Over the weekend, there was yet another clash between protesters over a Confederate monument. This time, the monument in question was an equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee, located in Charlottesville, Virginia. On June 5, the Charlottesville City Council voted to change the name of the park where the statue is located from Lee Park to Emancipation Park, following up on its February decision to remove the statue. It was one block away from this location that two separate protest groups squared off: the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan versus a crowd of counter-protesters calling for the statue’s removal. The clash resulted in 22 arrests, according to the Washington Post.

The controversy over the Lee statue in Charlottesville is only the latest in a string of decisions and incidents relating to the removal of Confederate monuments. Read on to learn which statues have been removed so far and what both sides of the debate are saying.

Charleston Shooting Spurs Confederate Flag Debate

The catalyst for this debate was the 2015 Charleston church shooting, in which 21-year-old Dylann Roof killed nine parishioners of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Upon his arrest, Roof admitted to police that the shooting was meant to start a race war. Roof’s manifesto website and Facebook page were also discovered to contain photos of himself posing with several racist symbols, the most prominent being the Confederate flag.

Following the shooting, protesters took to the South Carolina State House in Columbia to demand the removal of the Confederate flag, which had flown on the state house’s grounds since 1961. Several South Carolina legislators supported the flag’s removal, but the cause only received national attention after police arrested 30-year-old Bree Newsome for climbing the flagpole and removing the flag on June 27, 2015. Two weeks later, the legislation passed and the flag was lowered for the final time.

Thousands gathered to watch the flag-lowering ceremony, but not everyone was celebrating. War reenactor Kenneth Robinson and his fellow “soldiers” held a vigil at the state house to “remember the 650,000 casualties of the Civil War,” he told WRAL. “Nine lives matter,” Robinson said referring to the church shooting victims. “All deaths matter, period.”

Cindy Lampley, another reenactor and a descendant of Confederate soldiers, worried that the flag removal would dishonor her relatives. “I think it’s important that we remember them,” she said. “It’s a sad day for me that my ancestors will no longer see their flag flying next to their memorial.”

Which Monuments Have Been Removed So Far?

The debate over the removal of the state house’s Confederate flag has since branched out to include all monuments and memorials to the Confederacy. As opposition grew, state and local lawmakers began to remove several of the Confederate symbols. Here are some recent examples:

New Orleans

Shortly after the Charleston church shooting, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu called for the removal of four Confederate era monuments. The monuments consisted of three statues of Confederate leaders–Lee, General P.G.T. Beauregard, and President Jefferson Davis–as well as a memorial to the Battle of Liberty Place, an 1874 insurrection by the Crescent City White League.

The New Orleans City Council voted to remove all four monuments in 2014, but it wasn’t until April 2017 that the first of them–the battle memorial–was finally removed. The rest of the statues quickly followed suit, and the final Confederate statue of Lee was removed in May. The city replaced the statues of Lee and Davis with public art and a flag, respectively, but has not disclosed plans for the relocation of the actual monuments.

“These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for,” Landrieu said as Lee’s statue was hauled away by crane.

Charlottesville

Aside from voting to change the name of Lee Park and remove its statue, the city council also voted 3-2 last February to change the name of Jackson Park (after General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson) to Justice Park. However, the city is running into unexpected legal trouble.

The Monument Fund, the Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans, and other groups filed a lawsuit against the city in June, claiming that renaming the parks would be illegal. Attorneys also claim that the deed in which the park land was granted to the city specifically states that the park cannot be renamed. The court has not filed an injunction preventing the city from renaming the parks, but the Lee statue will remain in place until a hearing begins next month.

Richmond

Mayor Levar Stoney announced on June 25 that he had charged a 10-member commission with finding ways to contextualize the city’s Confederate monuments. The Monument Avenue Commission has set up a website seeking public input to “make recommendations to the mayor’s office on how to best tell the real story of [the] monuments.” There are no concrete plans currently in place.

Stoney went on to say that he does not support the outright removal of the monuments. “I wish these monuments had never been built, but like it or not they are part of our history in this city, and removal will never wash away that stain.”

Baltimore

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the former mayor of Baltimore, ordered the city to put up interpretive signs beside the city’s four Confederate monuments. The decision came with less than three months left in Rawlings-Blake’s term. She admitted that it was a “short-term solution.” The city council had previously recommended that the city remove tributes to Lee and Jackson, along with a statue of Roger B. Taney.

The current mayor, Catherine Pugh, told the Baltimore Sun in May that she is exploring the possibility of removing the monuments altogether.

Mississippi

The Mississippi flag incorporates the Confederate flag in its top left corner. Carlos Moore, a black Mississippi resident, says the flag constitutes “state-sanctioned hate speech,” and has taken his grievance all the way to the Supreme Court. Moore intends to argue that the flag is a symbol of racism and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens. In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take the case.

In addition, the city of McComb and all eight of Mississippi’s public universities have stopped flying the flag. The University of Mississippi announced last week that it will post signs on campus denoting which buildings were built with slave labor.

Washington, D.C.

While the nation’s capital has not removed any Confederate monuments as of yet, Georgetown University renamed two of its campus buildings in April. The move was meant to atone for the university’s ties to slavery. The original names honored two school presidents who oversaw an 1838 sale of 272 slaves to fund the school. The buildings’ new names honor Isaac Hawkins, the slave whose name appeared first in the bill of sale, and Anne Marie Becraft, a 19th-century black educator. The university is also giving admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves. Mary Williams-Wagner, one of Hawkins’ descendants, said that the university needed to take further steps, such as identifying all descendants of the slaves sold by Georgetown.

Other colleges, such as Harvard, Duke, Yale, Princeton, and Brown, have also addressed their links to slavery and racism. Last February, Yale changed the name of one of its residential colleges from Calhoun College to Grace Hopper College, honoring a distinguished alumna and a “trailblazing computer scientist.”

Arguments For and Against Confederate Monuments

Opposers

So why remove the monuments? The clearest answer is that they are offensive. The statues honor men who fought for the institution of slavery. Those in favor of removing them argue that the current U.S. government should not condone such motivations, even passively. Confederate symbols also played a role in the Charleston church shooting, proving that they can still be seen as symbols of black oppression and white supremacy. Many people are wary that they will inspire another massacre. A good portion of the country would be much happier if the statues were placed in museums and battlefield parks, away from public property.

Supporters

The other side of the debate is a little more complicated. There are those, like Robinson and Lampley, who believe that removing the monuments would dishonor the memory of the Confederate soldiers who fought and died for what they believed in. There are others who see the Confederacy as Southern heritage, and believe that removing its symbols would be akin to removing it from history itself. Others are wary of a slippery slope, pointing out that Washington and Jefferson, along with 10 other presidents, owned slaves themselves. What would stop the country from removing the statues of its founding fathers?

Conclusion

Racial tensions in this country are running high these days, and the debate over Confederate monuments fits in to that conversation. The statues represent a different era, with different ideals and different ways of life. While the modern world has made tremendous strides toward diversity and inclusion, some of these ideologies still persist. The two schools of thought will inevitably clash, and as long as the monuments stand, the protests and counter-protests will continue.

As for the subjects of the monuments, one in particular had some relevant remarks on the subject while alive. In an 1869 letter declining an invitation to a public meeting concerning the war, Lee wrote:

I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heritage or Hatred?: The Removal of Confederate Monuments appeared first on Law Street.

After the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organized a rally over the weekend to protest the removal of a confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia, thousands of counter protesters gathered to voice their disgust.

The Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, but the KKK claims it is part of a sweeping effort to erase white history. The protest was held a block away from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park, which was recently renamed. But the statue of Lee riding a horse has yet to be removed.

LIVE from #CharlottesvilleKKK rally—#KKK still protesting. HUNDREDS of Counter protestors –very loud @ACLU #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/QuShCGeehW

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) July 8, 2017

City Councilwoman Kristin Szakos wrote in an editorial that the council’s decision was made to join a “growing group of cities around the nation that have decided that they no longer want to give pride of place to tributes to the Confederate Lost Cause erected in the early part of the 20th century.”

A court order has delayed the removal of the statue until a hearing next month that may just be a precursor to an elongated legal battle, according to NPR.

Not only is the town home to the University of Virginia, but it was also the home of American founding father Thomas Jefferson, and is near his Monticello estate.

Sunday’s protests featured about 30 Klansmen, many of whom arrived armed with handguns, and approximately 1,000 counter protesters, according to the Washington Post. The KKK was escorted by police clad in riot gear as they entered and exited.

The fact that the police force, comprised of local, county, state, and university police, protected the Klansmen, left a bad taste in plenty of people’s mouths after seeing police disproportionately use violence to subdue African-American protests.

The KKK is a hate group. Police are keeping them safe. When Black folks protest for our right to life, police harass and harm us. https://t.co/eVv9Vf4e7m

— Negrita (@HustleAndFro_) July 8, 2017

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer previously urged the town’s residents not to “take the bait — to deny the KKK the confrontation and celebrity they desire,” but thousands still felt compelled to voice their disgust with the group’s resurgence.

While the Klansmen attempted to speak publicly to the crowd at multiple points, they were inaudible and drowned out by the noise made by the counter-protesters. Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the university and a vocal supporter of the removal for Lee’s statue, was among the group gathered at the park. She told the Washington Post:

It is important for me to be here because the Klan was ignored in the 1920s, and they metastasized. They need to know that their ideology is not acceptable…I teach about slavery and African American history, and it’s important to face the Klan and to face the demons of our collective history and our original sin of slavery. We do it on behalf of our ancestors who were terrorized by them.

By the end of the day 22 people had been arrested while three others were hospitalized. Two of the medical issues were due to the heat while the other was alcohol-related, according to the Washington Post.

The Klansmen were members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Pelham, North Carolina, about 140 miles across the Virginia border. The group was compelled to fight, in their view, the eradication of white history. While most protesting the statue’s removal were part of the KKK, others, like Brandi Fisher, drove hours from neighboring states to join and voice their concerns.

“I don’t agree with everything the Klan believes, but I do believe our history should not be taken away,” said the West Virginia native. “Are we going to remove the Washington and Jefferson memorials because they were slave owners?”

The KKK also staged a protest last month alongside white nationalist leader Richard Spencer in which the group ominously marched with torches to protest the council’s decision. That earlier protest also drew condemnation from citizens and even Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello.

Get your white supremacist hate out of my hometown. https://t.co/KfkxHImvze

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) May 13, 2017

Once the protests ended on Sunday afternoon, police escorted the Klansmen out and asked the counter protesters to disperse. After the police decided the remaining crowd was “an unlawful assembly,” the police force donned masks and released gas canisters to disperse the crowd, according to the Washington Post.

Last month the Anti-Defamation League released a comprehensive report on the current presence of the KKK in the United States. According to the research, there are about 3,000 people who strongly identify with Klan ideology and there are 42 active groups across 33 states. The report also states that many of the chapters have joined forces with each other or with neo-Nazi groups in order to show strength and unity. As a result, groups have beliefs ranging from “traditional” white supremacist beliefs to Christian Identity, “a longstanding racist and anti-Semitic religious sect,” according to the ADL Report.

Several white nationalist groups have obtained permits for yet another rally on August 12, so there will likely be more conflicts like these in the future. With racial tensions heightened since the 2016 election, these feuds over confederate monuments are just one example of the conflicts that continue to arise between white nationalists and more progressive communities.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Clash with KKK in Charlottesville Over Robert E. Lee Monument appeared first on Law Street.

The Reddit user who edited and spread the now-famous video clip of President Donald Trump wrestling a person with a CNN logo for a head has issued an apology. The user goes by the name “HanA**holeSolo,” and wrote a lengthy post apologizing to the whole Reddit community.

“I am in no way this kind of person. I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so my entire life,” he wrote.

He went on to say that he does not support any kind of violence and that he posted hateful, controversial posts to get attention from other users. This then became a form of addiction, as he wanted to see how far he could go.

“Free speech is a right we all have, but it shouldn’t be used in the manner that it was in the posts that were put on this site,” he said.

Redditor HanAssholeSolo, the guy who posted the Trump/CNN clip the president tweeted, has apologized to @CNN, the media, and others pic.twitter.com/GlePoiSlFj

— Brandon Wall (@Walldo) July 4, 2017

The user has since deleted his account, so the statement is no longer available. But a lot of people are questioning whether the apology is sincere, or if it’s just another step in the “trolling.” Some pointed out that the apology didn’t come until after CNN had tracked down and identified the user.

On the other hand, a lot of people criticized CNN and accused the media network of blackmail after it published an article about how its journalists tracked down the Reddit user. In the article, CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski wrote that HanA**holeSolo was identified through a Facebook search using information he had written himself on Reddit.

When Kaczynski tried contacting him, he got no reply. But on Tuesday, HanA**holeSolo posted his apology. After that, HanA**holeSolo contacted CNN to confirm his identity and expressed that he was nervous about being exposed. CNN wrote:

CNN is not publishing ‘HanA**holeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again.

It followed up with, “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.” A lot of people on the right took that as a threat and started using the hashtag #CNNBlackmail.

If only @CNN spent as much time tracking down info on IRS targeting, Fast & Furious, Iran deal etc as they did a meme writer! #CNNBlackmail

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 5, 2017

However, Kaczynski said in a tweet that HanA**holeSolo had called him to say that he completely agrees with the article’s statement, and that he did not perceive anything it said as a threat.

The user has previously posted things on the pro-Trump subreddit The_Donald that makes it hard for some to believe that the apology is sincere. In June, he posted a chart of CNN employees with Jewish Stars of David next to their images, writing, “Something strange about CNN…can’t quite put my finger on it.”

On Sunday, he wrote “F**k ISLAM,” and commented on a photo of refugees, “There’s a MOAB (Mother of All Bomb’s) for that.” Reportedly, he also frequently used slurs to describe African-Americans, women, and Muslims. He has also attacked Black Lives Matter, feminism, Islam, liberals, and the state of Maryland.

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 CNN Faces Backlash for Article About Reddit User Who Made Trump Video appeared first on Law Street.

Things took a quick turn for the worse when HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher was chatting with Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse. After Sasse asked Maher if he would be willing to come work in the state, Maher responded by using a racial slur traditionally used to target and oppress African-Americans.

Sasse did not react and the studio audience applauded the “joke.”

Bill Maher just said the n word, @BenSasse didn’t look horrified, and the audience applauded. pic.twitter.com/kFAs1S3dyM

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) June 3, 2017

This incident, as would be expected, sparked outrage. Celebrities from both sides of the aisle reacted with either support for Maher or disdain for his insensitive word choice.

Chance the Rapper immediately hopped on Twitter and asked HBO to cancel the show.

Please @HBO Do Not Air Another Episode Of Real Time With Bill Maher.

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) June 3, 2017

Wayne Brady didn’t make a plea to HBO. Instead he simply said, “I told you so.”

I tried to tell people… https://t.co/P8YXL6TflM

— Wayne Brady (@WayneBrady) June 3, 2017

While those celebrities were angry with Maher, rapper Killer Mike didn’t want to dwell on it. Mike, who endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, sees larger problems that the black community faces and wanted to focus on those. He tweeted: “black have BIGGER things than N***ER to concern our selves with: Black Banks, Gentrification, Economics & Trade Education. Love, My N***a.”

While some expressed outrage, there was also support for Maher. Fellow talk show hosts Piers Morgan and Larry King defended Maher and hoped that people could move on.

I hope @billmaher doesn’t get fired. Yes, he cracked a dumb, offensive joke. But he’s no racist & America needs his voice, brain & humour. pic.twitter.com/LLn49rCdtz

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 5, 2017

I’ve been a friend of @billmaher‘s for years and there’s not a racist bone in his body. Let’s accept his apology and move on.

— Larry King (@kingsthings) June 3, 2017

Even non-celebrities like former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile pled that society can accept Maher’s apology.

Bill Maher Apologizes for Use of Racial Slur on ‘Real Time’ https://t.co/iHTloTZpDV. Let’s accept his contrition and move on.

— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) June 4, 2017

With celebrities spanning the entire political spectrum, there was both support and disdain for Maher after his actions. While HBO officials did not take Chance’s advice and cancel the show, they did release a statement condemning his words.

“Bill Maher’s comment last night was completely inexcusable and tasteless. We are removing his deeply offensive comment from any subsequent airings of the show,” HBO said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Celebrities on Twitter React to Bill Maher’s Use of a Racial Slur appeared first on Law Street.

The residents of Texas City in Galveston, Texas received an unwelcome gift this Memorial Day: plastic bags with fishing weights, candy, and KKK recruitment flyers that were left on their lawns, apparently thrown from a vehicle driving past on Monday night.

Seventeen different homes received the bags, which contained two versions of KKK flyers, one reading “Say No to Cultural Genocide” and the other saying “Join the Best or Die Like the Rest.”  Local police have labeled the plastic bags a criminal matter, so whoever distributed the bags may face criminal charges if they are caught. At this point the police do not yet have a suspect.

The phone number listed on the flyers is not in service, no witnesses have come forward, and there seem to be no leads in the case, unless anonymous tipsters can provide new information. Many residents of Texas City were shocked by the flyers, stating that they typically consider their community to be a diverse and tolerant place, but Ashton Woods, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Houston, called the flyers “not surprising.”

