting for review.

Hunterdon County District has rejected all accusations made by Hashem as “brazenly false” and “frivolous.” It went on to explain that Hashem’s contract was simply not renewed and that the reasons for the non-renewal were explained to her, asserting that those reasons had nothing to do with religion or national origin as Hashem claims. The district expressed that “the board and the administration respect and embrace the diversity of the district’s employee and student population, and value the relationships it enjoys amongst persons of all faiths.” No further details have been provided by the district or any of the other defendants named as of yet.

The Complaint and Its Legalities

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem is the first legal step to starting the lawsuit against Hunterdon Central Regional High School and the others named in the suit. The nature of action in the complaint filed is for employment discrimination, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer is prohibited from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Accordingly, the employer cannot engage in practices that treat individuals differently based on protected classes that include one’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such practices are classified as disparate treatment, are against the law, and can serve as the basis of a Title VII lawsuit. In order to prove disparate treatment, the employee must show that he or she was treated differently by his or her employer on the basis of the protected characteristics mentioned above. However, an employer can explain, but is not required to prove, that there is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the treatment to which the employee must show that the employer’s reasoning is a pretext for discrimination, or a false reason that hides the true intentions of the employer.

Additionally, discriminatory consequences of employment practices are also considered in a Title VII legal analysis under disparate treatment, which allows the court to look beyond the isolated treatment of the individual and dive into employment practices that appear to be facially neutral (not discriminatory as a policy or on their face), but in practice subject a certain protected class to discrimination. Essentially, an employee must prove that a neutral policy or practice of an employer has a disproportionate effect on a protected group, which can sometimes be difficult as the courts do not have a specific threshold test or analysis but rather assess each situation on a case-by-case basis. However, if an employee is able to show adverse and discriminatory affects on a protected class, then the employer has to prove that its policies and conduct were justified as a business necessity.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides for a greater amount of protected characteristics including “race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, familial status, sex or sexual orientation, atypical cellular or blood trait, generic information, or service in the armed forces.” Further, employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of handicap, unless such a handicap would prohibit the employee from carrying out the essential functions of the job. Under New Jersey law, an individual is likely to have a successful claim if they are able to show that 1) they are in a protected class, 2) they were working up to the expectations of their employer, 3) they suffered adverse job action such as suspension or termination, and 4) they were replaced by an individual not in the protected class of the employee or that the adverse employment action was directly related to the employee’s protected status.

Hashem’s complaint outlined additional causes for her action including conspiracy to discriminate, deprivation of rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, unlawful discharge with malice, and defamation per se.

What’s Next?

While the lawsuit is still in its beginning stages, supporters of Hashem suggest that in disallowing her to teach students the same curriculum and in the same manner as her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworkers, she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, religion, and national origin pursuant to federal law. Further, her attorneys allege that she has been treated less favorably than her colleagues, particularly pertaining to the discriminatory nature of what she was and was not allowed to teach her students.

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem and her recollection of Hunterdon’s restrictions suggest that all of the prohibited lessons centered around current events, books, and influential people had a connection to Islam. Hashem claims that she taught in compliance and accordance to the school’s curriculum and the criticism she endured was often because of her assistance to other teachers for her specific skill set. Hashem’s supporters highlight that she was trying to help other teachers and provide insight and understanding that other teachers did not have, which is precisely why they came to her and asked for her help; that she was trying to bridge educational and cultural gaps while hoping for a more compassionate and understanding future generation.

Ironically, in trying to join the common cause to advocate for children’s education and showing Malala’s video, Sireen Hashem was allegedly fired for her educational implementation on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. We will have to wait and see how the lawsuit unravels and what is in store for Sireen Hashem pursuant to Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Resources

Primary

Hashem v. Hunterdon Central Regional High School

U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Employment Law New Jersey: New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Additional

The Huffington Post: Mother Upset Over School Assignment About Islam

The Malala Fund: Malala’s Story

The Daily Beast: Muslim Teacher Fired After Showing Malala Video

 Sandy Tolan: The Lemon Tree

 RT: Muslim Teacher Sues NJ School District for Pattern of Discrimination Over Her Religion

 The Huffington Post: New Jersey Teacher Says She Was Fired After Showing a Video of Malala

The New York Times: New Jersey School District Rejects Claim of Anti-Muslim Firing

FindLaw: Disparate Impact Discrimination

 McDermott, Will, & Emery: New EEOC Rule Significantly Increases Employer Burdens in ADEA Disparate Impact Cases

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sireen Hashem: Was her Firing Discriminatory? appeared first on Law Street.

As racial tensions become more visible in the United States, particularly at American universities, the Supreme Court finds itself hearing oral arguments on a major affirmative action case. While legal underpinning for affirmative action has been weakening in recent court decisions, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek to end the practice altogether.

The lawsuit, Fisher v. University of Texas, was brought by Abigail Fisher after she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas’ flagship school at Austin. Fisher alleges that while she was not accepted other, less-qualified students were admitted to the school because of their race. UT-Austin has a relatively unique admissions process because the school automatically accepts all students from Texas in the top 10 percent of their high school class. In practice, the actual percentage has been slightly lower since a law modified the rule in 2009, which said that UT-Austin must be able to fill 75 percent of the available residences with students from the top of their high school class. Importantly, though, Fisher was not granted automatic admission and was then forced to be considered using the university’s holistic evaluation process, in which race is considered alongside a wide range of factors.

Interestingly, the university’s 10 percent policy has actually helped increase diversity at UT-Austin. The policy leverages the fact that Texas high schools are often racially homogenous in order to promote diversity. Because many of the state’s high schools are primarily black or primarily white, the top 10 percent admissions policy ends up increasing the number of minority students accepted to the school.

What’s particularly interesting about this case is that there is little evidence to suggest Fisher would have been accepted even if race wasn’t a factor. Instead, the case is more accurately a challenge to the use of race in admissions itself and not a challenge of the school’s particular decision in Fisher’s case. Pro Publica’s candid analysis of the case states the subject of the case pretty clearly: it’s about the conservative view that the Constitution is colorblind and no one should be treated differently based on their race. On the other hand, proponents of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to combat the legacy of racism and inequality in the United States, and by many measures those resulting racial disparities still exist today.

That underlying debate is at the heart of the discussion around the case, and it becomes particularly clear you look at the facts. When Fisher applied to UT-Austin in 2008, the 10 percent rule accounted for about 92 percent of all incoming students from Texas. Although she had good grades Fisher did not meet that qualification. Instead, she was evaluated using the university’s holistic review process  using both an academic index (AI), which is based on test scores and grades, and a personal achievement index (PAI), which is based on two essays, the applicant’s life experiences, and, importantly, “special circumstances” that can range from economic background to race.