The plastic bags are jarring and disturbing to the residents of Texas City but Woods is correct in citing them as part of larger trend. Earlier this month, flyers reading “around blacks never relax” were circulated on the University of Texas at Austin campus on the heels of a series of flyers targeting Chinese students that were posted in the university’s engineering department. In April, flyers urging white Americans to report illegal aliens with the slogan “America is a white nation” were posted throughout the University of Texas at Arlington campus. In February, the white nationalist group American Vanguard posted flyers at several Texas colleges urging white men to “take your country back.” Immediately after the November election, flyers calling for “vigilante squads” to arrest and torture those who support diversity were posted around the Texas State University campus.

It would seem that each series of flyers emboldened copycats to try their hand at attacking a new group. Hate groups have launched an estimated 17 recruitment campaigns on Texas university campuses since September. In the Anti-Defamation League’s Southwest Region, which stretches from El Paso to Orange, anti-Semitic incidents have spiked by more than a third this year. After a week in which two nooses were found inside the African American history museum and the home of Lebron James was spray painted with a racist slur, the Memorial Day flyers in Texas City feel like par for the course. It is comforting to see that at least all three of this week’s cases are being investigated as serious threats rather than being written off as “harmless” pranks–but the Texas City flyers are part of a larger pattern that needs to be taken seriously before leaving flyers on people’s lawns escalates.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Memorial Day Threats: KKK Recruitment Flyers in Texas City appeared first on Law Street.

FBI’s Russia Probe Makes it Across the Pond

The investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia continue, and now there’s a new name popping up as a reported “person of interest.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) that drove the “Leave” movement pre-Brexit, is apparently of interest to the FBI. Specifically, the FBI appears to be probing Farage’s ties to Julian Assange, the controversial founder of WikiLeaks, as well as some other individuals connected to Trump, including Roger Stone. This doesn’t mean that Farage is believed to have done anything wrong, rather that the FBI thinks that he may have information that is relevant to its probe into Trump and Russia.

Farage denies the claims that he’s a person of interest in the investigation. A spokesman told the Guardian, which first published the claims, that the questions were “verging on the hysterical.”

“If you triangulate Russia, WikiLeaks, Assange and Trump associates the person who comes up with the most hits is Nigel Farage.” https://t.co/oar5if5d1u

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 1, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Are there more racists in the world, or have they just gotten ballsier? I asked myself this question as yet another cellphone video went viral. This one captured a white woman racially abusing two women inside of an Arkansas Walmart.

Eva Hicks posted a video of the confrontation to her Facebook profile Monday, in which a white woman in a teal shirt tells Hicks to “go back to Mexico.” Hicks, a Latina, tells the woman she was trying to reach the medicine on the shelf behind the woman’s cart and that she said “excuse me.”

The woman continues on a xenophobic rant, before another shopper tells the woman to “stop being ignorant.” The white woman replies, “A n****r is calling me ignorant?”

Latino woman needs medicine, says “excuse me” @WalMart to get it. White woman tells her to leave America then calls another woman “nigger” pic.twitter.com/l7j5YBTlWP

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) May 23, 2017

The video went viral on Twitter after activist and New York Daily News writer Shaun King tagged the company in a tweet demanding that the woman be banned “from this store for life.”

Walmart is currently trying to identify the woman, and says she will be banned from all of its stores, according to NBC News.

@ShaunKing @Walmart @ShaunKing, we agree that this cannot be tolerated and are continuing to look into the matter. Below is our official statement: pic.twitter.com/BkKKVDrjE6

— Walmart Newsroom (@WalmartNewsroom) May 23, 2017

The incident is merely the latest in a string of xenophobic rants caught on tape in recent months.

On Monday, a video surfaced of a white woman in Virginia calling a Hispanic man a “sp*c” and telling him to “take his f*cking a** back to Mexico.”  Last weekend, a white man in a wheelchair at a Reno airport was filmed calling another passenger a “sp*c” and a “piece of sh*t” for speaking Spanish to his mother. The list goes on and on.

So back to my question–are there more racists in the world, or have they just gotten ballsier?

The presidential election certainly fanned racism and Islamophobia throughout the country; many of these incidents feature President Donald Trump’s signature campaign slogans–like “build the wall.” But it could also just be that we’re getting better at capturing and sharing racist incidents.

People are quick to take out a cellphone and hit record to these capture brazen racists and upload the videos to social media. From there they are easily liked and shared, garnering millions of views and hundreds of thousands of responses.

The Southern Poverty Law Center catalogued 1,094 bias-related incidents in the month following the election. While this number has reduced drastically in the subsequent months, it is nonetheless heartbreaking.

Also, did anyone else notice that many of these confrontations appear to take place in store checkout lines? It could be just a coincidence, or indicate a trend of where people are feeling their most brazen.

Alexis Evans

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

The post White Lady’s Racist Walmart Tirade is Nothing New appeared first on Law Street.

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

Britain Raises Threat Level, Anticipates More Attacks

British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level in the country to its highest level yesterday evening, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester on Monday night. In a speech late last night, May declared that the government anticipates more attacks. She said the move to raise the threat level was based on “not only that an attack remains highly likely, but that a further attack may be imminent.” The heightened threat level, set to the maximum for the first time in 10 years, means as many as 5,000 troops could be soon patrolling the streets. Military personnel will assist police officers in “guarding duties at key fixed locations.”

UK prime minister says threat level has been raised from “severe to critical”; another attack “may be imminent.” https://t.co/A8P88DB3nl pic.twitter.com/0TgcSxkVzm

— ABC News (@ABC) May 24, 2017

May also said that the police are investigating whether the bomber, Salman Abedi, was acting alone. “The work undertaken throughout the day has revealed that it is a possibility that we cannot ignore, that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack,” she said. Some of the victims have now been identified, and one of them was only eight years old.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

According to the lawsuit, evidence of the unfair treatment of African-American students in the state can be seen in the ratings that the schools receive. The SPLC points out that of the state’s 19 worst-performing school districts, thirteen have more than 95 percent black students. The other six have somewhere between 81-91 percent black students. In contrast, the state’s top five highest-performing school districts mostly have white students.

The plaintiffs’ children go to two schools that are among the worst in the state–Webster Elementary and Raines Elementary. The plaintiffs described horrible conditions at those schools, including a lack of basic necessities like toilet paper. Raines Elementary serves lunches with spoiled fruit and rotten milk.

To understand what’s going in Mississippi, a little history is necessary. In order to be brought back into the United States following the Civil War, terms were set by Congress that included that the state ratify a constitution that provided equal education to its citizens. Specifically it required the “uniform system of free public schools” regardless of pupils’ races. But in the years that followed and the onset of the Jim Crow era, those requirements were watered down. At one point, Mississippi fought against the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

And the state’s education woes don’t stop with this recent lawsuit–another lawsuit is currently underway, brought by two state legislators. It claims that the governor should not be able to make mid-year budget cuts, because it infringes on the legislative branch’s power. Some of the cuts that are being contested include serious blows to education funding in the state. And currently, Mississippi’s schools are struggling as a whole–the state ranks 50th in national rankings of the 50 states and Washington D.C.

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 Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students appeared first on Law Street.

Albany Unified School District in California was just hit with a lawsuit over its officials’ choice to suspend students who interacted with racist images on social media. More than a dozen students at Albany High School, near San Francisco, allegedly liked and posted racist images on Instagram. In response, some were suspended. Now, four of the students have filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that their suspensions are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The images in question included photoshopped pictures of some of the black female students at the school, posted on Instagram. The photos were photoshopped to include nooses and other racist symbols. At least a dozen students liked or commented positively on the posts. The four students who are suing fell into that category–the kid who originally created the posts is not party to the lawsuit.

The lawyers of the four students who filed the federal lawsuit claim that in addition to violating the students’ freedom of speech, what the students did outside of school was none of the school’s business. The lawsuit reads:

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

The plaintiffs also claim that the school officials made a spectacle out of them by bringing them through the hallways and allowing them to be berated by other students.

The parents of the students who were the victims of the photoshopping disagree with the First Amendment claims, pointing out that the images constitute hate crimes. One of the fathers of the girls told a local outlet: “This is a hate crime. You don’t have a First Amendment right to promote a hate crime against a group of people based on their skin color.”

The students are suing for damages, but they haven’t specified how much they’re asking for. They’re also asking to have the incident removed from their records. The school has said that it will be reviewing the lawsuit, but it’s unclear what move it will make from here.

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 California School Sued for Suspensions of Students who “Liked” Racist Images appeared first on Law Street.

On Taylor Dumpson’s first day as American University Student Government (AUSG) President, bananas hung from strings tied in the shape of nooses around campus.

The bananas were found at three different locations on campus. Photos of the bananas on social media appear to show several racist messages written on them in black sharpie, like “Harambe bait,” an apparent nod to the gorilla that was shot and killed at the Cincinnati Zoo last year, and “AKA free”–AKA is the acronym for Alpha Kappa Alpha, the first predominately black greek lettered sorority in the United States.

The timing isn’t coincidental. Dumpson, the first black woman to hold office as AUSG President, is a member of AKA.

.@AmericanU @washingtonpost @CNN @nytimes @TheYoungTurks pic.twitter.com/QULz5UNIXc

— Lud Blo (@KingPablo26) May 1, 2017

In a statement to her fellow students on Monday, Dumpson addressed the incident, writing:

It is disheartening and immensely frustrating that we are still dealing with this issue after recent conversations, dialogues, and town halls surrounding race relations on campus. But this is exactly why we need to do more than just have conversations but move in a direction towards more tangible solutions to prevent incidents like these from occurring in the future.

She then urged students to unite in solidarity and “show those in the community that bigotry, hate, and racism cannot and will not be tolerated.”

University President Neil Kerwin also denounced the incident as a “crude and racially insensitive act of bigotry” in a statement Monday. Kerwin said the incident is currently under investigation by the AU Campus Police with assistance from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and other AU offices and senior officials.

AU students were outraged by the incident and organized a march Tuesday to the university’s main campus, where they demanded withdrawal forms as a symbolic act of protest. As they marched, students chanted “Black Lives Matter” and “Hey, hey, ho, ho! That racist s— has got to go.”

Students walk with fists raised and chant “I’m black and I’m proud” as they march to Asbury to request withdrawal reforms as act of protest pic.twitter.com/8LKXOrTnUd

— The Eagle (@TheEagleOnline) May 2, 2017

Student demonstrators at @AmericanU hold up withdrawal forms, chant “Black Lives Matter” as they head back to @AUKayChapel pic.twitter.com/6jbaxOBlNz

— The Eagle (@TheEagleOnline) May 2, 2017

According to American University’s student paper, The Eagle, the protest later erupted into heated exchanges with American University administrators, as students delivered a list of demands regarding diversity, divestment, and financial aid.

Students engage with Associate Dean of @AUcollege Celine-Marie Pascale following delivery of list of demands pic.twitter.com/mRJ67B2ETI

— The Eagle (@TheEagleOnline) May 2, 2017

American University Public Safety Director Phillip Morse announced a $1,000 award for anyone who brings forth information about yesterday’s incident during a campus community meeting Tuesday afternoon. But students aren’t convinced that the racial tension on campus will subside.

In fact, this is the third racist incident on the campus in eight months. In September, a black female freshman, who had not been identified at the time, reported that a group of people opened the door to her dorm and threw a rotten banana at her. Neah Gray, another freshman, said she also found a banana outside her dorm door and penises drawn on her white board that same month. Gray called the recent incident “triggering” on her personal Twitter account.

The last time there were no consequences. AU did nothing. All that publicity did was leave 16 Google pages of my name in articles about it.

— (@graaayscale) May 1, 2017

The school Department of Public Safety said it is investigating and reviewing surveillance video, and will continue to share more information and release photos as they become available.

Alexis Evans

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

The post American University Left Reeling After Bananas Found Hanging From Nooses appeared first on Law Street.

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

Aaron Hernandez Found Dead in his Cell

Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was found dead in his cell in a Massachusetts prison early this morning. Hernandez, 27, reportedly hanged himself. He had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd, but had just recently been acquitted of the 2012 fatal shootings of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtad.

Prison officials said that they had no reason to believe that Hernandez was suicidal. If they had, they would have transferred him to the mental health unit, instead of allowing him to remain in his single-occupancy cell. A spokesperson for the Patriots said that the team, which is visiting the White House today to celebrate its Super Bowl win, will not be commenting.

Sports world reacts to former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez’s “tragic” death. https://t.co/1f6BFuDF1e pic.twitter.com/dYZz3jFxRK

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) April 19, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

American and German hate speech laws are clashing this month after the approval of a German bill that permits fines of up to 50 million euros on social networking sites that fail to remove hate speech and fake news content from their platforms. The bill still needs to be approved by parliament, but if it does pass, it will be the first concrete step by a government to limit and penalize fake news production.

Companies will have 24 hours to take down content that has been flagged by users before the fines kick in. They will also be obligated to file quarterly reports and turn in “malicious” users–an issue that may prove thorny, as demonstrated by Twitter’s recent lawsuit against the federal government.

American-based sites including Facebook and Twitter have been scrambling to fight fake news over the past year but have struggled to walk the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. In Germany, where the legacy of the Nazi reign has created some of the strictest hate speech laws on the books, that line has been far more defined for decades. Under German law, volksverhetzung, which can be translated as “incitement to hatred,” is a crime punishable by heavy fines or several years of imprisonment. These punishments are usually applied to Holocaust denial and overt racist threats but by shifting the focus to social media, Germany is taking on a wider and more varied range of bigoted behavior. German justice minister Heiko Maas told the German media that “there should be just as little tolerance for criminal rabble rousing on social networks as on the street.”

The bill has already come under fire from advocates of free speech, including the EU’s digital commissioner, Andrus Ansip of Estonia. Ansip declared that over-regulating social media will harm innovation and that instead, the EU should encourage self-regulation. However, German supporters of the bill argue that websites have been neglecting reports of abuse coming in from users and that a harsher penalty is the only way to ensure that the sites will truly take fake news and hate speech seriously. The German Jugendschutz, a ministry dedicated to protecting minors online, found that Facebook only removed 39 percent of reported criminal content. Twitter removes an even smaller percentage of reported content–an estimated one in a hundred reported messages. Facebook has refuted the Jugendschutz statistic, arguing that its own analysis showed a higher rate of removal, but Twitter has not pushed back with the same vehement denial.

Tracing and deleting fake news and hate speech is a challenging task, especially for networks like Facebook and Twitter that serve hundreds of millions of users across dozens of countries every day. There is so much content to sift through that it is not surprising the social network teams are struggling to rapidly and accurately take down fake news. However, a worthwhile task shouldn’t be abandoned simply because it is difficult. The true challenge is not taking down abusive content, it is determining whether the strict German definition of hate speech can be applied in an era where even the team in the Oval Office has made disparaging and racist remarks on social media.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Germany’s New Hate Speech Law Means for Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Late Monday night, 28-year-old white Army veteran James Jackson from Baltimore reportedly stabbed black New Yorker Timothy Caughman, 66, to death with a sword. Jackson later told police that he has hated black men his whole life, and that he traveled to New York to kill black men. Jackson turned himself in on Wednesday morning just after midnight. The group behind the Women’s March called for people to join a march against hate crimes in honor of Caughman on Friday afternoon.

NYC: Meet us at 6pm in Union Square as we stand against hate crimes. #SayHisName: #TimothyCaughman! https://t.co/QD14criLvA pic.twitter.com/dPfhZojzIU

— Women’s March (@womensmarch) March 24, 2017

Jackson, like Dylann Roof, had written down his thoughts and beliefs about race and told police that he planned to deliver them to the New York Times. He took the bus to New York, aiming to get a lot of news coverage. According to his manifesto, he planned to kill multiple people.

Jackson was arraigned in Supreme Court in Manhattan on Thursday, charged with second-degree murder as a hate crime. But the prosecutor, Joan Illuzzi, said that additional charges may be forthcoming, such as first degree murder as “this is an act, most likely, of terrorism.” A police officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the New York Times that Jackson said that he had hated black people his whole life, since he was a child. Apparently he was particularly upset by black men who are in relationships with white women.

This act by someone who appears to be a white supremacist–although there are no confirmed ties between Jackson and any groups or organizations, he was obviously fueled by racial hate–has caused outrage. Many people are wondering why many politicians are not doing more about this type of homegrown terrorism, let alone acknowledging it.

Many hours ago, a terrorist stabbed &killed an American in a major international city. No not London but NY. A white supremacist. Forgotten.

— Wendell Pierce (@WendellPierce) March 23, 2017

Hi @PressSec, this is James Jackson. Extremists like him have been committing underreported acts of terror against Americans for centuries. pic.twitter.com/DeM7imzS47

— Dab Aggin (@DabAggin) March 24, 2017

There is also a notable difference in how the media covers murders of people of color compared to white people. New York Daily News writer Shaun King lashed out at his own colleagues on Friday, criticizing them for focusing on Caughman’s criminal history; he was arrested a couple of times for petty crimes, most recently 15 years ago. As King points out, a criminal record is irrelevant to murder. But the media appears to be more likely to focus on criminal history when writing about a black man who was killed than, for example, when covering the deaths of white people who tragically died in the London terror attack.

What my employer, the @NYDailyNews, & other outlets, did to #TimothyCaughman, a hate crime victim, was plain wrong.https://t.co/09OPGkG8pO

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) March 24, 2017

Caughman was a well-liked, quiet man from Queens, who used to run a federal anti-poverty program for youths. He had many different jobs during his lifetime and at the time of his death he lived in a room in a building for formerly homeless people transitioning to permanent housing. Caughman also read a lot and loved getting autographs from celebrities and keeping up with celebrity news. Actress Shari Headley used to communicate with him on Twitter, and she expressed her condolences on the social media site.

My heart is heavy typing this. Timothy Caughman was a fan of mine since 1991. He only spread LOVE His murder was senseless. RIP @timrock715 https://t.co/gZLt45bqQ6

— Shari Headley (@shariheadley) March 23, 2017

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke out against the crime on Friday, calling it “domestic, racist terrorism,” and comparing it to Dylann Roof’s killings in Charleston. He said that the election of Donald Trump has “unleashed forces of hate all over the country” and that attackers of this kind need to be punished harshly. But Trump, who quickly expressed condolences for the American tourist who was killed in the London attack, has yet to say anything about his fellow New Yorker.

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 White Man Who Traveled to New York To Kill Black Men Charged with Hate Crime appeared first on Law Street.

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

Kansas Man Allegedly Shouted “Get Out of My Country” During Deadly Shooting

On Wednesday a white man opened fire in a bar in Olathe, Kansas, killing one man and injuring two others. The suspect, Adam W. Purinton, allegedly yelled “get out of my country” before firing at two men, both originally from India. Srinivas Kuchibhotla, 32, was killed and his friend Alok Madasani, 32, was injured. Ian Grillot, 24, intervened and tried to subdue Purinton until police arrived, but was shot in the hand and chest. Purinton fled on foot but was arrested in Missouri six hours later. The FBI has now joined the police investigation to try and determine if it will be classified as a hate crime. And some on social media have called Trump out for his silence, wondering why the president is quiet whenever crimes are perpetrated against immigrants.

Your daily reminder that no refugee from the 7 countries named in the Muslim ban has ever done something like this. https://t.co/t84s4gutwS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 24, 2017

The two Indian men worked as engineers for Garmin. The father of the injured man urged his son to move back home. “The situation seems to be pretty bad after Trump took over as the U.S. President. I appeal to all the parents in India not to send their children to the U.S. in the present circumstances,” he told an Indian newspaper.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence for a man who has been on death row since 1997 because of the racist testimony of a witness called by his own lawyers. On Wednesday, the court decided 6-2 to give Duane Buck another chance. Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend, and wounding his own stepsister, with a shotgun in Texas in 1995.

During the sentencing phase of the trial in 1997, Buck’s own defense lawyers knowingly called an expert witness to the stand who claimed that Buck ran a higher risk of posing a danger in the future because he is black. “It’s a sad commentary that minorities–Hispanics and black people–are over-represented in the criminal justice system,” said former prison psychiatrist Dr. Walter Quijano.

ICYMI: Today #SCOTUS ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing for our client, #DuaneBuck. Read our statement: https://t.co/xlU5mo1zPP pic.twitter.com/CxEOJPTgil

— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) February 22, 2017

The jury listened to Quijano and sentenced Buck to death. Then began Buck’s long series of appeals. He appealed the original sentence, but didn’t raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. A state court affirmed his sentence. Then Buck’s lawyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but it didn’t mention Quijano or his testimony. But then it was discovered that Quijano had given racist testimony in several other cases. Some of those convicted raised claims in federal court in 2000, and they were granted new sentencing hearings.

Duane Buck’s trial lawyer, who put on testimony that his own client was dangerous for being black, still works in the 208th court every day.

— Franklin Bynum (@bynumlaw) February 22, 2017

Buck’s lawyer filed a second habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial lawyers, but it was filed in state court and not in federal. Then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said that because Buck’s own defense had called Quijano as a witness, there was no mistake made by the state and therefore nothing that needed to be fixed. The fact that Buck didn’t mention Quijano in the first habeas corpus was the final nail in the coffin.

In the new petition, filed in October, Buck’s defense cited “extraordinary circumstances” in order to pursue the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even though that legally should have been done in the first place. This time SCOTUS listened. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that the testimony in 1997 by Quijano claimed “that the color of Buck’s skin made him more deserving of execution. No competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the heinousness of Buck’s crime and his lack of remorse justify the death penalty. But, Buck will now be able to have a new hearing on his sentence.

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 SCOTUS Overturns Death Sentence for Black Man Whose Lawyer Called Racist Witness appeared first on Law Street.

The number of hate groups in the U.S. in 2016 doubled for the second consecutive year, reaching an almost historic high, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s annual census of hate groups and other extremist organizations. The SPLC points to Donald Trump’s rise to power as the main culprit.

“Trump’s run for office electrified the radical right, which saw in him a champion of the idea that America is fundamentally a white man’s country,” said the SPLC.

Trump’s way of talking about immigrants; the selection of openly racist, anti-LGBT, and anti-Muslim appointees for his cabinet; the tweeting of inaccurate facts; and his threats to ban Muslim immigration are all contributing factors, says the SPLC.

According to the nonprofit civil rights organization, the radical right was more successful in entering the political mainstream last year than it has been in almost 50 years. In 2016 there were 917 documented hate groups, which is only about 100 fewer than the all-time high of 1,018 that was recorded in 2011. Unsurprisingly, most of the hate groups created were specifically anti-Muslim–from 34 in 2015 to 101 last year, a 197 percent increase.

The most dramatic growth in the number of hate groups was the near-tripling of anti-Muslim hate groups: from 34 in 2015 to 101 last year pic.twitter.com/4NKwfbHW3h

— SPLC (@splcenter) February 15, 2017

Immediately after the election there was also a surge in hate crimes; 1,094 incidents were reported in the first 34 days of the Trump Administration. Approximately 37 percent of those incidents directly referenced either Donald Trump, his campaign slogans, or his remarks about sexual assault. Noticeably, the largest share of Trump-related incidents by far were anti-woman at 82 percent.

Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, told NBC News that hate groups have been on a steady rise since 2014. According to Beirich, it’s easy nowadays to find the groups thanks to the internet, and the fact that they want to spread their message.

On the topic of Trump’s immigration ban, Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said, “What used to be a fringe, extremist ideology of anti-Muslim ideology has now moved from the fringe of society to the center of powers in the White House.”

“With a president whose policies reflect the values of white nationalists, extremists think they finally have a voice in the White House” pic.twitter.com/Sm1IrZTDXO

— SPLC (@splcenter) February 15, 2017

The survey also found that schools were also negatively affected by the campaign. After the election, the group’s researchers interviewed 10,000 educators and found that eighty percent said they had noticed more fear and anxiety among their students, particularly immigrants, Muslims, and African Americans. Many teachers reported that students used slurs, derogatory language and extremist symbols in school as well.

Only time will tell what the long term effects of Trump’s politics and presidency will be, but the short term ones are already proving to be quite scary.

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 Anti-Muslim Hate Groups Increased By 197 Percent Last Year appeared first on Law Street.

At a pool party in 2015, white police officer David Eric Casebolt slammed black teenager Dajerria Becton to the ground and pinned her down with his knee. Now she has sued him, as well as the city and police department, for the psychological damage the incident caused her, citing excessive force and seeking $5 million in damages. Becton was only 15 at the time and was an invited guest to the party, which took place in a predominantly white neighborhood in McKinney, Texas. Another black teenager, Tatiana Rhodes, and her mother were organizing a cookout at a community pool as an end of the school year get-together for classmates. They live in the area.

A cellphone video that went viral shows Becton starting to walk away from the situation after police officers show up, but Casebolt runs over to her and pins her to the ground with a knee in her back. He also pulls her hair and shoves her face down in the ground while she pleads to see her mother. When some boys come up and tell the officer to let her go, he draws his gun at the unarmed teenagers. Many who saw the video thought it was clear that Casebolt overreacted, and he resigned from his position within a few days.

Rhodes, the girl who organized the party, said that it all started when a couple of white women at the pool started aiming racial slurs at the teenagers, calling them names, and saying that they should go back to their Section 8 homes. One woman even reportedly slapped Rhodes in the face. In a Youtube video interview with Rhodes, her mother criticized the grown women for harassing children rather than talking to the parents. At some point during the party, someone called the police and claimed that a group of teenagers from out of town had showed up and started a fight. But the Rhodes family said that only classmates who were invited attended the party.

Becton’s lawyer Kim T. Cole said Thursday that the incident affected Becton psychologically and that she is struggling in school. She said, “I would hope that at a certain point she gets some counseling and kind of regains her life and confidence. Emotionally, she is a wreck.” Cole said that the physical injuries–abrasions, head and neck injuries—have healed, but that the emotional scars will remain. Becton has since received repeated threats, been the victim of cyberbullying, and become a target at her school. Cole also said that Becton is afraid to call the police if anything happens to her, as she doesn’t trust law enforcement officers now.

#Texan teenager unlawfully tackled by #police, sues the city for $5 million: https://t.co/QmlzwopSUB pic.twitter.com/7DrY2wI5cB

— The Voice Newspaper (@TheVoiceNews) January 5, 2017

The lawsuit cites excessive force, assault, and unlawful detention. But a spokeswoman from the city of McKinney denied all the allegations and wrote in a statement that the McKinney Police Department will defend itself vigorously. Casebolt’s lawyer, Jane Bishkin, said that he “let his emotions get the best of him.” He was allegedly stressed after responding to two suicide calls right before arriving at the pool party, one where a man had shot himself in front of his family and one where Casebolt managed to talk a teenage girl out of jumping from a roof. After resigning, he and his family received death threats and had to move to an undisclosed location.

Casebolt was also sued back in 2008 for allegedly abusing a black driver, Albert Earl Brown Jr., who claimed that the officer had yanked his pants down to his ankles during a roadside search. Brown said he was being racially profiled, and that Casebolt told a white woman who was in his car that she had made a mistake by hanging out with him. The case was dismissed as Brown had marijuana in his car and was jailed. But the fact that Casebolt has been at the center of two separate racial incidents has many believing this runs more deeply than misunderstandings or stress.

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 Teenage Girl Sues Police Officer Who Pushed Her Down at Pool Party appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, hope you have all your Christmas gifts in order and you’re finished shopping! Some of us get really stressed out from those last minute errands, but here are some of today’s rants to help you channel all that energy. Stay calm and have a good day! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

After Berlin, Trump Doubles Down on Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump insinuated that the deadly truck attack in Berlin shows that he was right to want to ban Muslims from entering the United States. When reporters asked him whether the attack would cause him to re-evaluate his stance on Muslims, he replied: “You know my plans, all along, I’ve been proven to be right. One hundred percent correct.” It wasn’t clear exactly what Trump meant.

Donald Trump seemed to suggest that the Berlin attack vindicated his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. https://t.co/V9Wsrnu0Gd

— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 22, 2016

But later, one of his advisers, Jason Miller, said that Trump was only repeating his previous statements that he would “suspend admission of those from countries with high terrorism rates and apply a strict vetting procedure.” Trump has both said and tweeted confusing comments since appearing on the political scene and seems unable to make up his mind on some things. “We know he’s got some instincts and predilections, but there is no coherent Trump foreign-policy doctrine, and we’re not likely to see one,” said vocal Trump critic Professor Eliot A. Cohen to the New York Times.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

An American YouTube star says he was kicked off a Delta Air Lines flight after several passengers said they felt “uncomfortable” with him speaking to his mother in Arabic on the phone.

Adam Saleh, 23, recorded an emotional video of himself as he and a friend were escorted from a Delta flight bound for New York. In the video, white passengers can be seen waving and saying “bye” as Saleh leaves.

We got kicked out of a @Delta airplane because I spoke Arabic to my mom on the phone and with my friend slim… WTFFFFFFFF please spread pic.twitter.com/P5dQCE0qos

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

Boycottdelta https://t.co/3tbPMSH9rH

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

The video has been retweeted over 480,000 times.

“I’m about to cry right now,” says Saleh in the video. “Because we said a word in a different language and there’s six white people against us bearded men.”

While most of the passengers kept quiet during the exchange, one nearby passenger spoke up for the men, saying: “That is insane. That is so crazy. Why are they being kicked off? Why are those white people complaining about them speaking a different language. I’m so upset.”

After being removed from the plane, Saleh continued to update his Twitter followers on the situation.

We are still stuck at the airport and Delta has not given us any info. They keep telling us to wait. Please spread the word #BoycottDelta

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

UPDATE: Delta just brought the police to speak to us.

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

UPDATE: We’re being security checked AGAIN right now.

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

Eventually Saleh was able to rebook the flight and leave on a different airline.

UPDATE: were now on another flight with a different airline heading to NYC after being checked for 30 minutes. We land 5:50pm in NYC

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

Delta later confirmed that there had been an incident in a statement that read:

Two customers were removed from this flight and later rebooked after a disturbance in the cabin resulted in more than 20 customers expressing their discomfort. We’re conducting a full review to understand what transpired. We are taking allegations of discrimination very seriously; our culture requires treating others with respect.

However, many people question the video’s authenticity.

Saleh, who is of Arab heritage and Muslim faith, is a self-described “professional idiot.” He has 1.6 million subscribers to his TrueStoryASA YouTube channel, and over 2.2 million subscribers on his Adam Saleh Vlogs channel, which  frequently feature “prank” videos. In fact, in a recent plane-themed prank video, Saleh tricked viewers into thinking he stowed away in a piece of luggage.

#DeltaAirlines Hey, @Delta get your lawyers cracking on this. Adam Selah does airplane pranks and hoaxes for a living. pic.twitter.com/MwfSRLJfG1

— White Christmas (@whiteguyspeaks) December 21, 2016

If we find out that @omgAdamSaleh committed yet another hoax to smear an airline, Delta should sue and other airlines should ban him.

— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) December 21, 2016

This isn’t the first time that Delta has been accused of racial profiling. In October, flight attendants refused to let a black female passenger  assist in an in-flight emergency because they didn’t believe she was a doctor.

And in July, a Muslim couple returning home from an anniversary trip were forced off a flight and back into Paris, because their appearance caused a passenger discomfort.

Since the incident, the hashtag #BoycottDelta began trending on Twitter.

She deleted the tweet to mail them instead but well done @halsey #BoycottDelta pic.twitter.com/OSbL9GP5w1

— C. (@fightinqdestiny) December 21, 2016

iconic @storeaa pic.twitter.com/BLIVrabJgP

— Lauren Chanel Allen (@MichelleHux) December 21, 2016

the fact them people on the plane were cheering and waving ‘bye’ disgusted me. this makes me lose faith in all humanity. #boycottdelta

— Benny (@Beno_ldn) December 21, 2016

Alexis Evans

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

The post YouTuber Says He Was Thrown Off a Delta Plane For Speaking Arabic appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times published a story on Sunday that delved deep into New York state penitentiaries, documenting a number of racial disparities in how inmates are disciplined and awarded parole. On Monday, in response to The Times expose, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D), ordered an investigation into racial bias in the state’s prisons.

Cuomo called The Times report “disturbing,” and said in a statement: “I am directing the state inspector general to investigate the allegations of racial disparities in discipline in state prisons and to recommend appropriate reforms for immediate implementation.” He also said he plans on nominating a number of minority candidates to New York’s Parole Board.

“I will be advancing new appointments to the Senate this upcoming session to ensure the state’s Parole Board is reflective of the population it serves,” he said. Only one of the 13 current board members is black; none are Latino, though the state prison population is about three-fourths black or Latino. Cuomo’s nominations would need to be approved by the State Senate, which is comprised of 31 Republicans and 31 Democrats.

The Times report was based on data from 2015, focusing on 60,000 disciplinary cases, and on interviews with inmates across the state. Most of the racial disparities documented took place in upstate prisons, where officers, a vast majority of whom are white, guard prison populations that are majority-black or Latino.

One instance of racial bias documented in The Times report happened at Clinton Correctional Facility, where only one of the 998 guards is black. The report found that black inmates were four times as likely as white inmates to be sent to solitary confinement. In addition, black inmates were held in isolation for 35 more days on average than whites. Here are some other findings from the report:

• A number of black inmates reported guards referring to them by racial slurs, like “porch monkey,” and “spear chucker.”
• Among inmates under 25 years old, blacks received far more disciplinary citations than whites, at 185 to 14 respectively.
• Over the past several years, white inmates were more likely than black or Latino inmates to be granted parole. Less than one in six black or Latino inmates were released on parole after their first hearing, compared to one in four white inmates.

The report also illustrated the discrimination black guards who work in prisons staffed with a majority of white officers experienced. One case from the early 2000s focused on a black officer at Elmira Correctional Facility named Curtis Brown. An investigation found that white guards wrote “token” on Brown’s locker.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Governor Cuomo Orders Investigation into Racial Disparities in NY Prisons appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning, Dylann Roof, who is accused of shooting nine people at a church in Charleston in 2015, will be representing himself in court. Federal judge Richard Gergel called his request “unwise” but said that he would reluctantly accept it, since he has a Constitutional right to represent himself. “I do find [the] defendant has the personal capacity to self-representation. I continue to believe it is strategically unwise, but it is a decision you have the right to make,” Gergel said.

Judge Gergel and Roof’s lawyers advised him against dismissing them, but to no use. Jury selection in the case was also delayed in the beginning of the month after Roof’s lawyers had questioned his ability to understand the case against him, but it resumed on Monday as well. His former defense team will still be present during the trial and can assist Roof, if he wants help. Reporters present in the courtroom described attorney David Bruck as “frustrated.”