Based on the applicant pool, available evidence suggests that her rejection was not a result of her race. This fact is put clearly in the case’s court documents, in which UT-Austin notes,

Because petitioner [Fisher] was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, her application was considered pursuant to the holistic review process described above… The summary judgment record is uncontradicted that—due to the stiff competition in 2008 and petitioner’s relatively low AI score—petitioner would not have been admitted to the Fall 2008 freshman class even if she had received ‘a “perfect” PAI score of 6.’

Put simply, regardless of Fisher’s score on the personal achievement index, her grades and test scores were too low to grant her admission–meaning that race had nothing to do with the school’s decision as the PAI wasn’t a factor. Fisher was also denied admission to the school’s summer program, but the evidence suggests that the same thing happened. For the summer program, there were better qualified black and white students who did not earn acceptance.

Rather than seeking to correct Fisher’s admissions decision, this case is, transparently, about eliminating affirmative action from the college admissions process. The group funding the lawsuit, the Project on Fair Representation, seeks to “support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts.” This ranges from ending affirmative action in admissions and employment to eliminating voting protections for minorities. And so far, the group has had some notable success achieving that goal. In fact, it was the force behind the Shelby County court case that invalidated a major part of the civil rights act a couple years ago.

In the last landmark ruling on affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion that allowed schools to use race as a factor for admissions in order to achieve diversity but gave a sort of expiration date on the practice. According to the decision, affirmative action could be used if it was narrowly tailored to promote greater diversity among the student body. In the opinion, she said, “the court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was 2003, but 12 years later a renewed push to end affirmative action may move that deadline up considerably.

The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether affirmative action remains acceptable or if it should be further restricted and possibly eliminated altogether. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because the Justice Department filed a brief on it during her time as Solicitor General. There is a possibility that the Justices split the decision 4-4, in which case the lower court’s ruling in support of the admissions program will hold.

It’s pretty clear that the Justices are not eager to hand down a landmark decision on affirmative action. In fact, they have already heard this case once before but remanded it back to the lower court to evaluate UT-Austin’s use of affirmative action with stricter scrutiny. In oral arguments earlier this week, some of the Justices wanted to stall even further, questioning whether sending it back for a trial could be beneficial. Now that race is at the forefront of political discussion, the court is in a particularly tricky position. The fate of affirmative action programs now hangs in the balance.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Affirmative Action Makes its Way Back to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Today, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) dropped out of the race to fill the Speaker of the House position being vacated by current Speaker John Boehner. This came as a surprise to many, and there were reports of “audible crying” on the Hill. But, on the bright side, the Twittersphere took it on as fodder for some pretty entertaining reactions. Check out some of the best Twitter reactions to McCarthy dropping out of contention in the slideshow below:

Excellent Gif Use

House GOP caucus, right now: pic.twitter.com/oIwkuDHyzq

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 8, 2015

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 Kevin McCarthy Drops out of Speaker Race: Twitter Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

Najee Harmon is a 20-year-old man, and the primary suspect in the shooting of a Wauwatosa, WI detective on June 19. He’s been charged with three counts of attempted first degree intentional homicide and one count of felony possession of a firearm. After investigating a recent burglary, officers were on foot observing reported stolen vehicles, when Harmon fired several shots at Detective Jeffrey Griffin, injuring the officer. A manhunt took place for 24 hours, and he was finally found hiding in the basement of a long-time friend, Stephanie King.

But what struck me was what happened when King was interviewed; her comments raise a lot of questions about the “us vs. them” mentality that has begun to take hold between Black communities and the police.

While the focus from the media was on Harmon’s violent acts, King defended him saying, “To me he ain’t do no wrong, he just shot a cop. Everyone comes around when they shoot the cop. But when the cops shoot people, do they come around?”

While it’s never ok to shoot someone–particularly an innocent someone, what frustrates me so much about this interview is that she is partially right. Given recent events involving instances of police brutality many Black people are afraid for their lives. Recent events have proven that you can be the best looking, speaking, well-mannered, and respectful Black person and still be killed for the color of your skin. So, King’s logic makes some sense, although it certainly doesn’t make Harmon’s actions right. But you can’t fully blame her for this logic–this is what the newest frontier in the race war has come to look like in the United States. 

The tension between minority communities and the police is neither a small nor a dying issue. #BlackLivesMatter protests across the country have called for reforms and increased accountability surrounding police shootings and a reduction in the use of military equipment by local police departments.

“The system of policing has earned our mistrust,” said Opal Tometi, a New York-based activist and co-founder of the #BlackLivesMatter campaign.

It seems like every day you turn on the news and hear a story of yet another Black male who has died at the gun of a White police officer. There are tensions between communities and police officers, particularly when stories of corrupt police officers stealing drugs or money abound. Stigmas develop as these stories are passed throughout communities. This anger has built up to an all-time high. Black Americans are frustrated, sick of being mistreated, and it has gotten to the point where they believe the only solution is to take matters into their own hands. Black communities often feel like the people who are supposed to protect them are becoming those who victimize them instead. 

There are some understandable explanations for this. Police officers do not always understand the communities they are patrolling. Sometimes they enter these communities, and don’t know what they’re dealing with or how community members are feeling. There are many factors that can contribute to problems with the police, but this is a common problem with police officers in minority communities. This does not, of course, excuse genuine wrong they’ve done, but can be a starting point for a discussion about the issues they face as officers of the law.

On the other hand, in the defense of the police officers, their jobs require them to risk their lives regularly. In interviews with media outlets, officers often speak of being afraid during particular incidents and discharging their weapons because they feel it’s the best way to protect themselves. Granted, there are police officers who lie about this to cover something they’ve done, but  fear can certainly affect how a police officer does his job. It’s easy to forget that our police officers may genuinely be scared in some instances–after all we don’t want to picture our protectors fearful. But they’re certainly not perfect–just like the rest of us experience personal problems and pressures outside their jobs, they do too.

Arguably the biggest issue between minority communities and police officers is a lack of respect. Minority communities do not respect police officers, and because police officers know there is disrespect, they have the potential to act out of anger and frustration. So how can we improve this growing issue? One way is to advocate and speak up. For example, Black Lives Matter has given national attention to the growing mistreatment African-Americans face. People usually turn the other cheek because it’s not their problem, but this really is a problem for all of us. 

There is some potential for improvement–by investing in solutions like community policing, we can hope to build that mutual respect. Through partnerships with community organizations, community members can feel heard, respected, and empowered to help police control crime in their neighborhoods. Developing these relationships, while not a complete solution, is certainly a step in the right direction, and may break the us vs. them narrative. Harmon’s actions and King’s statements are just one example of the compelling need to fix this horrible division in American society. 