David Bruck now whispering emphatically to Roof. Can’t hear him, but looks frustrated. Bruck turns away and shakes his head. Roof smirking.

— Mike Hayes (@michaelhayes) November 28, 2016

In total, 516 jurors were scheduled to appear in court to be personally questioned by the judge to see if they qualify. After 70 are picked from that group, the lawyers can choose to strike the ones they don’t want until they have 12 jurors and 6 substitutes.

Juror has been qualified. 5 of 70 #DylannRoof

— Sam Tyson (@SamInteractive) November 28, 2016

Roof is accused of killing nine parishioners at the historic black church Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in June 2015. He is facing 33 charges, including hate crime charges, murder, and obstruction of religion. He’ll represent himself, so he could end up questioning the victims’ family members if they are called to testify, creating a pretty unusual situation that spurred some reactions on social media.

#DylannRoof is setting himself up to be a martyr. For him to be able to question his victims families. Sickening!

— Makeda Nzingha Hill (@makedanzingha) November 28, 2016

Over the weekend, Judge Gergel held a hearing to determine whether Roof was mentally fit to be on trial, which included testimony from a psychologist. Because of that, the hearing was closed to both media and the public to prevent jurors from being affected by any statements or information. This caused some complaints from relatives of the victims, but according to the judge, this is one of the steps taken to make sure that the trial will be fair. According to attorney Chris Adams there are three reasons why defendants might want to defend themselves. He said:

They don’t have faith in their legal team, they want to die, and or they want to conceal their mental illness. In this case, Mr. Roof had a great defense team, so I don’t think there would be any sane reason to not trust them.

Adams believes that Roof wants to hide his mental issues and doesn’t wish to persue a non-death sentence. As his defense team includes Bruck, who is a renowned death penalty lawyer who has argued that the death penalty is excessive, and given that the team claimed that Roof might not be mentally fit for trial, it certainly seems like Roof has no interest in securing himself a lenient sentence.

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 Dylann Roof Will Represent Himself in Church Shooting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump gave a speech in the wake of two bombings in New York and New Jersey. In response, Trump said that the police force should have the ability to profile suspects in order to be able to target individuals and subsequently catch criminals faster. While people quickly debated what exactly Trump was calling for, whether it was racial profiling versus criminal profiling, his comments immediately stirred debate over the questionable practice.

Read on to find out more about the history of racial profiling, how it is still used, its effectiveness, and the impact it has on individual freedom.

History of Racial Profiling

According to the ACLU, racial profiling is “the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.” Racial profiling is closely associated with and only narrowly differentiated from criminal profiling which “is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime.”

In criminal profiling, the cumulative characteristics of people who have committed a crime are used to identify those who may be likely to commit the same crime. However, racial profiling assumes any member of a racial or ethnic group of people may commit a crime because of who they are.

In addition, part of racial profiling is willfully overlooking members of the majority when they commit crimes. The ACLU cites the following example:

An African American man in Maryland, who after moving into a white community, was attacked and subjected to property damage. Local police failed to respond to his repeated complaints until they arrested him for shooting his gun into the air, trying to disperse a hostile mob outside his home.

The accompanying video looks at the practice of racial profiling and what it means:

Racial profiling in the United States traces its roots all the way back to colonial times. One of the earliest examples was a registry in which free blacks were required to enlist. The registry kept track of a number of physical characteristics as well as how that person came to be free. The idea behind it was to limit the movement of free black people around the South. If they were unable to prove their status they could even be forced into slavery. This kind of targeting particularly reemerged during the Jim Crow era and continued on throughout the Civil Rights Movement and into the present. Often when it comes to racial profiling, the discriminatory practices are not written down in a record but implied.

The closely associated criminal profiling also has a long history, dating back to the 1880s in England when experts tried to track down the elusive Jack the Ripper. Profiling in the United States began gaining momentum in the late 1950s with profiles contributing to the arrest of suspects in high-profile crimes. In 1974 the FBI launched its Behavioral Science Unit utilizing profiling techniques to locate serial rapists and murders. Over the years psychology has taken a major role in these profiles as certain, common traits are identified in many of the cases and used to pinpoint other offenders. While this approach is used more to identify specific individuals guilty of specific crimes, it also creates a template for future investigations to use as well, which is similar to how the ACLU describes criminal profiling. Nevertheless, these same profiles cannot be overly broad generalizations, or they risk being another form of racial profiling.

The Use of Profiling

In his speech, one of the points Donald Trump alluded to was Israel’s use of racial profiling and the success it has had with it. While many other Western nations have shunned the practice, Israel has readily adopted it as a means of protection. This is especially true in airports where people with Jewish last names or links to Israel are able to quickly move through security while those from other regions, particularly from predominantly Muslim regions, are often held up for hours for intense inspections.

While the United States does not have similar programs, for the most part, there is one glaring exception that generated a lot of high profile coverage just a few years ago. That is the infamous stop-and-frisk program that was a major component of the New York Police Department’s effort to fight crime. While the city claimed this program was an effective way to reduce crime, a federal judge disagreed, claiming instead that it provided cover for officers to target non-white citizens in unnecessary and illegal ways.

While police officers are well within their right to stop someone they suspect of committing a crime or are likely to commit a crime, they must be able to demonstrate some cause. However, in the case of stop-and-frisk, people of color were being stopped at a disproportionately high rate, which led a federal judge to deem the policy unconstitutional. In fact, 83 percent of the stops conducted by the NYPD between 2004 and 2012 were of black or Hispanic people, while those groups made up slightly more than half of the city’s population. The following video gives the details behind the stop-and-frisk ruling in New York:

Although stop-and-frisk was really the only major program that led to clear racial profiling in an attempt to fight crime, as mentioned earlier, racial profiling is often done without a directive or anything on the books. The ACLU, for example, has a long list of what it claims are incidents of racial profiling against a variety of minority groups. Over the last couple of years, there have been a number of high-profile incidents involving white police officers and non-white victims, which certainly seem to indicate racial profiling does still occur even without an explicit policy.

When it comes to criminal profiling, the practice has gotten a lot of attention in popular culture but its effectiveness has also been called into question. Part of the problem is that criminal profiling is not much more reliable than racial profiling. According to a small study done in Britain, only 2.7 percent of 184 cases showed that the practice helped lead to an arrest. The main issue was there were so many different characteristics that it was hard to create a single profile that would be used to capture criminals. This sentiment was echoed by a Secret Service report on school shooters that suggested that potential shooters would have to be identified on an individual basis because they were all so different. The most common results, unfortunately, were confirmation bias at best, and at worst simply another form of prejudicial profiling.

Evaluating the Use of Profiling

Since racial profiling only targets a select group of people it is unsurprisingly not very effective. For the clearest evidence, one need only to look at New York’s stop-and-frisk program once more. Of all the people stopped, nearly 90 percent were released with no further action and were free to go. In other words, only 6 percent of stops ended with an arrest and another 6 percent resulted in court summonses. In fact, the data indicates that stop-and-frisk likely had little relation to the number of murders and other violent crimes in New York.

Other instances, such as the ones listed by the ACLU, also show how racial profiling is typically not effective. In fact, these instances of racial profiling only seem to make matters of crime worse as they encourage disaffected people to lash out in anger.

Impact

Not only is racial profiling ineffective it can also be harmful in the long run. The reason for this is because people who are unfairly targeted by police tend to feel a reduced trust in the police force as an effective means of fighting crime. When people do not trust the police, then the police are less able to do their jobs because they lack both authority and the necessary assistance from communities to help them with their work.

This feeling of being excessively targeted also seems to be supported by the numbers. The clearest example, and by now one that is well-worn, is the existence of clear racial discrepancies in prisons. Black male children born in 2001 are approximately 5.5 times more likely than white children to be incarcerated at some point in their life.

From a dollars and cents perspective, racial profiling is also costly. Retraining officers following a racial profiling incident or paying a settlement for racial profiling can cost a city or police department millions, if not tens of millions of dollars. There are countless examples of this, one of the most egregious is in Arizona–where the actions of notoriously prejudiced Sheriff Joe Arpaio just cost his county $22 million in settlements with Latino community members.

Conclusion

Like other controversial techniques for preventing crime, racial profiling does have its defenders. They argue that it has been successful in reducing crime and point to examples like stop-and-frisk in New York and to other countries that embrace the measure such as Israel. It even has a closely related cousin, criminal profiling, which relies on somewhat related methods to help in the hunt for criminals.

However, like many of those very same controversial techniques, the numbers suggest racial profiling actually does not really reduce crime at all. In fact, it may actually increase crime by lowering trust in police and diminishing officers’ effectiveness in minority communities. It also seems to fill prisons in the United States disproportionately by race while also costing police department millions in settlements and training.

Racial profiling then seems to be a practice that is more harmful than good. However, the reality of that may not outweigh some people’s perception that it is effective. In either case, the practice is unlikely to be done away with entirely, in the meantime it is likely to make the tenuous relationship between the police and many communities even worse.

Resources

CNN: Donald Trump Defends Racial Profiling in Wake of Bombings

ACLU: Racial Profiling: Definition

History News Network: The Roots of Racial Profiling

Haaretz: in Israel, Racial Profiling Doesn’t Warrant Debate or Apologies

The New York Times: Racial Discrimination in Stop-and-Frisk

American Psychological Association: Criminal Profiling: The Reality Behind the Myth

Center for Science and Law: Criminal Profiling, Present, and Future

National Institute of Justice: Race, Trust, and Police Legitimacy

Economic Policy Institute: Where Do We Go from Here? Mass Incarceration and the Struggle for Civil Rights

CNN: Racial profiling Costs Arizona County $22 million

Brennan Center for Justice: Ending New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Did Not Increase Crime

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 Judging a Book by its Cover: The History of Racial Profiling in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Since his win, President-elect Donald Trump may have tried to calm people who are worried about his presidency by preaching goodwill and by encouraging those inciting violence to stop. But many of his supporters are doing the opposite. On Wednesday night, Trump supporter Carl Higbie appeared on Fox News and cited the Japanese internment camps during World War II as a “precedent” for a Muslim registry, which many Trump supporters have proposed.

Higbie, a former Navy SEAL and spokesman for the pro-Trump Great American PAC, told Megyn Kelly that a registry is perfectly legal–“We did it during World War II with Japanese”–and that we need to protect America. Kelly seemed taken aback at the comment and did her best to challenge him, saying, “That’s the kind of stuff that gets people scared, Carl.”

About 120,000 people of Japanese descent were relocated from their homes to internment camps by force in 1942. Of those, 62 percent were citizens, and taken away based only on their ethnicity. This happened on orders from President Roosevelt, and in 1944 the Supreme Court upheld the order. It still stands, because no similar case has come before the court since then, but it is hard to believe something like that could ever happen again. Late Justice Antonin Scalia has said it was one of the most shameful mistakes in the Court’s history. Justice Stephen G. Breyer has said it has been “so thoroughly discredited” that it is “hard to conceive of any future court referring to it favorably or relying on it.”

Watching people repeat platitudes about “coming together” while Trump representatives are literally referencing Japanese internment camps.

— Cora Harrington (@lingerie_addict) November 17, 2016

Higbie said that people from other countries have no constitutional rights in America. He didn’t seem to understand that when you gain legal permanent residency or citizenship, you do. According to Slate, even an illegal immigrant has basic human rights in the U.S. For example, the right to a just, public and speedy trial, as defined under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

.@CarlHigbie: “People outside of this country are not protected under the same constitutional rights as we are in America.” #KellyFile

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) November 17, 2016

However, immigration law is separate from criminal law, that is why immigrants who commit crimes could be deported instead of going jail. But even then, they are entitled to a hearing and a lawyer. Yet Higbie stood by his opinion that immigrants have no rights.

@ryepolisciguy @megynkelly wrong

— Carl Higbie (@CarlHigbie) November 17, 2016

One famous voice who has talked about the atrocities of internment camps for Japanese citizens is George Takei, who held a TED Talk about it.

When @GeorgeTakei was 5 years old, he was taken to a Japanese internment camp. Hear his powerful story: https://t.co/Dkr9DkYAQt

— TED Talks (@TEDTalks) November 17, 2016

Trump himself hasn’t commented on Higbie’s statement or what he thinks about internment camps. But in December of last year he claimed that he didn’t know if he would have opposed to the camps in the U.S., saying “I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.” This doesn’t sound promising.

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 Trump Supporter: Japanese Internment Camps are Precedent For a Muslim Registry appeared first on Law Street.

On October 8, Steve Crump, a veteran WBTV reporter, was in Charleston, South Carolina reporting on the cleanup efforts following Hurricane Matthew, when he was accosted by a racist. Crump told the Washington Post that the man said, “‘There’s a black guy here. No, wait a minute, he’s a slave. No wait a minute, he’s a ‘n-word.'” At that moment he had a choice–ignore the white man’s casual use of the “n-word,” or confront him. He chose the latter, and he caught it all on tape.

“Say that a little bit louder,” Crump said to the young man sitting outside the Saint John the Baptist Roman Catholic Cathedral filming the neighborhood with his iPad. “Come on, what did you just call me?”

“I called you ‘Sir,’” said the man later identified as 21-year-old Brian Eybers.

“No, you did not call me ‘Sir,’ ” Crump shot back. “You called me the n-word, right?”

To which an eerily calm Eybers replied, “I believe I did call you the n-word.”

Eybers then argued that “the Constitution of the United States” gives him the right to call Crump a n***a and a former slave. In fact, it even makes him “superior.”

“You do have a First Amendment right,” said Crump.

“Yeah I have a Second Amendment right, I got a Third amendment right. I got a Third, a Fourth, a Fifth, a Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Nine, and Ten, and that’s just the Bill of Rights,” quipped Eybers.

This is where Crump lays down some quality knowledge for this desperately naive young man.

“So what’s the Ninth and the Fourteenth?” replied Crump. “If you knew your Constitution about the Ninth and the Fourteenth, you wouldn’t have done what you just did.”

“Got ’em!”

In case you were wondering (cough) Eybers (cough), the Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the Fourteenth Amendment–since I’m sure you didn’t know that one either– reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps if he had actually known the text of the Bill of Rights he was so quick to list off–as well as the Constitution–he would have had a second thought before using it as justification for his racist and offensive behavior.

But it’s ok, because there is such a thing as karma!

Police later arrived, arrested Eybers, and charged him with disorderly conduct and possession of drug paraphernalia, specifically a glass crack pipe.

However, Crump holds no ill will for the man. He told the Charlotte Observer that he’s forgiven the man and is praying for him.  He also hopes “he gets help by enrolling in an anger management program or drug counseling.”

Alexis Evans

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

The post Steve Crump is a Hero: Black Reporter Schools Racist on the Constitution appeared first on Law Street.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a complaint on Wednesday against Southwest Airlines for kicking a Muslim man off his flight back in April for talking in Arabic, his native language. In the complaint to the Department of Transportation, CAIR calls for a federal investigation into the incident for what it believes was racial and religious profiling.

On April 6, 26-year-old political science student Khairuldeen Makhzoomi was sitting on the plane, talking on the phone with his uncle about a dinner with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon the night before. He realized a woman was staring at him when he hung up the phone, and thought maybe he had been talking too loud. He had told his uncle about the meeting and ended the conversation by the common phrase “insha’Allah,” meaning “God willing.” The woman left the plane abruptly, and a few minutes later police officers came up to Makhzoomi.

Did you know Americans are not allowed to know Arabic? A new rule apparently created by airlines. https://t.co/gxUanGbats

— Heidi N Moore (@moorehn) October 6, 2016

According to Southwest Airlines, the company does “not tolerate discrimination” but thought this was a legitimate reason to investigate a passenger. They wrote in a statement:

The internal review determined that it was the content of the conversation, not the language used, that prompted the report leading to the investigation. Our crew responded by following protocol, as required by federal law, to investigate any potential threat.

It is interesting that it was the content of the conversation that started an investigation, considering the only person who heard it was the woman who alerted the airline staff and the conversation was in Arabic. Southwest still has not apologized to Makhzoomi even though subsequent questioning by the FBI didn’t come up with anything. He felt humiliated and had problems sleeping for days after the incident. He told CNN:

The guy who came and pulled me from the plane, he took me to the jet bridge, I believe he worked with Southwest and I must say he was aggressive in the way he treated me. He was not very nice. He tried to speak to me in Arabic, but I couldn’t understand his Arabic, so I asked him to speak to me in English. I felt oppressed. I was afraid. He said, ‘You seem that you were having a serious conversation on the phone. Who were you talking to?’

“Inshallah” = we hope in English, gets this guy thrown off @SouthwestAir flight. #Inshallah they get sued. https://t.co/Z4SIp2zirj

— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) October 6, 2016

After Makhzoomi told the man he was talking to his uncle about having dinner with the U.N. Secretary-General, he showed him a video of it on his phone. But the man asked, “Why are you talking in Arabic? You know the environment is very dangerous.”

Following that, agents searched Makhzoomi, dogs sniffed his luggage, and his wallet was taken away. He was not allowed back on the plane and did not receive an apology. One agent even told him, “You need to be very honest with us with what you said about the martyrs. Tell us everything you know about the martyrs.” He said he had never mentioned anything about any martyrs but said “God willing” when saying goodbye to his uncle.