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 An Us Vs. Them Mentality Won’t Fix the Problem of Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

Church members of the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina gathered together on Wednesday evening for their weekly prayer meeting. No one would have ever predicted the horrific events that took place later that night when a visitor came into the church and changed many people’s lives forever.

The evening seemed to be going as normal, like every other week. About an hour into the meeting, a man who was sitting in the church the whole time and mingling with others suddenly pulled out a weapon and began to fire, leaving nine people dead. The Pastor of the church and South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney, 41, was killed during the shooting. Pinckney was also one of the black community’s spokesmen after the slaying of an unarmed man, Walter Scott, by a North Charleston police officer earlier this year.

The suspect has been identified as Dylann Storm Roof, a 21-year-old white male. He was seen on the church’s surveillance camera and then found on facebook. His Facebook page also carries a photo of him wearing a jacket with patches of the racist-era flags of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Have you seen Dylann Roof? @FBI confirms 21-year-old as #CharlestonShooting suspect. http://t.co/3ijYaNanPM #chsnews pic.twitter.com/6blL5HGMLX

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) June 18, 2015

After the shooting Roof escaped onto the streets of the city’s historic downtown, an area normally overflowing with tourists. According to CBS News police have just brought the suspect into custody this afternoon after finding him in Shelby, North Carolina.

There were 13 people inside the church when the shooting happened–the shooter, the nine people who were killed, and three survivors, according to South Carolina state senator Larry Grooms as told to CNN. Two of the survivors were not harmed. A five-year-old girl reportedly survived the attack by following her grandmother’s instructions to play dead.

Charleston NAACP President Dot Scott told CNN that a woman who survived says Roof told her he was letting her live so that she could tell people what happened. Scott said she heard this from the victims’ family members.

I did not hear this verbatim from the almost victim, I heard it from at least half a dozen other folks that were there and family of the victims. There seems to be no question that this is what the shooter said.

After the shooting 50 or more church and community members gathered together at the Embassy Suites hotel near the church to pray. Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen vowed that they were committed to finding the gunman. He also said,

This is a tragedy that no community should have to experience. It is senseless and unfathomable in today’s society that someone would walk into a church during a prayer meeting and take their lives.

“The only reason someone would walk into a church and shoot people that were praying is hate,” Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said. Events such as these terrify and anger people around the world. Community organizer Christopher Cason told the Associated Press that he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated. “I am very tired of people telling me that I don’t have the right to be angry,” Cason said. “I am very angry right now.”

Cason feels just as many other people do. The hashtags #CharlestonShooting and #PrayersForCharleston have begun trending on Twitter, as tweeters express how they feel about this awful incident.

No words. On our knees with you. #PrayersForCharleston

— Jennie Allen (@JennieAllen) June 18, 2015

Make no mistake, this was terrorism, this was mass murder, this was driven by racial hatred. This is American history. #CharlestonShooting

— . (@Bhattousai) June 18, 2015

if it was black, he’d be a thug if it was a muslim, he’d be terrorist but bc he’s a white gunmen, he’s excused w illness #CharlestonShooting

— semi hiatus julianne (@djagonalley) June 18, 2015

It is evident that everyone is disgusted by this tragedy. I am truly saddened that we are living in a time where there are constantly killings or disturbing incidents happening due to someone’s race. Church is a safe haven for many, and now countless people will worry about their safety every time they step into one. President Obama delivered a statement today about the Charleston shooting on CNN stating, “It is in our power to do something about it.” I hope that people will take what he said and truly realize that we have the power to change our community and change our country.

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 Developing: Shooter Arrested in Charleston Church Shooting 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.

Injustice in Baltimore dominated the news cycle last week, and Law Street was no exception. The number one article of the week, by Jennifer Polish, is a provocative look at race and justice; number two, from Anneliese Mahoney, follows the latest developments in Brian Williams’ future at NBC; and number three is an interesting account of two gangs coming together amid the turmoil in Baltimore. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Hey Fellow White People: We Need to Shut Up About Baltimore

Hey, fellow white people. If you’re not going to be in support of people rising up against racism in Baltimore–and elsewhere–then shut up about it. And listen (or read, or watch. There are plenty of sources that aren’t from white people–like the ones cited throughout this piece–that we can tune into). Read full article here.

#2 Brian Williams’ Troubles at NBC Continue

The trouble isn’t quite over yet for Brian Williams. Williams, who headed up “NBC Nightly News,” was suspended for six months by NBC this winter. The suspension came in light of the revelation that Williams had not been truthful about an instance in which he claimed to have been in a military helicopter that took fire during the early days of the Iraq War. Now it has come to light that there were other instances in which Williams lied or embellished aspects of his reporting–at least ten have been reported so far. Read full article here.

#3 Crips and Bloods: Unlikely Allies in Baltimore Riots

Continuing protests over the death of Freddie Gray erupted into Ferguson-like riots yesterday evening following his funeral in Baltimore, Maryland, where cries of “black lives matter” have echoed since last year. But this time it was the city’s most notoriously violent groups who aligned for peace while groups of rioting Baltimoreans burned and looted the city against the Gray family’s wishes, even injuring officers and other protesters. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Freddie Gray was a Baltimore man who died after injuries he received while in the custody of the Baltimore police department. Multiple protests, some violent, have occurred against Gray’s treatment that Gray received in police custody on April 19. Although exact numbers appear unknown, reports cite that 34 people have been arrested as a result of the protests.

Arrests last night in Baltimore during a protest of the death of #FreddieGrayhttp://t.co/j5mU7B7Jfjpic.twitter.com/5JcRDP2vtg

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) April 26, 2015

Demonstrators in Baltimore continue protesting #FreddieGray‘s death. PHOTOS: http://t.co/FvUWbmnHi4pic.twitter.com/Dh9LGIJFPf

— 99.1 WNEW (@WNEW) April 23, 2015

#UPDATE: Crowd continues to grow. Protestors want officers suspended in death of #FreddieGray arrested. pic.twitter.com/XVRtcIZP55

— WJZ | CBS Baltimore (@cbsbaltimore) April 21, 2015

Gray was arrested after he saw a police officer and then started running. Regardless of that not being a reason to arrest someone,  police caught up to him. At this point it was discovered that Gray had a knife on him, and was brought into police custody. He sustained a spinal cord injury at some point during this incident, and desperately needed medical attention. It’s not clear how he got the injury–although hopefully that will eventually become clear as a few different investigations delve into the events. The bigger issue here, however, is that once officers caught up to Gray and arrested him, they should have sought medical help for him. Their failure to do so appears to have directly led to Gray’s death. The Baltimore police have even admitted that they should have gotten medical help for Gray. According to CNN:

Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told reporters there are no excuses for the fact that Gray was not buckled in as he was transported to a police station.