Khairuldeen Makhzoomi came to the United States as a legal immigrant with his sister in 2010. He is a student at University of California, Berkeley, and is about to apply for his master’s degree. He pointed out that he is very grateful for what the United States has provided him. But the incident in April shook him. He also said, “The U.S. is the land of freedom. People respect the rule of law. How could people be humiliated like this? That was the real shock. I lived under Saddam Hussein. I know what discrimination feels like.”

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 Complaint Filed Against Southwest for Incident with Arabic-Speaking Student appeared first on Law Street.

The appearance of one’s hair may seem like a trivial or superficial matter to some. For students at South Africa’s Pretoria High School for Girls or PHSG, however, hair is an integral part of their cultural identity–and it’s currently under attack. Fed up with being told that they look “exotic” or distracting to others, or chastised for speaking their own local languages, these young girls have taken to the streets to protest the institute’s dress code and code of conduct as inherently racist. 

Pupils at the prestigious all-girls school, which became racially integrated in 1990 (four years before apartheid ended), have historically been penalized for adorning “natural” hair in the form of afros or cornrows more than a centimeter wide. Girls at the school have been forced to straighten or chemically “relax” their hair to satisfy the school’s standards. Those who fail to conform to such regulations face possible disciplinary action that not only deducts from valuable class time, but also contributes to the development of low self-esteem and a sense of inferiority.

“You weren’t welcomed into any assembly; you’d most probably be kicked out of class,” said Tiisetso Phetla, a recent graduate of the PHSG, about the consequences of looking too “native.” “So it basically took away your learning time, it took away your right to education and the image of beauty that you possess of yourself because that’s what they were telling you, that you’re not good enough to be here with your natural hair.”

Despite the abolition of apartheid more than 20 years ago, many black South African students say the country’s current education system continues to be full of racial inequalities that force them to assimilate into a foreign culture.  This country is still healing from decades of systematic segregation and marginalization, but policies against natural hair are just the tip of a much larger, problematic iceberg.

History of Apartheid-Era Policies

Before apartheid was enacted in 1948, black schools fell under the jurisdiction of missionaries and churches, meaning they were relatively autonomous from white minority rule. Educational inequalities were exasperated when the National Party centralized the nation’s education system under the Bantu Education Act of 1952. This mandate segregated South Africans into “population groups,” deliberately depriving blacks from receiving a quality education. The architects of apartheid justified such arrangements with the false advocation of a “Christian National Education,” saying that “the task of white South African with regard to the native is to Christianize him and help him culturally.” 

South Africa’s Department of Education was unevenly partitioned by race as a result of the Bantu Education Act, with black schools receiving the least amount of funding, resources, and qualified teachers. The ordinance also determined the length of time students had to be in school, which of course varied by one’s perceived ancestry. While whites were obligated to be enrolled in school from the ages of seven to fifteen, black students were only expected to attend from seven to thirteen, if at all. By limiting access to the classroom and keeping access to education low, the blatantly racist act ensured that blacks remained part of the poorer working class. Considering that students at PHSG can lose classroom time for simply wearing their hair in its natural form, today’s circumstances have opened old wounds for many South Africans.

Has the Rainbow Nation Fulfilled its Promises?

Originally, when democracy was introduced in South Africa in the early 1990s, education was touted as the key to solving South Africa’s economic and social inequities. As the World Bank put it in a 2010 report, “development through education would lead to freedom.”

Yet some scholars believe South African schools function under “de facto” segregation. More specifically, only white students can afford to study at private institutes, while black students and students of other ethnicities are left with resource-scarce schools. All things considered, these educational barriers have magnified economic disparities for people of color in South Africa. Fact of the matter is that blacks earned 20 percent of what their white counterparts were making in 1994 when apartheid formally ended. Considering that blacks are still on the lower-end of the economic spectrum, they still have less means to pay for schooling, and are therefore less likely to attend school at all.

Post-apartheid South Africa also saw a shift in policies, from being race-based to race-blind. What this means is that although South African schools cannot legally deny admission to somebody based on their race, black learners are still in overwhelmingly black schools. The majority of African students continue to live in rural areas or geographically isolated urban communities, which reinforces apartheid-era restrictions that forced blacks to reside in their own separate communities that were typically off the grid. This has made white schools all the more whiter. Therefore, schools are being segregated by default without overt racial discrimination ever being brought into the picture.

Present-Day Movement for Equal Rights

Equal Education, a South African civil rights group, was not surprised by the recent discrepancies from PHSG. The organization, which is comprised of activists, educators, students, and parents alike, strives to mobilize stakeholders in finding democratic solutions to these oftentimes neglected problems. For example, the committee implores the Department of Basic Education and provincial education departments to be adequately trained on matters of diversity and human rights. According to a press release on its website:

Racist prejudice is being expressed in the language of undemocratic school governance. South Africa’s schools continue to be dominated by hierarchical and authoritarian power relations. Just as racism must be rooted out of these institutions, so too must their modes of governance be transformed so that it will not be possible for learners to be victimized like this in future.

Students from PHSG are also joining a much wider educational reform effort aiming to dismantle and “decolonize” the remnants of apartheid throughout South African schools. For example, proposed tuition increases in 2015 resulted in massive demonstrations last October, which later came to be known as the #FeesMustFall movement. At the epicenter of this activity were black South Africans who (aware of previous precedents) thought such proposals were deliberate means to exclude them from receiving an education. They succeeded in persuading South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, to prevent a tuition hike from being legalized, but recently the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr. Blade Nzimande, said that it should be up to a university’s discretion to raise tuition or not. Protests are still ongoing. 

Similarly, a documentary entitled “Luister“ (which translates to “listen” in Afrikaans) showcased 32 interviews from black students at Stellenbosch University–all of whom discussed their trials and tribulations at allegedly one of the most racist schools in South Africa. Dan Corder, a literature student at the University of Cape Town, produced the 35-minute film in 17 days after his friend was penalized for protesting against the school’s language policy, which they say clearly favors Afrikaans speakers. In fact, many South African public schools (like PHSG) and universities shun local African dialects and only conduct classes in the colonial language.

“Being black within the Stellenbosch community you know that you’re not accepted and you kind of ask yourself what’s wrong with me, like what did I do wrong?” said one interviewee. “In the beginning I actually started to assimilate, you know, wanting to lose myself and attain whiteness. Maybe this will work better and they’ll accept me more because I’m trying to be like them. And I realized that I cannot do that. I’m not willing to sell my soul to whiteness. I have to be proudly black.”

Conclusion

Following nationwide demonstrations, an online petition that garnered more than 30,000 signatures, and a meeting with parents, administrators in Gauteng province suspended PHSG’s code of conduct surrounding in response to the protests over hair. The Head of Education, Panyaza Lesufi, also announced that an investigation will soon commence over accusations of racism.

“The code of conduct […] is insensitive to different people and discriminates badly against black pupils as it asks them to straighten their hair,” said Lesufi. “ That is not fair because some pupils have natural[ly curly] hair so we have agreed with the student governing body that it be suspended.”

Resources

Primary

Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy: Racial Equality in Education: How Far has South Africa Come?

Additional

CNN: South African Students Protest Against School’s Alleged Racist Hair Policy

The Guardian: Luister: the Viral Film Exposing South Africa’s Ongoing Racism Problem

The Guardian: South African Students Speak Out Against ‘Aggressive’ Ban on Afro Hair

NPR: Girls At South African High School Protesting Hair And Language Bans

The Washington Post: Protests Over Black Girls’ Hair Rekindle Debate About Racism in South Africa

The Washington Post: South Africa’s Student Protests are Part of a Much Bigger Struggle

Education Equality: We Demand an End to Prejudicial School Codes of Conduct!

Stanford University: A Brief History of Educational Inequality from Apartheid to the Present

The World Bank: South Africa’s Long Walk to Educational Equality

South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy: Bantu Education

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Apartheid-Era Racism?: South African Students Protest Discrimination in Education appeared first on Law Street.

Pepe the Frog started out as a funny, green Internet frog that often featured the caption, “feels good, man,” but on Tuesday he made it onto the Anti-Defamation League’s database of hate symbols. He first appeared in the online cartoon “Boys Club” by Matt Furie back in 2005, and then spread across the internet. Over the years he became popular generally, but during the past few months he has appeared in many memes associated with racism, anti-Semitism, and far-right ideology.

This is what the original Pepe looked like.

Pepe the frog will always be feels good man to me pic.twitter.com/BC6oNNdSp2

— Anarcho-Biden (@Anarcho_Biden) September 28, 2016

Almost ten years after his creation, by the end of 2014, Pepe was widespread in the mainstream online community, where he appeared in various different contexts and outfits. Then, the use of Pepe among white supremacists increased and he often appeared as Donald Trump. As the 2016 elections neared, he was shown as Trump on the American side of a fence at the Mexican border, posing as Trump at a lectern, or adorned with swastikas.

Even Trump himself reposted one image.

“@codyave: @drudgereport @BreitbartNews @Writeintrump “You Can’t Stump the Trump” https://t.co/0xITB7XeJV pic.twitter.com/iF6S05se2w“

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2015

And according to one man that the Daily Beast interviewed over email, going by his Twitter name @JaredTSwift, this shift was intentional. The purpose was to reclaim Pepe from the mainstream and the “normies.” “Normies” are ordinary, mainstream people who, when they start frequently using a meme, kill the joke. The move to start radicalizing Pepe so that no “normies” would dare to use him again was a very conscious Internet movement, according to @JaredTSwift.

Jonathan A. Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, said in a statement on Tuesday:

Once again, racists and haters have taken a popular Internet meme and twisted it for their own purposes of spreading bigotry and harassing users. These anti-Semites have no shame. They are abusing the image of a cartoon character, one that might at first seem appealing, to harass and spread hatred on social media.

When everyone says you a hate symbol but you just a sad af frog. #pepethefrog pic.twitter.com/AGJ4saPNGG

— HorseHeadventure (@HorseHeadvnture) September 28, 2016

But Pepe’s creator, artist Matt Furie, thinks the far-right wing use of Pepe is just a “passing phase.” He said in an interview with the Atlantic:

It’s people reapproppriating things for their own agenda. That’s just a product of the Internet. And I think people in whatever dark corners of the Internet are just trying to one up each other on how shocking they can make Pepe appear.

He described Pepe as a good guy: “The comic itself is just mellow, he’s just a chill frog and is pretty good natured.”

And as ADL points out, just using a Pepe meme doesn’t mean that somebody is racist or hateful. Since the green frog can be used to express a wide range of opinions or feelings, the context and specifics of any meme would have to be taken into consideration before drawing any conclusions.

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 Pepe the Frog is Now on ADL’s List of Hate Symbols appeared first on Law Street.

A white Trump county campaign chairwoman in Ohio said there was no racism before Obama became president and that black people who haven’t succeeded in the past 50 years only have themselves to blame. On Thursday she resigned from her position. In an interview with the Guardian, Kathy Miller, a volunteer campaign chair in Mahoning County, literally said:

If you’re black and you haven’t been successful in the last 50 years, it’s your own fault. You’ve had every opportunity, it was given to you.

She followed up with this gem:

You’ve had the same schools everybody else went to. You had benefits to go to college that white kids didn’t have. You had all the advantages and didn’t take advantage of it. It’s not our fault, certainly.

She also said that the Black Lives Matter movement is a “stupid waste of time.” Her comments are very untimely since the county she has been campaigning in is a historically Democratic one and no Republican President has won the presidential election without winning Ohio.

Ohio Trump campaign chair Kathy Miller: “There was no racism before Obama got elected…”https://t.co/SxITbW9JAZ pic.twitter.com/yQus7lz9VY

— My Daughter’s Army (@MyDaughtersArmy) September 22, 2016

However, several thousands Democrats there have switched party affiliation leading up to the 2016 election. According to Miller, most of the people switching over are older and white. But she didn’t think that matters since she claims that African-American voters make up such a small portion of the voter population. “I don’t think that’s part of the way they’re raised,” she said. “For us, I mean, that was something we all did in our families, we all voted.”

But since African-Americans make up 16 percent of the population in Mahoning County, maybe she should worry. For the past two elections black citizens have voted at a higher proportion than white citizens.

Miller also blamed racism on Obama, saying she had never seen racism before he became president.

Growing up as a kid, there was no racism, believe me. We were just all kids going to school […] I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this… Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America.

George Takei had something to say about Kathy Miller.

Ohio Trump campaign county chair: “I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected.” THIS IS WHY ALIENS WON’T VISIT US.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) September 22, 2016

And many people on Twitter pointed out how the reporter had to try to keep a straight face during the interview.

This Trump campaign creep in OH is appalling, but don’t miss the magic of the reporter trying to control his face https://t.co/spVnjHNXtB

— John Hodgman (@hodgman) September 22, 2016

Later on Thursday the Trump campaign released a statement apologizing for Miller’s statements and saying that county chairs are not spokespeople for the whole campaign.

To make things even worse, Miller expressed no remorse at all when later asked by NBC about what she had said, but said she didn’t understand how her remarks were racist.

I’m thinking, ‘What did I say that was racist?’ I didn’t murder anybody, I didn’t kill anybody, I didn’t steal from anybody, I didn’t call them a liar — what did I say that was racist, other than you should take responsibility for yourself? But that’s not racism … I don’t know, maybe I’m clueless.

She continued defending her previous statements but said they had more to do with the concept of discrimination than racism.

Good riddance, Kathy Miller, your 15 minutes of fame are hopefully up.

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 County Campaign Chair for Trump Makes a lot of Racist Statements in Ohio, Resigns appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night violent protests erupted in Charlotte, North Carolina, over the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott earlier that day. The protests came the day after police in Oklahoma released video footage of the shooting of another man on Friday, Terrence Crutcher.

The protests started peacefully, close to where Scott, 43, was killed. They went on until late at night, with people chanting “Black Lives Matter.” In the early morning hours of Wednesday, demonstrators started blocking traffic on the interstate and even opened up backs of tractors and trucks to take out the cargo and set it on fire in the streets. Others broke into a local Walmart. Police used tear gas and flash grenades to interrupt the riots, during which at least 12 police officers and 11 civilians were injured.

#Charlotte #cmpd pic.twitter.com/LJVfhRcgUc

— Adam Rhew (@AdamRhew) September 21, 2016

On Tuesday afternoon police looking for another man with an outstanding warrant approached Scott, who was sitting in his car outside of an apartment complex. Police say Scott got out of the car carrying a gun, and then got back in. When they got closer he got out again, and according to the police statement, the officers felt their lives were in danger and felt compelled to shoot.

But according to Scott’s family, he was unarmed and disabled, and was reading a book in his car while waiting for the school bus to drop off his son.

Here’s the man’s sister. She says he did not have a gun. @CMPD says he did. @WBTV_News pic.twitter.com/JwHMixy9m7

— Sarah-Blake Morgan (@SarahBlakeWBTV) September 20, 2016

His brother said the cop that shot Scott was undercover and dressed in normal clothes. He was shot four times and pronounced dead at a local hospital.

The brother of the victim in the officer-involved shooting says that the cops were undercover. pic.twitter.com/PBrDwkjEdm #Charlotte

— Beatrice E. Peterson (@MissBeaE) September 21, 2016

The family claims Scott didn’t own a gun, but the police say they did recover a firearm at the scene. Police Chief Kerr Putney said that although the police officer who shot Scott was dressed in plainclothes, he also had on a police vest and there were uniformed police at the scene. But he couldn’t say for sure whether Scott aimed his weapon at anyone, nor did police specify what brand or model of gun they had found.

The man who was shot on Friday evening was Terrence Crutcher, 40. He was waiting for assistance next to his car that had broken down on a road in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when female police officer Betty Shelby, who responding to a domestic violence call, found him. When she asked what had happened, he didn’t answer, and according to her attorney, he kept ignoring her questions. When he reached toward his vehicle, she thought he was grabbing a weapon and shot him.

The video that police released on Monday show the man surrounded by several other officers before he falls to the ground. In another video from a police helicopter circling the scene, one officer is heard saying Crutcher is “looking like a bad dude,” and “looks like time for taser.”

“Looks like a Bad Dude” why don’t you Say his name instead #TerrenceCrutcher pic.twitter.com/USSL3TjBzE

— The HBCURoundTable (@HBCU_Roundtable) September 20, 2016

According to the Crutcher family’s lawyer, it is impossible that he reached inside the car for a gun, since the window was rolled up and blood stained on the outside.

Both officers involved in the shootings of Crutcher and Scott have been placed on paid administrative leave.

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 Protests in Charlotte Sparked by Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott appeared first on Law Street.

Forty-one Nigerian students have sued Alabama State University for misusing their government’s scholarship money, overcharging the students, and treating them “like animals.” Though it is one of America’s historically black colleges, the students think discrimination was a contributory factor. “I’m a black man and I’m proud to be black, but I felt discriminated against,” said former student Jimmy Iwezu to The Daily Beast. He also said the school called him and his fellow Nigerian schoolmates “cash cows”.

Students Godsgift Moses, Promise Owei, Thankgod Harold, Success Jumbo, Savior Samuel and others, came to America thanks to generous scholarships for four years of college from the Nigerian government. The government paid around $30,000–$35,000 per student per year—to cover tuition, books, room and board and any other expenses. But instead of forwarding excess money to the students’ accounts, the University held on to the money.