It’s in light of this news that protesters have taken to the streets in Baltimore. Some are calling for the arrest of the six officers involved in Gray’s case–they have already been suspended without pay. Last night an estimated 1,200 people gathered in protest at City Hall in Baltimore. This caused some problems for the city–thousands of fans were trapped inside the Baltimore Orioles’ Stadium last night after the game. Unfortunately, as protests continued, things did grow violent. Looters damaged a local convenience store, and at one point a protester “tossed a flaming metal garbage can toward police officers in riot gear trying to push back the crowd.”

After the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice in 2014, and the recent death of Walter Scott, the United States is still dealing with discontent over police violence and the treatment of black men by police officers. While Baltimore PD admitting that it should have sought treatment for Gray sooner certainly can be viewed as a step in the right direction when it comes to accountability, what exactly happened to Gray still needs to be determined. Until then, there will almost certainly still be protests and critics.

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 Protests Continue After Freddie Gray’s Death in Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Logic tells us that if two wrongs don’t make a right, then many, many wrongs can’t possibly make any sort of right either. That’s all I could think about when I saw the coverage of the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri Wednesday night.

It’s the latest event in a saga that in some ways began this August with the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, and in some ways has been happening for years. It’s sparked conversations on police brutality and militarization, racism, systemic biases against young black men in our society, the justice system, and so much more. But even though those conversations are happening on a national level, what’s happening on the ground isn’t quite as academic or theoretical. It’s real, it’s scary, and honestly, last night’s events show that it probably isn’t going to get better anytime soon.

Ferguson’s police chief Tom Jackson resigned. That was probably inevitable after the release of a pretty damning Department of Justice report that highlighted serious racial biases and constitutional breaks in Ferguson. For a more extensive look at the main takeaways of that report, check out fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans’ article here.

After Jackson resigned, a rally started at the Ferguson police department. While the protesters were obviously pleased that the head of the Ferguson police department had resigned, they didn’t think it was enough to stem clear instances of racial profiling, bias, and intimidation within the force. Protesters actually advocated for the mayor of Ferguson, James Knowles III, to step down as well. Around midnight, those protests took a turn when gunshots rang out. Witnesses say there were four in all. Two found targets–one in the shoulder of a 41-year-old St. Louis County officer, and another in the face of a 32-year-old officer from the nearby town of Webster Groves. Both were in serious condition, but were recently released from the hospital.

Details of who exactly fired those shots remain a little fuzzy. Police have stated that they came from the cluster of protesters, but the protesters themselves are saying that they came from further away on a nearby hill. Police are saying that they have leads, but other than that, what will happen seems up in the air.

In light of the incident, St. Louis County Police and the Mississippi Highway Patrol are going to be taking over controlling the protests in the hopes that things don’t become more violent.

Many around the country have condemned the actions of the shooter. Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, stated:

This heinous assault on two brave law enforcement officers was inexcusable and repugnant. I condemn violence against any public safety officials in the strongest terms, and the Department of Justice will never accept any threats or violence directed at those who serve and protect our communities. … Such senseless acts of violence threaten the very reforms that nonviolent protesters in Ferguson and around the country have been working towards for the past several months.

Despite the fact that new forces are being brought in, I’m not sure it’s safe to say that issues in Ferguson are going to get any better. This is turmoil that has been stewing for years, and Michael Brown’s death just set it boiling. While the protesters have been mostly peaceful, there are always people who do bad things–people who commit those wrongs that can never add up to a right. Hopefully, real dialogue and reform will start happening soon.

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 Police Officers Shot in Ferguson Show Tensions Haven’t Abated appeared first on Law Street.

The civil rights movement in America attempted to end segregation and racial discrimination of black Americans and secure federal protections of their rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 seemingly sealed the deal, prohibiting discrimination based on race. In spite of that, there is an argument to be made that racial discrimination is still a persistent problem in the United States. One important facet of the discussion is centered around the “war on drugs” and the so-called “tough on crime” policy approach that the United States has adopted since the 1970s. Racially disproportionate drug arrests have resulted in mass incarceration and prompted civil rights concerns. Read on to learn more about current drug policy and its implications in relation to civil rights.

History of Inequality in U.S. Drug Policy

Throughout history there have been many instances in which unequal treatment of various minority groups was evident in American drug laws. The first anti-drug law dates back to 1875, when smoking opium was penalized in San Francisco, primarily, it is believed, to stigmatize Chinese immigrants. In 1914 the Harrison Narcotics Act expanded the powers of the federal government, and concurrently the media portrayed black Americans as the primary users of cocaine, one such narcotic. Later, multiple reports by the media tied Mexican immigrants, who were entering the country for agricultural jobs, to marijuana-related violence. The result of that particular stereotype was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

Congress created its first mandatory minimum sentencing law in 1952, the Boggs Act, which required a minimum sentence of two to ten years for first-time marijuana possession. But the most notorious mandatory minimum drug laws were enacted in New York under Nelson Rockefeller, who was the governor at the time. That mandatory sentence threshold was raised to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life in prison. The “Rockefeller Drug Laws” were enacted in 1973, signifying the beginning of a long-standing “tough on crime” policy in the United States.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was the culmination of the “war on drugs,” requiring identical penalties (a five-year minimum sentence) for five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine. As crack cocaine was cheap, it dominated poor black communities, while more affluent, usually white communities, used the more expensive powder cocaine.

 Are the U.S. Drug Policies changing?

Under the Obama Administration, the ratio of crack to powder cocaine was significantly reduced when the Fair Sentencing Act was signed into law in August 2010. The current administration also acknowledged that the previous laws were discriminatory and disproportionately impacted communities of color.

State laws are also slowly changing, with California at the forefront of the movement. A new law, “Proposition 47,” enacted in 2014, reduces simple drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Politicians are also starting to speak up, calling for the end of “War on Drugs.” Outgoing Attorney General,Eric Holder is one of the most vociferous proponents of reducing mass incarceration and re-integrating formerly incarcerated individuals back into society.

In addition, legalization of marijuana is a hot topic everywhere in the United States. More and more states have legalized the drug for either recreational or medical use, prompting the idea of country-wide legalization and regulation in the future. The New York Times editorial board and President Barack Obama have spoken out in support of the legalization movement.

It’s plausible that American drug policy is undergoing a transition from prohibition and harsh sanctions toward regulation and rehabilitation practices. But it can still be characterized as a punitive system, highly centered on deterrence through long and harsh sentencing practices. There are also many concerns that the current drug policies are still racist in practice. People of color are disproportionally imprisoned for drug offenses, often creating vicious circles of poverty and crime.

What are the main concerns with the current U.S. Drug Policy?

Our drug policy enforcers are part of the judicial system, and there are many concerns that the judicial system treats members of minority populations more harshly than their counterparts. For example, black men are stopped and frisked at disproportionately higher rates than members of other communities. In 2011 the number of stops of young black men in New York City topped the city’s entire population of young black men: 168,126 stops compared to a population of just 158,406 young black men. In the same year, 52.9 percent of the people stopped and frisked were black, 33.7 percent were Latino, and only 9.3 percent were white. The stop and frisk racial landscape didn’t change much in 2014: 54 percent of those who were stopped and frisked were black, 27 percent were Latinos, and 12 percent were white. African Americans are also stopped more frequently when driving or entering the country.

Critics of the drug policy worry that black Americans are also more likely to be arrested. The rate of arrests for black Americans is 2.5 times higher than white Americans. At the same time, even though the black and white population use marijuana at roughly the same rates, black Americans are four times more likely to be arrested for drug offenses. Watch the video below to learn more about racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests.

Finally, black users are more often convicted and incarcerated for drug felonies. In 2009, 50.5 percent of the state prisoners convicted on drug offenses were African Americans, 17 percent were Latinos, and 30.1 percent were whites. Black men and women were also sent to prison on drug charges at 11.8 and 4.8 times the rate of their white counterparts, respectively.

Critics of our current polices point out that as a result of such discriminatory treatment, black Americans enter the prison system at a higher rate, stay there longer, and are more likely to go back there again. The harsh penal sanctions for drug offenses result in mass incarceration of individuals of color. Black Americans convicted of drug offenses constitute 53.3 percent of those admitted to state prisons. Watch the video below to learn more about mass incarceration in the United States.

Who thinks the current drug laws aren’t discriminatory?

There is another point of view that claims that the notion of differential treatment according to race is non-existent. Those who subscribe to that school of thought argue that African Americans simply commit more drug-related offenses. This argument posits that the police and criminal justice system are not biased toward minorities. It further asserts that the reason why disproportionately more black Americans end up in the criminal justice system has to do with relative crime rates, not racial bias. Some conservative voices hold the same view, citing that African Americans simply commit more crimes, especially those involving drugs. The video below shows Bill O’Reilly, a FOX News commentator, speaking in support of this point of view.

So, is U.S. Drug Policy a Civil Rights Issue?

What is a “Civil Rights Issue”?

Civil rights are centered on the notion of discrimination. A civil rights issue arises when an individual or group has been discriminated against on the basis of its race, sex, religion, age, physical limitation, or orientation. Civil rights issues are often discussed in the realm of employment or housing discrimination. Such spheres can be considered traditional civil rights battlegrounds.

The criminal justice system has been long overlooked when discussing civil rights violations. Only relatively recently did the ACLU and other civil and human rights groups begin to acknowledge that sentencing practices for drug offenses and the overall treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system is a civil rights issue.

How does the U.S. Drug Policy relate to Civil Rights?

Those who argue that the U.S. Drug Policy is a civil rights issue focus on the particular emphasis in drug laws that are not equal in their intent or enforcement. The majority of drug crimes are not committed by minorities, but the prison system is disproportionally filled with African Americans and Latinos.

The public has long associated poor communities of color with drugs and crime, a notion that was long perpetuated by the media. More minority arrests and convictions for drug offenses result in the belief that certain parts of the population use more drugs and commit more crime. It opens up a discussion on racial dynamics in American society and the impact of structural racism.

In this realm, many argue that the current drug policy can be considered a civil rights issue as it discriminates against communities of color in the criminal justice system by disproportionately targeting open drug markets in poor neighborhoods and failing to recognize the same dynamics in more affluent areas.

Conclusion

The current drug policy of the United States Government is centered on tough sanctions and long sentencing practices. It often ignores the fact that drug use is a public heath issue, locking up individuals for simple possession of certain drugs. At the same time, the enforcement of the current drug laws is disproportionately focused on communities of color, resulting in the mass incarceration of minorities. Thus, numerous civil and human rights groups consider U.S. drug policy a civil rights issue. But not everybody supports this point of view. The counter argument refuses a civil rights interpretation of the issue, claiming that minorities simply commit more drug-related offenses. No matter who is right or wrong, the current drug policy needs serious fixing.

Resources

Primary

The White House: Civil Rights

Additional

New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration at the Age of Colorblindness

Foreign Policy in Focus: U.S. Drug Policy

Huffington Post: More Nails in the Drug War Coffin: Top Stories of 2014

Sentencing Project: Incarcerated Parents and their Children

Human Rights Watch: Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report. Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990-2006.

NYCLU: Stop and Frisk Data

ACLU: Driving While Black: Racial Profiling On Our Nation’s Highways

ACLU: Border Patrol Stops

Anti-Defamation League: Privilege, Discrimination, and Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Sentencing Project: Drug Policy

Human Rights Watch: Race and Drugs

New Century Foundation: The Color of Crime. Race, Crime and Justice in America

Center For Constitutional Rights: Floyd, et al, v. City of New York, et al.

The New York Times: An Editorial Series on Marijuana Legalization

Huffington Post: Obama: Marijuana No More Dangerous Than Alcohol

Legal Information Institute: Equal Protection

Leadership Conference: Justice On Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System

NYCLU Briefing 2011: Stop and Frisk

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drug Policy: Civil Rights Issue or Fair Enforcement? 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.

Racism still exists in America. I see it every day, and having the increasingly common experience of being a white minority in the city I live in, I know that racism is not merely restricted to Caucasians. Yeah, I said it. Every race can be racist. Every race has stereotypes associated with other ethnicities, and every race has prejudices against those ethnicities based on years of perceived oppression. It does not matter if you are Caucasian, African, Asian, Mexican, or South American–you have experienced racism at some point in your life.

But the race issue is exacerbated by the media and by those who think racism is simply one-sided, i.e. white against every other color. Which is why cases like what happened in Ferguson, frankly, piss me off.

I agree that police officers should be held accountable their actions, and my thoughts are with Michael Brown’s parents, as no one should have to lose a child. But as their story spread and grew it became less and less about a cop shooting an 18 year old 12 times and more about a white man shooting a black man. Thieves and looters, under the guise of “protest” took the opportunity the media gave them and began destroying property, stealing, becoming physically violent toward police officers and each other, all in the name of justice for a black teenager. The protests fueled the media frenzy and the whole cycle repeated and blew up.

Again, Brown’s actions in the surveillance video above, which was taken from just prior to him being killed, do not justify him getting shot a dozen times. But painting him–as some stories did–as a martyr and a saint is a serious over-exaggeration. Yet citizens of Ferguson took the race part of the story–not the legal part–and made him their mascot.