Nigerian students sue Alabama University for treating them ‘like animals’ https://t.co/eQNpI9WW4g via @todayng pic.twitter.com/JHpbbCWuP6

— Nigeria Newsdesk (@NigeriaNewsdesk) September 12, 2016

According to the students’ lawyer Julian McPhillips, who first filed a lawsuit in April that was dismissed, these students were treated differently from other attendees. The scholarship money that is supposed to go to the students was instead used to help solve the school’s “bond issues,” pay for a new stadium, and create a new civil rights awareness center.

The Nigerian students were not allowed to eat anywhere other than the school cafeteria and their scholarship funds were charged for living in the school’s dorms even if they didn’t live there. The cost for living on campus was also allegedly raised specifically for the Nigerian students, who had to pay $3,000 per semester. One student named Success Jumbo was married and lived off campus, but the school took money from his scholarship for dorm expenses anyway, instead of transferring the money to his personal account to use for his actual rent. Jumbo told the Montgomery Advertiser:

I got married May 2014. I’ve approached ASU on several occasions, I even took my wife and my baby to them and said, ‘Look, I no longer live on campus. I believe you guys understand the importance of being married. I need to get this money so I can use it to pay for my housing elsewhere.’

“The school compelled us to buy books from the book store and eat only at the cafeteria,” said Iwezu. “I tried to make them understand, ‘Hey, we don’t want to live in the dorms anymore, and we don’t want to eat our entire meals at the dorms.”

After complaining and demanding a refund for the students, McPhillips received an answer from the school–its officials said: “there is no financial agreement between the University and the individual Nigerian students,”–and the request was denied. Another student was charged for summer school after he graduated that he never attended or even applied to.

“They had me as if I was going to school this summer. I asked them, ‘I graduated in May, so where is the scholarship money my government gives to you?’” said Kehinde Batife.

But the students won’t give up–on the other hand, they’re more determined than ever to fight for their cause. Batife said: “I cannot forget about this and I’m ready to fight the school, even if it means 10 years from now I’m still fighting to get justice.”

“I want justice to prevail, and the remaining money should go to [Nigeria’s] Treasury and make a better life for other Nigerians,” concluded Iwezu.

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 Nigerian Students Sue Alabama University For Using Up Their Money appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Airbnb announced a major overhaul of its racial discrimination policies in response to several reports of hosts exhibiting racial bias against renters on the home-sharing app.

Airbnb CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky (pictured above) released a statement on the company website revealing its investigative partnership with Laura Murphy, the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington D.C. Legislative Office. After looking into every aspect of Airbnb’s platform, Murphy detailed her findings in a report titled Airbnb’s Work to Fight Discrimination and Build Inclusion.

The report lists nine policy changes that would “greatly reduce the opportunity for hosts and guests to engage in conscious or unconscious discriminatory conduct.” The changes include:

1. Beginning November 1, 2016, all app users are required to agree to The Airbnb Community Commitment, which pledges to “treat all fellow members, regardless of race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age, with respect, and without judgment or bias.”
2. Users must also agree to Airbnb’s “strengthened and more detailed” nondiscrimination policy, the rules of which Airbnb claims are stronger than what are required by law.
3. Airbnb has put in place a full-time product team to fight bias and promote diversity.
4. It will encourage and grow instant book listings.
5. The company will experiment with reducing the prominence of guest photos in the booking process and enhancing other parts of host and guests profiles with objective information.
6. Airbnb will also improve its response to discrimination complaints and better enforce its policies.
7. It will also implement an open door policy for discrimination complaints.
8. Airbnb will offer new training for to help people learning how to fight bias.
9. The company will implement the Diversity Rule, a new policy that will mandate that all candidate pools for senior-level positions include women and candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. Airbnb will also expand efforts to bring economic opportunities to minority-owned business and encourage more people from underrepresented populations to use Airbnb.

The changes come after several Airbnb guests adopted the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to vent their frustrations of being rejected from bookings–only to see the same rental be re-listed later.

#AirbnbWhileBlack #Airbnb pic.twitter.com/3pIGzQsP57

— Q. (@TinaLaBang) July 16, 2015

Black guests’ suppositions were later confirmed by a study conducted by Harvard Business School students Benjamin Edelman, Michael Luca, and Dan Svirsky that found that requests from guests with distinctively African-American names are roughly 16 percent less likely to be accepted than identical guests with distinctively White names. The same also goes for hosts that are black, regardless of whether the property is cheap or expensive

The announcement of new policy changes designed to combat these types of biases is definitely a step in the right direction for the company. Unfortunately there will always be opportunities for people to still discriminate against others. At least now, both guests and users will hopefully be held more accountable.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Airbnb Announces New Changes to Fight Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

When police were called to a burning car in Riverview, Missouri, around 2AM on Tuesday morning, they found the body of activist Darren Seals inside, shot to death. Seals, 29, was a prominent activist who protested after black teenager Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. He was by the Brown family’s side the evening it was announced the officer involved in the shooting was not indicted.

Seals’ supporters expressed their grief on social media.

His name was Darren Seals. RIP. pic.twitter.com/Cd4NQuqBvX

— Torraine Walker (@TorraineWalker) September 6, 2016

Some think he was targeted by the police for his strong commitment to the protests over Michael Brown’s death, a belief that Seals himself seems to have expressed on his Twitter.

@LegendaryQueen8 yea 10 detectives pulled me and my 14 year old brother over, pointed guns on us, and told me “choose your enemies wisely”

— King D Seals (@KingDSeals) July 25, 2016

St Louis County Police said they investigated the incident as a homicide but have no suspects. The block where Darren Seals died was involved in another police matter about a week ago when an older woman was found dead in her apartment. However that death appears to have been a suicide.

According to the police, Seals lived about 12 miles away from where he was found dead. Seals described himself on his Twitter account as a businessman, revolutionary, activist, fighter, leader, and “unapologetically black.” After he engaged in protests after the shooting of Michael Brown, he told MTV about the experience in an interview. Even though he described holding Brown’s mother after they heard the results from the non-indictment as feeling “her soul cry,” he also described the protests as fruitful:

I don’t recall anyone having a longer protest, a more productive protest, a more creative protest than what we did. I don’t think people will ever really appreciate what we did until years from now. We really did the best we could.

Seals also led protests with a group called Hands Up United, which wanted to change police policies through the campaign Polls Ova Police. Some people believe this work made police officers target Seals during the last weeks of his life.

#DarrenSeals spent his last days under constant harassment from STL Police. Any investigation into his murder needs to start there IMO.

— D (@Delo_Taylor) September 7, 2016

Seals repeatedly declared his distance from the Black Lives Matter movement and claimed it is simply a newly formed group taking credit for what different local protesters, including him, have been working hard on for years.

#BlackLivesMatter people did to Ferguson what white people did to mother Africa, come in steal all our resources then leave us for dead..smh

— King D Seals (@KingDSeals) September 2, 2016

In the end, Darren Seals became a symbol for the battle he fought, but details about his death are still unclear.

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 Ferguson Activist Darren Seals Found Shot Dead in Burning Car appeared first on Law Street.

Riding high off the success of Ava DuVernay’s “Selma,” David Oyelowo is once again stepping forward in an Oscar contender biopic. This time he portrays Seretse Khama, Botswana’s first president, who caused waves both in Botswana and the UK when he married Ruth Williams, a white Briton played by Rosamund Pike. “A United Kingdom,” which depicts their marriage against the backdrop of British imperialism, digs into attitudes regarding interracial marriage in both black and white communities. It will be easy for certain viewers to applaud the love story and then reassure themselves that we have come so far since the 1940s–which is exactly why Jeff Nichols’ “Loving“ is so necessary. “Loving,” starring Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton, tells the story of Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, who were arrested and imprisoned for their interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967. The suit they brought against the state went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately declared prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional. “A United Kingdom” introduces the unique space that interracial love occupies in our history while “Loving” reminds audiences exactly how recent legal acceptance of that love is.

“Loving’s” debut at Cannes and “A United Kingdom’s” spot opening the London Film Festival essentially guarantees that they will be at least contenders for Oscar nominations. The joy of Oscar season is that films that are difficult to market in other times of year are thrust onto the public radar. These two films reveal too much about the gritty reality of racism to be written off as sweet romances like last year’s “Brooklyn“ (which depicted the difficulties of two lovers from different ethnic backgrounds but who were both white) yet they also are concerned with love stories so they will not necessarily draw crowds who want heavy hitting drama in the style of “Spotlight” or “The Revenant.” Neither director has quite enough star power to attract an immediate, built-in audience. Amma Asante, director of “A United Kingdom,” already proved herself a master of portraying the complexity of interracial relationships with her film “Belle” in 2013 but Jeff Nichols, director of “Loving,” has previously worked largely in the thriller realm. “Variety’s” review of “Loving” at Cannes describes Loving as “too damn polite” and “The Guardian” labeled the film “underpowered.”  Reviews of “A United Kingdom” have yet to hit the presses.

When looking at the contenders for the 2017 Oscars, these films stand apart–but while that makes them the answer to our wish for cinema that reflects our experience, it also paints a target on them. These films will exist between our traditional concepts of cinema–not classically romantic enough to be considered part of the old guard but not angry enough to be revolutionary calls to action.

In the wake of #OscarsSoWhite, critics and the general public alike are looking for films that will starkly contrast those of last year. There is a desire for more actors and directors of color, more diverse stories and more contemporary storylines. These two films bring all of those elements to the table but the weight that will be placed on them is monumental–they will be expected to be perfect to make up for the mistakes of last year. Asante and Nichols face more pressure than any other directors because they are telling true stories but they have to package them in a precise way: not harsh enough to frighten the critics but not sweet and revisionist in a way that will anger viewers aching in the wake of a summer of violence.

In the search for this perfection, there is a distinct threat that critics will judge these films more harshly than if they were love stories about a couple of the same race. They will be pulled apart because they fail to represent the full scope of interracial marriage (interracial love includes many races beyond black and white), their use of “brand name” Hollywood stars (although Negga could still be considered relatively unknown) and, of course, the fact that they center on interracial relationships–why is Hollywood not making more films concerning love between two people of color? Interracial couples and families deserve to see themselves reflected on screen, to have attention paid to their challenges and history–yet this year, when every Oscar contender with a person of color in the lead role is marked as reactionary in the context of #OscarsSoWhite, more attention will be paid to whether critics approve of the films than to whether the viewing public finds joy in seeing interracial love at the multiplex.

It is rare for a film to strike the perfect balance, to satisfy every viewer while making a larger statement about our culture without being defeatist or romanticist. A film that truly achieves that may come about once every decade–and now we are asking two films to do exactly that within the same year.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Interracial Marriage is Front and Center this Oscars Season appeared first on Law Street.

Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and well-known white supremacist David Duke started robocalling people urging them to vote for both him and Donald Trump in November, an effort to tie himself to Trump’s appeal. Duke is currently running for a Senate position in Louisiana.

Prior to his endorsement in February, Duke was reluctant to support Trump because he is too friendly with “the Jews” and might not do anything about the “Jewish elite” that he claims is running the United States. In August 2015 he said, “Trump has made it very clear that he’s 1,000 percent dedicated to Israel, so how much is left over for America?”

But in February Duke set aside his reservations and formally endorsed Trump. He told NBC News that he had to make a political decision and that he agrees with Trump on “a lot of other issues.”

Duke has since supported the idea of a Trump presidency, encouraging listeners of his radio show and visitors of his website—where he goes by Dr. Duke—to vote for Trump in November. Despite his initial hesitance, Trump formally denounced Duke’s endorsement and continues to denounce it.

In the robocall, Duke even takes a shot at Beyoncé:

Unless massive immigration is stopped now, we’ll be out numbered and outvoted in our own nation. It’s happening. We’re losing our gun rights, our free speech. We’re taxed to death. We’re losing our jobs and businesses to unfair trade. We’re losing our country. Look at the Super Bowl salute to the Black Panther cop killers.

You can listen to the full robocall here.

Hillary Clinton took the opportunity to highlight the fact that a prominent KKK figure is endorsing Trump.

Longtime Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke supports Donald Trump because they share so many of the same values. pic.twitter.com/XuXznBEslA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 25, 2016

Duke told NBC in February that he is still an important political player and has hundreds of thousands of followers online who will all vote for Trump. But Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center points out that Duke’s claim is not quite accurate. “David Duke still portrays himself as a white nationalist hero, but the fact is he hasn’t done anything political in years,” Potok said. “Duke’s having a moment in the news now, and he needs this. In the white supremacist world, he’s seen as an opportunist, someone who is living off the movement.”

David Duke’s history in politics ranges from founding the White Youth Alliance at the Louisiana State University in 1970 to becoming a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, which he made an effort to bring into the mainstream. He won a seat in the Louisiana State Senate in 1989 but later failed when running for governor, Senate, and even the White House. He also formed an organization called National Association for the Advancement of White People to further his mission and spread white supremacy.

In 2002, he was convicted of filing a false tax return–he used donated money privately and for gambling–and lost a lot of public support. He is now running for Senate in Louisiana and even though the Republican Party there does not support him, it claims that it would be too costly to formally ban him from running on the Republican ticket.

After the recent robocall made the news, Trump’s campaign sent a statement to politico reiterating his disavowal of Duke’s support. The statement said:

Mr. Trump has continued to denounce David Duke and any group or individual associated with a message of hate. There is no place for this in the Republican Party or our country. We have no knowledge of these calls or any related activities, but strongly condemn and disavow.

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 David Duke Robocalls Voters Asking them to Vote for Him and Trump appeared first on Law Street.

“Ghostbusters” actress and “SNL” comedian Leslie Jones was the victim of a vicious hacker attack on Wednesday. Online hackers published her personal information such as photos of her passport and driver’s license, as well as nude photos that seemed to be of her, on her own website. They also bizarrely posted a video of the gorilla Harambe that was killed at a zoo earlier this summer. Her website is now shut down.

Jones’ most recent movie, the remake of “Ghostbusters,” prompted a stream of racist comments and online attacks on Twitter in July. A tech editor at Breitbart named Milo Yiannopoulos even allegedly contributed some of the abuse; as a result Twitter shut down his account. He had received repeated warnings about similar issues.

After being banned from Twitter, Yiannopoulos said (instead of apologizing):

With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives.

He also said it would be the end for the social medium as it doesn’t welcome people who stand for free speech.

Leslie Jones then spoke out on “Late Night With Seth Meyers,” saying that hate speech and freedom of speech are two different things. She pointed out that cyber bullying is really common but many people don’t talk about it since it’s so hard to accomplish anything. But Jones took a strong stand–she publicly declared she was logging off from Twitter and called out her abusers, and then worked with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to identify all the accounts that had posted the comments.

Jones was back on Twitter in August, live reporting from the Olympics in Rio.

And after the most recent online attacks, many are standing up for Jones.

This @Lesdoggg attack is troubling. The rampant racism percolating in society right now is shameful and sad. She made a movie, that’s it!

— octavia spencer (@octaviaspencer) August 24, 2016

Sharing personal info & pics of women naked are classic cyberabuse tactics. WoC are disproportionately targeted. #solidarity to Leslie Jones

— End Online Misogyny (@misogyny_online) August 24, 2016

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 Following Twitter Racism, Hackers Expose Leslie Jones’ Info and Photos appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a joke going around online that makes fun of one of the dominant explanations for Donald Trump’s rise in American politics. You’ll see it a lot on social media: people will take a news story depicting what can only be described as racism, and then joke about how economic anxiety explains support for Trump when clearly it’s not related.

Here’s a good, relatively mild joke about the Confederate flag from Jamelle Bouie, a writer for Slate:

Just some Trump supporters, waving the flag of economic anxiety. https://t.co/6RlnATpvSK

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) July 26, 2016

The joke here is, of course, that a lot of Donald Trump’s support has little to do with an individual’s economic circumstances. Shortly after Trump started rising in the polls during the Republican primary, the “economic anxiety hypothesis” was a dominant explanation for his success. Trump, the theory goes, speaks to those who have been left behind by globalization and free trade. And to an extent, that explanation makes sense–Trump constantly trashes “bad trade deals,” threatens companies that want to move jobs overseas, and claims that his economic agenda will focus on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

But over time, it has become pretty clear that economics can only explain so much of Trump’s support, so something else must to be at play too. So what, then, explains the rise of populism not just in the United States, but also in many countries in Western Europe? With Trump’s rise in American politics, Brexit in the United Kindom, and growing anti-immigrant sentiment growing as Europe’s refugee crisis surges, answering this question is more important than ever. Is it simply racism or is there more to it than that?

As it turns out, we have some new research that takes a look at that question specifically. Professors Ronald Inglehart from the University of Michigan and Pippa Norris from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government took a systematic look at two hypothesis–the economic insecurity and cultural backlash hypotheses–in their recent working paper to see what’s really going on.

Identifying the Rise of Populism

While their research focuses primarily on the rise of populism in Western Europe, they argue that the developments in Europe can help inform what is going on in American politics today. In their research, Inglehart and Norris identify populist parties in Europe, track their rise in many countries, and look at what factors led voters to support them.