We will never know for certain what happened that day after Brown left the store. What I can assume, though, is that if the officer responsible had been African American, we would not have heard about it. If Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown had both been white, we would not have heard about it. Had the races been reversed–black officer shoots white teen–you can bet shit would have hit the fan just the same.

The truth is, according to the 2013 FBI Crime Report: 83 percent of white homicide victims were killed by other whites. Ninety percent of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. We don’t hear about those cases. The reason this homicide got so much attention? Race. Plain and simple. It would have been more understandable if the news and the protests had focused on a cop abusing his power, but that is not the story we got. Police officers, historically, have often gotten away with things that would have been illegal for regular citizens, regardless of race. Why couldn’t the news have focused on that injustice?

Michael Brown’s story got blown out of proportion. Criminals used his name as an excuse for heinous acts, we were hounded for months with news stories focusing on never-ending protests of criminal behavior, and his parents were left to mourn by dealing with the violence committed in their son’s name. Violence they did not and do not condone. All this because the police officer happened to be white.

Racism is a problem, but to help alleviate that problem we have to stop assuming that every act one race commits against another is rooted in prejudice. We have to stop assuming that Caucasians are the only people who still associate certain races with certain stereotypes. We have to stop calling each other “white” or “black.” Acknowledge one another as people, not as a skin color, and the country can finally be rid of this horrible practice.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Racism: It’s on All of Us appeared first on Law Street.

In Ferguson, Missouri, protests over police aggression continue two-and-a-half months after unarmed teenager Michael  Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. On Monday, October 13, Dr. Cornel West and other spiritual leaders were arrested. This came as no surprise to West; earlier during the protests he claimed “I came here to go to jail.” While this feels like a 1960s documentary on Martin Luther King, Jr., that spirit is exactly what is needed now. We should all take a page from West’s book and really see the police militarization and violence for what it is: a civil rights issue. Addressing it with a religious community the way leaders did a half century ago could help.

As a PBS special notes, West “is a highly regarded scholar of religion, philosophy, and African-American studies” and “an an intellectual provocateur outside of the academic world.” His combination of academia and activism, of scholarship and celebrity, profoundly impacts the different causes he joins or criticizes. As a renowned Black figure in America, West’s disappointment in President Obama has been especially jarring. Slate reported this summer that West said that Obama “posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency.” Such harsh criticism reveals the complex matrix of Obama’s approval in the Black community. That the criticism is newsworthy reveals the significance of West’s opinion in America.

The Guardian reports that the recent rally in Ferguson was meant to harken back to the Civil Rights movement, and West’s intent to be arrested solidifies that. Leaders of the Black Freedom movement frequently organized to fill the jails of segregationist towns and cities across the South. Faith played an important role. Religious networks enabled civil rights leaders to encourage and mobilize people in the fight against oppression. But in Ferguson it seems like fewer people are looking for religious guidance from faith authorities. According to the Guardian, St. Louis rapper and activist Tef Poe “took the microphone and noted that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim preachers on the stage were not the people on the street trying to protect people from the police.” The article suggests that the nonviolence espoused in the 50s and 60s may not carry as much weight as it used to.

I have already written on how an emphasis on community is significant for civil rights. It may be a loss, then, if Ferguson protesters reject any religion’s power to engage and empower a community. This isn’t to say that secularism should be removed from protest, but secular people should not dismiss religion’s ability to organize. How can religion, grounded in old beliefs and traditions, aid a progressive movement toward greater justice? West, part theologian and part activist, has an approach that helps bridge the gap that many may see between religion and social justice.

His conception of democracy includes “the prophetic commitment to justice, which is at the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, means we must fight the reasons for unjustified suffering and social misery,” as a biography on West notes. Bringing religiosity into the activist fold is important for the pressing civil rights problems of our time. As the Guardian article notes, many see this as a generational problem in which elders are being held back from action. Speaking as a young person who is largely not religious, young people who are seeking change need to respect the authority of American religiosity; we should note where democratic principles of social justice meet those of religion.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dr. Cornel West’s Religious Activism is Exactly What We Need in Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

We’ve all seen the news coverage about the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Not just the shooting, but also the aftermath that has turned a tiny town into a rioting disaster. Just in case you didn’t hear, Michael Brown was a young black man who was shot several times and killed on August 9 by a white police officer. But did you hear about the young man in Utah who was also shot and killed by a police officer? No? I’m not surprised. Twenty-year-old Dillon Taylor was shot to death by a black police officer two days after Michael Brown.

Where is the outcry filled with blinding rage in Utah that has filled the streets of Ferguson? Why have there been no reports of Dillon Taylor’s death, except a few small pieces found here and there on random news sites? No mention on CNN, MSNBC, or any well known 24-hour news station.

Dillon Taylor, described as white and Hispanic, was shot right outside of a 7-11 on August 11 by a black police officer. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh because I’m not a huge fan of his, but he said it best on his radio show: “In the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor, and a white person can never be a victim.” Truer words have never been spoken. I realize that history has shown that white people oppressed blacks and other races. But the same has happened to whites, obviously not in the same way and not as widely remembered, but everyone has been oppressed in some way at some point in history. Why is the life of this young black man more important the life of a young white and Hispanic man?

The biggest point I want to make is that both of these young men should have the same amount of coverage, but they don’t and it is all based on race double standards. If you take a step back and look at the context of both of these shootings you would realize that there is no real difference except the color of their skin and that of the police officers. When will people stop and think about the bigger picture, not everything should be about color. It is about right and wrong. And for that matter we don’t even know who is right and wrong until all of the facts are released and the police officers who did the shootings have been investigated.

—

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 [DonkeyHotey 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 Race Double Standards – It’s the American Way appeared first on Law Street.

In the aftermath of the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri and the controversy over the way in which the police department has dealt with the backlash, accusations of officials on a ‘power trip’ are incredibly poignant. According to Ferguson residents interviewed by CNN, “there’s been friction for years with the overwhelmingly white police department.” This statement is made by both African-American and white members of the community.

Courtesy of Light Brigading via Flickr

In the predominantly African-American town, these individuals are highly over-represented in crime statistics. ‘They accounted for 93 percent of arrests after traffic stops, 92 percent of searches and 86 percent of traffic stops.’ Although it is frankly impossible to hide from the racially discriminatory acts that are taking place, I ask why it has taken such a tragic event to acknowledge such wrongdoing? This idea that power can influence the way people act is not uncommon. Social experiments like the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, the soldiers involved in the leaking of the Abu Ghraib photos, and the recent controversies surrounding the invisible war of sexual assault in the military, are just some examples of how power has an effect on producing and allowing crime to occur.

It is time we stop allowing justifications and rationalizations as reasons why individuals feel they can abuse their power. We blame the police officers for abusing their power with excessive force, but what about those in the riots who took advantage of a tragic situation by looting businesses? What about the thousands of individuals who took to Twitter to verbally abuse and criticize individuals because of their race, or because of their involvement in the incident? To say the issue is the hypocrisy of a country built upon equality and democracy is treating the problem, but ignoring those actions that make us revert back to the Civil Rights era, and back to an age when segregation was mandatory, which is the cause.

In the 21st century we have produced a generation so involved in the use of social media to express their opinions, and so involved in the right to voice our opinions, that we are in a sense our own worst enemies. Instead of working alongside law enforcement to protect our country, we are rebelling; instead of fighting the war against racial discrimination, we are fueling it; instead of maintaining the right to have privacy, we are highlighting more reasons to invade it. One of the first pictures of the fatally shot Michael Brown was posted to Twitter by a bystander before any official evidence was given to the police.

In the aftermath of Ferguson, it was announced that “police departments and their equipment suppliers are outfitting their officers with on-body cameras that promise to eliminate the photographic void we saw in Ferguson.” These cameras will be worn by officers during their shifts and will record all of their encounters with any member of the public they interact with. These videos at the end of each shift are then placed in a vault online, where they will only be examined during legal proceedings.

I don’t know about you, but I interact with police officers daily during my lunch break. I am 90 percent sure it is to do with my British accent and their boredom, but I still don’t know how comfortable I would feel knowing they may have a camera turned on recording me buying my lunch. What about those days that I decide it’s a good idea to buy bars of chocolate and bags of chips, if anything they are uncovering my unhealthy habits!

Courtesy of Mark Kirchner via Flickr

As expected with any new regulation, there are no national regulations on how the cameras will be used, or when they will be turned on and off. This is precisely one of the main problems with treating the problem and ignoring the cause. How to you trust an officer is going to keep the camera on for the duration of his shift? How do you rely on technology to take away the ‘power trip’ mentality? The answer: you cannot.

What makes this whole argument over the abuse of power even more valid is the corruption of relationships within the police force. There needs to be some kind of a change to monitor the performance of corrupt officials to ensure that the public can trust in those who are meant to protect them. The backlash from the community in Ferguson has come about from years of distrust in their law enforcement as protectors, and adding video cameras to police officers’ chests is not going to change that.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Katzenberger via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime of Power: Treating the Problem in Ferguson and Ignoring the Cause appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [VJnet via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding appeared first on Law Street.

This week the entire world is mourning the passing of one of the greatest individuals of the twentieth century: Nelson Mandela. The man began as a militant revolutionary fighting back against an oppressive Apartheid regime, became the visionary figure we know today while incarcerated for twenty-seven years on a prison island [think Alcatraz but without Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage], and ended up as the first Black President of a nation nearly 80 percent Black. When news of his passing swept across the globe, there was an outpouring of emotion from everyone from present and former heads of state, to people in small villages throughout South Africa.

I am as astonished by the story of Mandela as I am the brutal regime he helped to topple. Apartheid, which is an Afrikaans word meaning “the state of being apart,” was enforced by the National Party of South Africa which was in power from 1948 to 1994. It is ridiculously astounding that Apartheid lasted so long. I mean, think about it: the Civil Rights Movement in the United States managed, for the most part, to cripple Jim Crow by the mid-Sixties. But seriously, why did the world tolerate this brutal regime for so long?

This post is primarily designed to put Apartheid in perspective and convey my own shock at the failure of action by the international community to stop this regime. A nationwide institution of legally-imposed oppression co-existed with so many things of the modern era.

1. X-Men: The Animated Series

Yes, perhaps the preeminent cartoon of the Millennial generation co-existed with Apartheid. While Wolverine was fighting Sabretooth in the frozen tundra on Fox Kids, Nelson Mandela was breaking rocks with a pickaxe on Robben Island.

2. The Lion King and Pulp Fiction.

Now I know what you’re saying. You’re saying, “this is really two things and not one.” My response might be, “this is my post and I can write what I want.” I might also say, “they are both in the same class of things that co-existed with Apartheid, namely, great movies that came out in 1994. The Apartheid regime existed while Simba, Timon, and Pumbaa sang their way through the jungle. Samuel L. Jackson was giving one of his most famous monologues, and Travolta was explaining the nuance of naming American fast food in countries using the metric system while Mandela was reciting the poem “Invictus.”

3. President Bill Clinton

I think Bill Clinton is the quintessential President of my childhood. While I was technically brought into this world during the term of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton is the president I remember. His jogs on the mall. How he enjoyed McDonald’s and interns. Everything from Whitewater to his saxophone playing on Arsenio Hall occurred while 80 percent of South Africa couldn’t sit at the lunch counter or even vote in elections.

4. Cheers

Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name. Sometimes you want to stand up for the essential human dignity that comes with being a part of the civic and social life of a nation you call home without being subordinated to a transplanted, colonial, European population. To each his own, I guess.

5. Everyone on Earth Over the Age of 19.

The thrust of this post has been humorous. But much truth is said in jest. The most poignant point I am trying make here is the responsibility of everyone alive to fight back against injustice in any form, whether racially-based or not. Government around the world turned a blind eye to Apartheid for far too long. American conservatives like William F. Buckley said Nelson Mandela belonged in jail. While the President was on campus campaigning against Apartheid and encouraging divestment, others like Grover Norquist and Jack Abramoff felt no need to speak out. But a threat to justice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.

It cannot be emphasizes more how we all have an obligation to make sure our laws are more just for more people. While the law certainly cannot make the White man love the Black man, it can make the White man respect the Black man.

That Apartheid co-existed with so many things in even my own young life is a testament to the failure of the spirit of governments and people the world over. It is an indictment of freedom-loving peoples everywhere. It is a stain on the moral fabric of this world. We should all look around to highlight and decry institutions, legal or otherwise, that oppress people.

Do your part, speak up, because the world beyond your iPad screen can be a nasty place.

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 Five Things That Co-existed with Apartheid appeared first on Law Street.

I want to begin by saying that the law is not perfect. It can’t be. It is created by human beings, written by human beings, interpreted by human beings, and ultimately enforced by human beings. It’s important to begin with this premise because, I think, it helps one understand that the law allows for mistakes. It allows police officers to get it wrong sometimes. But that is no balm to the individuals whose fundamental human dignity is diminished due to racial profiling.

This post comes on the heels of news out of Rochester, New York. Three young, African American male students were standing on the sidewalk waiting. They ended up being arrested by the police after they were “told to disperse.” The police report claimed that the boys were blocking pedestrian traffic and preventing free passage of citizens walking by and attempting to enter a nearby store. Well, loitering in many places is illegal. Could these young men have been waiting to assault someone? Were they members of some young gang of hoodlums?