Inglehart and Norris identify several patterns that illustrate and help explain the rise of populism in Western Europe over the past several decades. First, and most obviously, more votes were cast for populist parties, causing their representation in governments to increase. Candidates in populist parties on the right and left of the economic spectrum increased dramatically from the 1960s to the 2010s. Vote share for parties on the populist right rose from 6.7 percent in the 1960s to 13.4 percent in the 2010s, according to ParlGov data, which tracks voting patterns in many western democracies. Similarly, vote share for populist left parties rose from 2.4 percent in the 1960s to 12.7 in the 2010s. They also note that over time, cultural issues have become much more important to political parties than economic ones have.

What’s unique about the researchers’ analysis is their use of a cultural dimension to locate different parties on an ideological spectrum. Most people are familiar with the traditional left and right dimension, where right is conservative and left is liberal. But Inglehart and Norris build on that to argue that the traditional spectrum really only applies to economic issues, while a new axis should be added to capture how people divide on cultural issues. On this vertical axis, they put liberal cosmopolitanism at the bottom and populism at the top. In doing so, they acknowledge that populism has more to do with cultural values and that populist parties can pop up on both the right and left of the economic spectrum.

Defining Populism

Now, without diving too much into the jargon, it’s important to look at how the researchers define populism and its inverse, cosmopolitan liberalism. The researchers draw from past research to summarize populism as having three distinct characteristics: anti-establishment sentiment, authoritarianism, and nativism. Because populism can emerge on both the right and left sides of the economic spectrum, it’s helpful to think about it in terms of the values that stay constant, which are largely cultural. They conclude:

Populism favors mono-culturalism over multiculturalism, national self-interest over international cooperation and development aid, closed borders over the free flow of peoples, ideas, labor and capital, and traditionalism over progressive and liberal social values.

Cosmopolitan liberalism, on the other side of the spectrum, is essentially the opposite of that–favoring open borders, shared values, and diversity. Importantly, the researchers go on to note, “Social liberalism is also linked with support for equal rights for women and minorities, flexible rather than fixed gender roles, fluid gender identities and LGBT rights, environmental protection, and secular rather than religious values.” And with that, you have the crux of the cultural backlash hypothesis; as the issues that define cosmopolitan liberalism have taken hold in the West, populist parties may be popping up as a result.

After analyzing polling data, the researchers concluded that the cultural backlash hypothesis appears to explain the rise of populism more so than economic circumstances or perceived economic insecurity. They found a connection between different demographic characteristics, notably age and education levels, that was associated with voting for populist parties, but when you combine those demographics with cultural values, a clear fit exists. And while there was some overlap between economic insecurity and populist voting, culture appears to play a stronger role. They conclude, “The electoral success of [populist] parties at the ballot box can be attributed mainly to their ideological and issue appeals to traditional values.”

What Does it Tell Us About Trump?

Inglehart and Norris use culture to explain what happened over the past several years in many western European countries and go on to say that the same thing is likely underway in the United States. Populism in America appears to be following a similar trajectory, and if you look at the base of Donald Trump’s support you will see a similar group of values and demographics. As more evidence piles up to challenge the economic anxiety explanation, it’s important to look at how cultural views shape support for populists.

And yes, race or racial resentment likely plays into this as well. If you doubt that connection then you should watch this video from the New York Times showing the presence of hate at Trump rallies. But it’s too simplistic to just chalk things up to racism. As Brian Beutler at the New Republic points out, Trump has millions of supporters–probably somewhere around 40 to 45 percent of the American electorate–so assuming that they all plan to vote for him because they’re all racist is a stretch. But you’d also be ignoring a lot about Trump’s campaign over the past year or so to say that race hasn’t played a role.

As the West continues to move in a liberal cosmopolitan direction, there will be large swaths of people who lash out at social change through support for populist parties and candidates. In Europe, this backlash has been more pronounced as proportionally representative parliamentary systems make it easier for new parties to earn seats in government, but it’s clear that the United States is not immune.

These findings may be discouraging for many. After all, those who pushed for progress on issues like gay marriage and immigration didn’t anticipate Donald Trump in response. But understanding this pattern is important. Inglehart and Norris conclude: “The net result is that Western societies face more unpredictable contests, anti-establishment populist challenges to the legitimacy of liberal democracy, and potential disruptions to long-established patterns of party competition.” These challenges are real, and they probably aren’t going away anytime soon.

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 Trump and Populism, How Did We Get Here? appeared first on Law Street.

Ahmed al-Menhali came to the U.S. from the United Arab Emirates for a medical procedure. What he didn’t expect was police officers approaching him, guns in the lobby of his hotel, forcing him to the ground. Now officials in Avon, Ohio, where the incident took place, have apologized.

A hotel clerk saw Menhali and thought he was a terrorist because he was wearing traditional clothing and talking on the phone in Arabic. She texted her sister and father that she was panicking, and both of them called 911. In a phone call that is posted on YouTube, the sister says the man was “pledging his allegiance or something to ISIS.”

The officers were wearing body cameras, and in one of the videos they are heard yelling aggressively to Menhali to lie down, before approaching and handcuffing him. However, when they searched Menhali and found nothing, it was brushed off as a misunderstanding. But the shock of being held at gunpoint and accused of being a terrorist caused the man to suffer a light stroke. A paramedic was at the scene to treat the hotel clerk for a “panic attack,” and made sure Menhali got to the hospital.

Xenophobia and racism have reached new levels if a tourist can’t even wear his own clothes and speak in his own language without being forced to the ground at gunpoint. The event caught the attention of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“This near hysteria [against Muslims] has been created by political candidates. It’s irresponsible and dangerous,” said Julia Shearson, director of the Cleveland chapter of CAIR to Al-Jazeera.

The incident caused many reactions on social media.

The ignorant worker and her sister should have apologized to Ahmed Al Menhali and the desk clerk should be terminated. @MarriottIntl

— Shea (@Sheaa_) July 5, 2016

Can the world advise Americans not to wear white socks in black sandals? Asking for a friend https://t.co/DP80LXOQOG

— Lexi Alexander (@Lexialex) July 4, 2016

The United Arab Emirates demanded an apology and even warned their citizens to not wear traditional clothing if they visit the United States. The police chief and Avon Mayor Bryan K. Jensen met with Menhali to apologize on Saturday and said in a statement that there might be criminal charges against the clerk that notified 911.

Menhali told Arabic newspaper Al Arabiya that the police hurt his back and threw his phone on the ground. He also pointed out: “The policemen who humiliated and insulted me arrived at [the hotel] without explosives experts or counter-terrorism forces because they knew I’m not a terrorist.”

Menhali said that he appreciated the apology, but also wants the people who called 911 to be held responsible, and that the authorities should use this experience for cross-cultural education purposes. That is a high-minded response from someone who was treated wrongly, and is educational itself.

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 Ohio Police Apologize to Muslim Tourist After Mistaking Him as Terrorist appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, the 16th annual BET Awards aired live Sunday night, and it was full of yaaas-worthy performances and epic Prince tributes. Yet, despite the show opening with Beyonce-induced pandemonium and a semi-awkward “Hamilton” spoof courtesy of hosts Tracee Ellis Ross and Anthony Anderson, all anyone can talk about Monday is Jesse Williams and his show-stealing acceptance speech.

The “Grey’s Anatomy” star, who has long been an outspoken human rights advocate and recently was the executive producer of the documentary “Stay Woke: The Black Lives Matter Movement,” took the mic to accept this year’s Humanitarian Award. Shortly after uttering a few gracious name mentions, he capitalized on the opportunity to deliver a powerfully moving speech on racism, police brutality, and cultural appropriation.

At one point, Williams poignantly referenced the deaths of Tamir Rice, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and Dorian Hunt–all black people who died during confrontations with the police–saying,

Yesterday would have been young Tamir Rice’s 14th birthday so I don’t want to hear anymore about how far we’ve come when paid public servants can pull a drive-by on 12 year old playing alone in the park in broad daylight, killing him on television and then going home to make a sandwich. Tell Rekia Boyd how it’s so much better than it is to live in 2012 than it is to live in 1612 or 1712. Tell that to Eric Garner. Tell that to Sandra Bland. Tell that to Dorian Hunt.

Williams concluded his speech with thoughts on racial oppression and cultural appropriation, including  a reference to  Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit”–a haunting musical metaphor for lynchings.

We’ve been floating this country on credit for centuries, yo, and we’re done watching and waiting while this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us, burying black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment like oil – black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations then stealing them, gentrifying our genius and then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit. The thing is though… the thing is that just because we’re magic doesn’t mean we’re not real.

Afterwards, Williams’ words were met with a standing ovation from the audience of distinguished guests and praised by thousands of viewers on Twitter.

Click here for the full transcript of Williams’ speech, courtesy of Time.

Watch Jesse William’s full speech below.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Jesse Williams Delivers Powerful Speech on Race at BET Awards appeared first on Law Street.

People who saw Rick Tyler’s billboard alongside Highway 411 in Polk County, Tennessee either couldn’t believe their eyes, or must have thought they were seeing a practical joke–its message read “Make America White Again.” But the message from the independent candidate running for Congress was not a joke, and he wants to make sure everyone knows.

The sign is an obvious reference to Donald Trump’s saying “Make America Great Again.” Tyler claims he’s not racist, but merely looking back to a time when America was safe enough for residents to leave their doors unlocked. However, his Facebook post tells another story:

It was an America where doors were left unlocked, violent crime was a mere fraction of today’s rate of occurrence, there were no car jackings, home invasions, Islamic Mosques or radical Jihadist sleeper cells.

This is the criticized sign:

A congressional candidate is actually trying to argue that this sign isn’t racist… https://t.co/ODEG6A1idX pic.twitter.com/xjvFVL2RZs

— Perez Hilton (@PerezHilton) June 22, 2016

Tyler’s campaign also erected another billboard depicting an illustration of the White House surrounded by Confederate flags. At the top of that billboard are Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous words “I Have a Dream.” Tyler claimed that the signs were a very well planned maneuver to get around “the iron curtain of censorship.” In regards to people’s strong reactions to the message, he wrote, “Obviously, there are the ‘frothing at the mouth lunatics’ who react in a completely irrational, emotional, Pavlovian dog fashion.”

He even goes on to claim that people who are not white should not be allowed to move into the US claiming,

A moratorium on nonwhite immigration and the abolition of policies that subsidize nonwhite birth rates would be two constructive actions toward beginning the long journey back toward sanity and stability in our beleaguered and foundering nation.

This is one Twitter user’s solution to the hateful sign:

.@newschannelnine Oh hey, I fixed your sign Rick Tyler. #LoveTrumpsHate aka the Polk Co racist pic.twitter.com/miNJxdTIzU

— Jeska Dzwigalski (@JeskaD) June 23, 2016

Tyler’s words evoke chilling references to white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Topher Kersting, who is also running for Congress as an independent, told the Huffington Post,

He’s about as racist as you can get, from what I can tell […] He wants to go back to the 1950s where whites are in control and blacks ‘know their place. He’s wide open about it. It’s kind of scary we’re not past this.

The signs have since been removed, but no one knows who took them down. Tyler is of the opinion that most people in the country liked them, since he saw some people snapping photos of one earlier. He wants them back up as soon as possible since he paid for them to be there until the general election in November.

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 Tennessee Politician Wants to Win Votes by Making America White Again appeared first on Law Street.

In the gig economy, where rides, dates, and living rooms are outsourced, where services are offered by independent contractors who are not employed–but operate under the auspices of a larger conglomeration–who is responsible for mistreatment and discrimination against customers? The person directly discriminating, or the company whose platform allows room for discrimination? Airbnb–an application that connects travelers to the living spaces of locals, in lieu of traditional lodging–is grappling with these questions as users report being discriminated against.

Over the past year or so, as Airbnb has blossomed (the company is valued at $25 billion, with hosts in 34,000 cities, and 191 countries), travelers have increasingly been turned down by discriminatory hosts. A January study by the Harvard Business School offers data that buffers the anecdotal evidence: in the five American cities it covered, the study found African-American travelers received positive reviews 42 percent of the time. But 50 percent of white travelers received a positive review. Those numbers are identical when considering how often a traveler with a stereotypical African-American sounding name–Darnell, Rasheed, Tamika–was accepted in comparison to a stereotypical white or neutral name like Brad or Kristen.

Airbnb has terminated hosts who were found to violate the service’s tolerance policy–and federal law. But that does not mean the company is blameless for any wrongdoing on behalf of its hosts, and as affected users threaten to take their cases to court, Airbnb is taking steps to reform its methods and eliminate any room for discrimination and racism. A few weeks ago, Airbnb hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the ACLU’s Washington D.C. legislation office, to conduct a review of its ability to deal with incidents involving discrimination and racism. Her report is expected by September.

This summer, Airbnb’s ability to counter lawsuits brought about by its users will be tested: in May, a class-action discrimination suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in D.C. by Gregory Selden, a black man who claims he was denied by a host because of his race. Airbnb will respond to the lawsuit by July 13. When users sign into the service, they are prompted with a “class-action waiver,” which essentially ensures people waive their right to sue, or join class-action lawsuits agains the service.

It will be interesting to see how that protective tool holds up in court with the Selden case. According to Joanne Doroshow, executive director of New York Law School’s Center for Justice and Democracy, change will only follow if cases like Selden’s prove successful. “Class-action cases have been the only effective way to prove and remedy systemic discrimination because you can’t prove a pattern of behavior with individually filed cases,” she said.

Meanwhile, new players are entering the home-sharing market in efforts to address customers who are wary about encountering racism and discrimination on Airbnb. Stefan Grant launched Noirbnb–a service geared toward people of color, though they accept profiles from everyone–after he and his friend were greeted by a swarm of cops at the Airbnb property they were staying at in Atlanta. A neighbor thought they were burglars.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #AirbnbWhileBlack: When Discrimination and the Gig Economy Intersect appeared first on Law Street.

His Republican opponents have faded away. His party has largely–if hesitantly–embraced him, including the top elected Republican, Paul Ryan. A fall showdown with Hillary Clinton seems inevitable at this point. But Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee who has promised his “presidential” side would appear come general election season, has, if anything, intensified his divisive rhetoric. He has doubled down on his controversial remarks from the primary campaign, and rebuffed advice from Republican statesmen who urged him to cultivate a more diplomatic image.

The popular narrative is that Trump’s true backers hardly care how “presidential” he acts, and if anything, they appreciate his bluster and perpetual flame fanning, as these behaviors affirm his outsider status. But what about voters who are on the fence about who to vote for in the coming general contest? What about those who are open to Trump, but only if he proves he can be a unifier, if he shifts his tone? How will they feel about the fact that Trump questioned a federal judge’s neutrality due to the judge “being Mexican” (he’s not–he was born in Indiana) last week and offered a similar analysis of Muslim judges over the weekend? He has made no efforts–at least in public appearances–to act the part of stately negotiator.

Rank and file Republicans–as well as members at the top of the party–have publicly rebuked Trump’s refusal to polish his speech and act like the part he is auditioning for.

“This is no longer the primaries. He’s no longer an interesting contender. He is now the potential leader of the United States and he’s got to move his game up to the level of being a potential leader,” Newt Gingrich said on “Fox News Sunday.” On Monday, Trump called Gingrich’s comments “inappropriate.”

“I think that he’s going to have to change,” said Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) on ABC’s “This Week.” Corker and Gingrich have both been mentioned as potential running mates for Trump. 

Behind the scenes, through closed door meetings when cameras are not rolling and the public is not watching, Trump has made some strides to unite his party. Most recently, after weeks of deliberation, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, endorsed Trump, albeit more as a vote for the Republican party than the man leading the way. But in the eye of the public, where images are shaped, absorbed, and chiseled into the 24-hour news cycle, Trump has shown little effort to craft his image to appeal to a wider audience.

At a campaign rally in California on Friday, Trump sought to validate his support among blacks by singling out a man in the crowd. “Look at my African-American over here,” Trump said. That man, Gregory Cheadle, was not offended by the remark, even though he is not a Trump supporter, but an undecided voter who was there because “I have an open mind.” But these are questions for the rest of America, voters who receive his image through television appearances and soundbites–how will they perceive such episodes, and how might that affirm or alter their opinions of him?

Last week, at a news conference at the shimmering Trump Tower in New York, Trump essentially answered the question of how he intends to push forward through the summer and into the fall: “I’m not changing.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As General Election Nears, Trump’s “Presidential Side” Still Nowhere To Be Seen appeared first on Law Street.

A Georgia man on death row, Tyrone Foster, may get a second chance after the Supreme Court weighed in on the evidence of racial bias found in his jury trial. SCOTUS’s decision overturned the Georgia Supreme Court ruling, and will most likely lead to a new trial for Foster–29 years after he was first sentenced to death.

Foster, a black man charged with the rape and murder of an elderly white woman, Queen Madge White, was tried by an all-white jury. Moreover, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the prosecutors wanted it that way–they struck black jurors for reasons that appeared to be racially motivated. For example, in the notes that the prosecutors took during jury selection, they marked black potential jurors with a “b.” According to the LA Times, one black juror was excluded because the prosecutor said that “his son was convicted of ‘basically the same thing’ as the defendant, who was charged with rape and murder. In fact, the man’s son had been given a suspended sentence five years earlier for stealing hubcaps from a car.” Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the decision, wrote that “the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.”

A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, made it clear that it’s up to judges to watch over prosecutors when it comes to jury selection, and probe their choices if anything seems amiss. But that process does rely on judges to actually follow through–and in Foster’s case, the judges accepted the prosecutors’ reasoning for why certain jurors were selected and others weren’t.