Actually, they were just three young boys waiting at a designated location for a school bus to pick them up and take them to a basketball scrimmage. Their adult coach arrived just as the boys were being handcuffed, and he was also threatened with arrest. Members of the Rochester school board have spoken out and are calling for charges to be dropped immediately.

It seems we can add “standing on the sidewalk and waiting for someone or something” to the list of things young Black males just can’t do. Already on that list was walking home from a store at night wearing a hoodie, and walking either too fast or too slow through either a really nice neighborhood or a “high crime” neighborhood. What this case boils down to is racial profiling. The essence of the phenomenon is police suspecting or actually creating illegal activity based on perfectly legal actions that just-so-happened to be performed by minorities. “Driving while Black” is a familiar form.

According to the Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center at Northeastern University, more than twenty states have passed legislation banning or requiring the jurisdiction to collect data on law enforcement stops or searches. But racial profiling comes in many forms. It may just come in the form of an officer questioning more young Latino men on the street than young White men in Los Angeles. It might come in the form of an officer who is inclined to pull over a young, Black male driving a nice car in a not-so-nice neighborhood. If these stops never lead to formal arrest or formal prosecution, they often never get even local, let alone national, attention. But those acts are no less profiling and no less abusive to the individuals stopped.

In the experience of many minorities, it goes without saying that law enforcement respond and act differently in assessing the suspicion of a person of color. Many news stories and examples illustrate this point.

This video for example:

Or this video:

The second video is telling in just how disparate the reactions of the general population are when the same acts are committed by individuals of different races. The young White boy is questioned far less often than the Black boy. In fact, people seem to deputize themselves and feel a sense of urgency to thwart crime when they see the Black person attempting to remove the bike. Indeed, it seems that if you are a White female, most people might actually assist you in whatever activity you seem to be doing. I guess next time I need to move or paint my apartment I’ll disguise myself as a White woman.

This implicit racial bias exists in the subconscious of us all. The idea that it wouldn’t also manifest itself in the decisions of law enforcement is laughable. However, what always astonishes me is when the calm, logical, legal explanations are utterly ignored by law enforcement seemingly so bent on finding crime where none exists.This is bound to foster a feeling of inherent criminality in many poorer, minority communities that is demeaning to one’s spirit and degrading to one’s dignity.

In the future, I know not to stand on the sidewalk too long lest I be arrested.

There go my plans for a lemonade stand this summer.

—

Featured image courtesy of [longislandwins via Flickr]

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 Profiling appeared first on Law Street.

Well, Election Day has come and gone, and things are looking (un)surprisingly bright for the tri-state area.

Folks, I live in Hoboken, New Jersey, and I commute into New York City almost every day. That means I was pretty invested in both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the New York mayoral race. So now that the results are in, let’s chat about them, mmkay?

Republican Chris Christie won reelection in New Jersey last night, with Democrat Bill de Blasio winning the mayoral seat in New York. No one was even a little bit surprised—to the point where Politico reported Christie’s victory hours before polls even closed.

Now, we all know I’m no fan of the Republicans. Christie’s conservatism irks me, and I’ve called him a douche many, many times over the course of his first term. Especially when it comes to his education policy, which actually drives me insane.

But seriously. Dude’s always railing against teachers, cutting public school budgets, and pushing charter schools. These are policies that kill fair labor laws, devalue an incredibly important job (educating the next generation, NO BIG DEAL), and exacerbate socio-economic inequality. Don’t believe me? Los Angeles has more charter schools than any other district in the country—let them tell you how much they suck.

So, obviously, I’m not Christie’s biggest fan. But, he’s the frontrunner for the GOP’s 2016 Presidential bid, and I’m weirdly happy about that. Why? A surprising side effect of my Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder is a much more positive vision of Gov. Christie.

While I was totally freaking out about the apocalyptic flooding outside my apartment, Christie was consistently calm and attentive. He made regular TV appearances, updating residents on the situation while we waited for the storm to make landfall. After disaster struck, he came and visited Hoboken—as well as many other affected New Jersey towns—to assess the damage and address his constituents.

Many have claimed that Christie used the storm as a publicity stunt, pumping up his approval ratings without giving enough material aid to affected residents. That may be true. But, he also proved himself to be a calm and effective leader who could successfully navigate an emergency situation. He made a lot of people, myself included, feel safe under terrible circumstances.

And that’s a really big deal. Since Sandy, he’s arguably toned down his conservatism—choosing not to fight against the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, for example—establishing himself as a centrist politician who’s more concerned about being realistic and representative than pushing his own agenda.

Now, I’m not a huge fan of Republicans—but that’s one I can potentially get behind.

Across the Hudson, New York has taken a very different turn. Bill de Blasio will be the first Democratic City mayor in over 20 years—and he’s not just any Democrat. He ran on a seriously liberal platform, and trotted out his biracial family as proof that he could follow through on his promises.

When his afro-bearing son, Dante, told cameras that his dad opposed stop-and-frisk, New Yorkers believed him. Why? Because de Blasio’s strong ties to people of color—his entire immediate family—must mean that he’s personally invested in ending a policy that targets and harasses them. This isn’t hypothetical for him—it’s sitting in his living room.

De Blasio’s platform also included a plan to raise taxes in an effort to decrease the city’s wealth gap, which has grown to epic proportions. YAY!  Will he be able to deliver on that noble goal? Only time will tell, but the awesome factor of the First Lady is indicative of good things.

Bill’s wife, Chirlane McCray, is a black feminist, a writer, a marketing maven, and used to identify as a lesbian. Since marrying Bill, she’s gotten queerer, explaining (why does this still need to be explained?!) that sexuality is fluid. She’s also a former member of the Combahee River Collective—one of the most important black, lesbian, feminist organizations of the 1970s and 80s.

Seriously, people. I read about the Combahee River Collective when I was a Gender & Sexuality Studies major at NYU. Hardly anyone outside the department had ever heard of it, mainly because feminist history is terribly whitewashed. Gloria Steinem gets the glory over Audre Lorde every time.

So, the fact that a former member is set to move into Gracie Mansion (unless the family opts to stay in Brooklyn, which would be super rad) is a huge deal. Like, absolutely huge.

With McCray by his side, Bill de Blasio’s mayoral victory is more than just a change of pace for New York City. It could be revolutionary.

So Tuesday’s election went pretty well, I’d say. Gov. Christie’s a pretty acceptable conservative, and Mayor de Blasio’s a super exciting liberal.

The tri-state area is going places, people.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Bill de Blasio via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Decision 2013: I’ll See Your Christie, and Raise You de Blasio appeared first on Law Street.