But Foster’s case is also somewhat rare, in that the defendant’s lawyers were actually able to prove that there was racial motivation in the jury selection. Stephen Bright of the Southern Center of Human Rights, who was Foster’s lead lawyer, pointed out:

This discrimination became apparent only because we obtained the prosecution’s notes which revealed their intent to discriminate. Usually that does not happen. The practice of discriminating in striking juries continues in courtrooms across the country. Usually courts ignore patterns of race discrimination and accept false reasons for the strikes.

Foster’s case will now be reevaluated–and while it’s not ensured he’ll receive a new trial, it certainly seems like the most likely possibility.

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 SCOTUS Weighs in on Black Man Sentenced to Death by All-White Jury appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

People are Pissed at Facebook Over Supposed Suppression of Conservative News

You know that trending news section on Facebook? It’s on the top right side of your feed and highlights the breaking news each day. Well former Facebook workers are now claiming that they were told to “artifically manipulate” what shows up in the trending news feature, with a favoritism given to more liberal news. They also claim that they were told to blacklist conservative sites and sources. But Facebook is hardcore denying that anything of the sort ever happened, and ironically, Facebook’s “trending news controversy” is trending on Facebook right now.

Facebook Says It’s Taking News Bias Allegations “Very Seriously” https://t.co/wnad5QbNi3 pic.twitter.com/cdggzpeQuP

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 10, 2016

Samantha Bee Says “Bye, Bye” to Ted Cruz

Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” had a lot of fun with Ted Cruz’s presidential run. But now that Cruz has officially dropped out, the show needed to bid goodbye to its favorite punching bag. And in true Samantha Bee fashion, she said that goodbye with quite a fantastic and hilarious sendoff.

Carry on, Bee. We can’t wait to see what you do with the rest of this crazy election cycle.

West Point Women in Trouble

16 female, black cadets at West Point under scrutiny for photo with clenched fists in the air. https://t.co/mOcL32p5bL

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 9, 2016

Sixteen African-American women graduating from West Point are in hot water over a photo that features them raising their fists. The school is investigating the photo, and comparisons are being made to the girls’ actions and the Black Lives Matter movement. While that doesn’t seem like a big deal, West Point expressly forbids expressing political opinions while representing the school. But the women claim that their gestures were just celebratory. So who’s right? We’ll have to see if the school ends up disciplining the students but people on both sides of the debate are pretty mad.

North Carolina v. The DOJ: All Hell Breaks Loose

North Carolina’s bathroom bill has royally pissed off the DOJ, and now both sides are suing each other. It all started when the DOJ gave NC Governor Pat McCrory until yesterday to begin to remedy the new anti-LGBT policies, which the DOJ believes to be discriminatory. McCrory asked for more time, and when he was refused, sued the DOJ. Now the DOJ has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the state. Check out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s epically badass speech on the subject:

Jon Stewart Calls Donald Trump a “Man-Baby”

Jon Stewart may be retired from the “Daily Show” but that doesn’t mean he’s done going with his scathing social commentary. On David Axelrod’s CNN podcast Stewart said:

He’s a man baby. He has the physical countenance of a man and a baby’s temperament and hands. … (Vanity Fair editor) Graydon Carter did a joke about Donald Trump’s hands 25 years ago, he’s still not f—ing over it.

So…here’s what I’m guessing Trump’s reaction will be:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Old Navy tweeted out an ad featuring an interracial family to promote its Thank You Event.

Oh, happy day! Our #ThankYouEvent is finally here. Take 30% off your entire purchase: https://t.co/nGQ9Pji1pN pic.twitter.com/vq4mIczm6A

— Old Navy Official (@OldNavy) April 29, 2016

The ad quickly drew fire from racist trolls who discussed plans to boycott the franchise while criticizing the company for promoting “miscegenation.”

Miscegenation, for those of you scratching your head, is an archaic term defined as the marriage and/or procreation of people considered to be of different racial types.

Many of the racist tweets have since been deleted, however, Jezebel managed to acquire several screenshots before they could be taken down.

The twitter user @RousetheMasses tweeted, “Absolutely disgusting. What’s next? Gender neutral bathrooms? Pedophilia acceptance propaganda?! Never shopping here again.”

She was joined by the user @CulturalCombat who wrote, ” I will never step into an @OldNavy store again. This miscegenation junk is rammed down our throats from every direction.”

The user @marylovefreedom also accused the ad of having a hand in “white genocide,” a theory that alleges immigration, integration, interracial marriages, low fertility rates and abortion in predominantly white countries is a conspiracy to deliberately cause white people to go extinct (even though she mistakingly tagged the post #WhiteGeocide.)

Clearly Old Navy’s message struck a nerve. The retailer, which typically receives likes and retweets in the 1-100 range, earned a huge boost in impressions after publishing the post.

Despite the hate, the overwhelming majority of responders supported Old Navy’s decision to portray a mixed race family in its ads. Several interracial couples and families began thanking the company by sharing photos of themselves and tagging the posts with the hashtag #LoveWins.

Hey @OldNavy, my family and I thank you for the diversity in this ad! #LoveWins, no matter the color pic.twitter.com/TjgYUPMGu4

— KHARY PENEBAKER (@kharyp) May 1, 2016

.@kharyp @OldNavy Thank You Old Navy! Interracial families are beautiful and we appreciate the representation! pic.twitter.com/kVNuGHfAB9

— Noelle Devoe (@Noelle_CD) May 2, 2016

.@OldNavy Props on this ad! My family and I appreciate it. #RepresentationMatters pic.twitter.com/ZXQ8YbT0QS

— Austin Null (@thenivenulls) May 2, 2016

Thank you @OldNavy for finally representing us #thankyouevent #oldnavy pic.twitter.com/x1d1TAifOY

— Chris Blackburn (@photoblackburn) May 2, 2016

Thank you @OldNavy for featuring interracial families in your ads! #oldnavy #LoveWins pic.twitter.com/o7oMQErZPp

— Stacey Valley (@staceyvalley) May 2, 2016

Hey Old Navy, love your new ad! I don’t shop there regularly but will definitely be going this week! #lovewins pic.twitter.com/iDohUc7pmy

— Deirdre (@deirdreshavon) May 2, 2016

It’s surprising that this particular ad would drum up so much conflict, since Old Navy notably has consistently featured a diverse cast of models in its marketing.

Old Navy doesn’t seemed phased by the controversy though. Spokeswoman Debbie Felix said Monday, “We are a brand with a proud history of championing diversity and inclusion. At Old Navy, everyone is welcome.”

Alexis Evans

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

The post Old Navy Fends Off Racists After Store Features Interracial Family in Ad appeared first on Law Street.

Sit-in protests continue at Duke University, where students are enraged by the actions of some of their school administrators. The protests began last Friday afternoon when nine students occupied the second floor lobby of the Allen Building, home to the school’s administrative offices.

Why are Duke students protesting? Uniting under the hashtag #DismantleDukePlantation, this group of students is reacting to recent allegations of administrators using racial slurs. One instance of this, which is at the forefront of the movement, is the story of how Executive Vice President Tallman Trask hit a parking attendant, Shelvia Underwood, with his car and proceeded to shout a racial slur at her. Trask released an apology after the incident stating:

I want to say a word to the Duke community about my interaction with Shelvia Underwood in August 2014, which has been a subject of much recent discussion.  While the details of what happened are a matter of disagreement and subject of civil litigation, I recognize that my conduct fell short of the civility and respectful conduct each member of this community owes to every other. I express my apology to Ms. Underwood and to this community and re-commit myself to ensuring that these values are upheld for all.

His apology has received a lot of criticism, especially given the contention over whether or not Trask used racial slurs during the instance, which he denies ever doing.

If my students had an assignment to write an apology & they wrote what Trask did, I'd make them do it over #DismantleDukePlantation

— Erin Parish (@erindparish) April 4, 2016

We won't stop at the apology, we want Trask's termination! #DismantleDukePlantation #DSWS

— Sydney Roberts (@hegelsbagels) April 4, 2016

Once stories about Trask began to unfold, even more employees came forward, reporting to the Duke Chronicle about what they describe as a hostile and discriminatory work environment and leadership. According to one staff member, instances of the administration using sexist and racial slurs against employees are frequently covered up by the administration.

What are the protesters demanding? The main part of their demand is for Trask and two other administrators to be fired for their abhorrent behavior towards staff members. In addition, the protesters are pulling for an increase in the minimum wage for Duke employees from twelve to fifteen dollars an hour, double the North Carolina minimum wage of seven fifty an hour. Graduate student Bennett Carpenter was quoted saying that the biggest goal is that they “want accountability” especially because “Duke absolutely has a culture of racism, deep structural racism built into the institution.”

A couple of nights ago, the nine students protesting were given amnesty by the administration, meaning they will not be punished for their demonstration. Footage of the night shows students cheering as they learned this news:

Occupying students have been granted amnesty and will not face administrative retaliation #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/OEUGStm7jY

— Ultralima Bean (@ZoroastrianFunk) April 4, 2016

Although they aren’t facing administrative retaliation, there has been an attempt to cast this protest in a negative light by the university, as they closed the Allen Building, preventing classes from meeting and disrupting usual business hours. While the school claims this closure was to continue the open dialogue with the students and for safety purposes, the students protesting claim that there was no reason to shut down the school building, other than to cast the protest in a negative light.

Duke released a statement on Monday claiming the following:

The negotiations have continued today (Monday), and it has become clear that reaching agreement on all the remaining demands will require far more extensive conversation, likely to include other members of the Duke community. Closing the Allen Building while these negotiations go on has presented a significant disruption to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and cannot continue indefinitely.

Today, it was announced that the students rejected an offer of concessions from the administration that would improve some of the contested working conditions.

It is unclear how long this protest will go on, but, based on the continued uproar on Twitter, it looks like the protestors are serious about getting what they came for, and they are not alone in their goals on campus.

It's Day 6 on our way to #DismantleDukePlantation. We have been occupying Allen for over 100 hours. We shall not be moved. We will win.

— anastasia kārkliņa (@brdngresistance) April 6, 2016

#faculty forward shows support for #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/IDULTwK0Xq

— Ashley D. Farmer (@drashleyfarmer) April 3, 2016

standing in solidarity with Duke students and workers occupying the Allen building! #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/uhO5aSArWl

— Joe Stapleton (@joe_stapes) April 3, 2016

Here’s to hoping everything ends as peacefully as possible. Even if they don’t receive all of their specific demands, the students at Duke University have drawn national attention to an issue that likely affects universities all across America. They are bringing the country one step closer to #DismantlingtheDukePlantation and promoting equality for all.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #DismantleDukePlantation: Duke Student Protests Continue appeared first on Law Street.

“Hamilton,” the smash-hit Broadway musical that has drawn universal praise for its diverse casting, may be in hot water over the thing that made it so special to begin with. CBS2 reports that the latest casting notice has drawn ire from a New York attorney over the fact that it specifically requests “non-white men and women” to audition for roles.

Randolph McLaughlin, a civil rights attorney, claims that the casting notice is in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. The law declares it unlawful for any advertisement or publication relating to employment to express “directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination” as to “race, creed, color,” among other characteristics.

While a press representative told CBS2 reporters that the ad was approved by Actor’s Equity, the Broadway union, an Actor’s Equity spokeswoman told Fortune that the ad was not in compliance with its standards and was not approved by the union.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, the show’s creator and star, has been outspoken in the past about the deliberate intention to cast minorities in these roles. He told The Hollywood Reporter:

In ‘Hamilton,’ we’re telling the stories of old, dead white men but we’re using actors of color, and that makes the story more immediate and more accessible to a contemporary audience. You don’t distance the audience by putting an actor of color in a role that you would think of as default Caucasian. No, you excite people and you draw them in.

A publicist for the show later provided a statement to Fortune that emphasized that the show did not break any laws through this posting. He said:

 The producers of Hamilton regret the confusion that’s arisen from the recent posting of an open call casting notice for the show. It is essential to the storytelling of Hamilton that the principal roles—which were written for non-white characters (excepting King George)—be performed by non-white actors. This adheres to the accepted practice that certain characteristics in certain roles constitute a ‘bona fide occupational qualification’ that is legal.

So, there you have it: it looks like “Hamilton” fans need not be too concerned. And considering the intense demand for tickets (seriously…good luck getting tickets before 2018) it is doubtful that the show’s future will be affected by this controversy. With fans like President Obama, Beyonce, and practically any other famous person you could think of, it seems like the “Hamilton” train isn’t slowing down anytime soon.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Hamilton” Accused of Reverse Racism with Casting Call appeared first on Law Street.

Tis the season of funny campaign videos and delightful candidate gifs as everyone gears up for the elections this November. As usual, “Saturday Night Live” has been churning out some good content. Whether it was the Bernie Sanders and Larry David sketches from a few weeks ago, or this week’s nominee-centered cold open, “SNL” always seems to be right on target with its narrowly tailored critiques of the presidential candidates.

This weekend’s funniest video was a satirical political advertisement about people supporting Donald Trump and it was spectacular; definitely worth the one minute and 25 seconds of your life.

The comedic genius of this video is that you can’t even tell if it’s a joke or not until half way in. What starts as a pretty typical campaign video quickly spirals into a real statement on Donald Trump’s racist views and attitudes. You see a man in his office, a woman ironing, another man painting, and a man carrying some wood–seems normal, right? About halfway in, the characters are revealed to be nazi sympathizers, KKK affiliates, and white supremacists–all very topical characters given some of Trump’s recent political moves.

First off, Trump has been accused of being similar to Hitler this week after videos from one of his rallies surfaced in which he had everyone pledging to vote for him with salutes that almost mimicked Nazi Germany.

Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary. pic.twitter.com/EVenRilJrV

— Jenna Johnson (@wpjenna) March 5, 2016

Obviously nobody is quite contending that Trump would actually be like Hitler, but this rally certainly doesn’t make anyone feel too comfortable either.

The second “SNL” characters, the KKK affiliates, were also timely, as it has been about a week since Trump refused to publicly denounce the head of the KKK, David Duke. Trump had a lot of excuses for why he wouldn’t denounce the group and seemed to talk around the issue when asked directly about why he refused to disavow Duke. That seems suspicious at best, Trump.

Finally, the white supremacist painter. Along with Trump’s KKK battle this week, there were three white supremacist leaders who have joined together to create a group to support Trump. Although Trump has not commissioned this group or asked for their help, the implicit connection between this white “advocacy” group and Trump’s policies on banning muslim immigration and building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. is impossible to ignore. Jared Taylor, one of the white supremacists supporting Trump, claims that because white people feel more comfortable in schools and neighborhoods with other white people:

When Donald Trump talks about sending out all the illegals, building a wall and a moratorium on Islamic immigration, that’s very appealing to a lot of ordinary white people.

“SNL‘s” video was outright and unapologetic in calling Donald Trump out on the racist and bigoted policies he has been promoting nationwide during his campaign. That kind of direct hit may be just what the country needs to start realizing that some of Trump’s policies aren’t so rosy after all–they’re hateful. When it comes down to it, with some of the things Trump has been saying about immigrants and diversity in our country, an ad like the one “SNL” made may be an almost accurate reflection of his campaign. Are we really going to rally behind Donald Trump, America? Instead, let’s fight for diversity, equality, and liberty and put our faith in someone who can actually make America great.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post “Saturday Night Live” Calls Out Donald Trump’s Racism appeared first on Law Street.

A legal feud between Hulk Hogan and the Gawker media empire is  finally making its way to court. Hogan filed a $100 million defamation suit against Gawker back in 2012 after the site published a minute and 41-second long chunk of the sex tape. That suit is now making its way to trial–jury selection just began in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The sex tape featured Hogan–whose legal name is actually Terry Bollea–and Heather Cole, who at the time was the wife of radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. The fact that Clem and Hogan used to be good friends put a whole new twisted spin on the entire thing. The existence of the tape was actually not a secret, given that multiple news sites referenced it and some published stills from it. But Gawker, which received the video anonymously in 2012, was the first to actually publish a segment of it. The article was entitled, with true Gawker panache “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed Is Not Safe for Work but Watch It Anyway.”

Hogan is claiming that his privacy was violated because of the sex tape leak, is suing the media company for defamation, and accused Gawker’s lawyers of releasing confidential comments from the video to the media. While the idea that the most salacious part of a sex video could be the things said on it sounds kind of insane, it’s not–the comments released were racist remarks about his daughter Brooke Hogan dating a black man. The ensuing backlash eventually led to WWE severing ties with one of its biggest stars. Hogan’s lawyers called Gawker’s actions “outrageous, irresponsible, and despicable.”

Gawker’s response has been mostly focused on First Amendment rights, and the media company says that because Hogan has been open about his sex life in the past, the video was fair game. Gawker founder Nick Denton said last summer: “I care about the readers having the right to know both sides of a story. Readers should also have the right to get the story behind the celebrity story.”

Essentially, this entire case boils down to questions about how much privacy celebrities can expect–especially in the age of the internet and easily-shareable recordings. A jury in St. Petersburg will have to decide the answer to those questions 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 Hulk Hogan and Gawker go to Court Over Leaked Sex Tape appeared first on Law Street.

The “Trial of The Century” is beginning—but to put on the show, you need an audience. That’s the role of jury selection—a process of making logical decisions about illogical things. It’s a racist, sexist, and biased part of the trial because the lawyers have to anticipate the racism, sexism, and biases of potential jurors. As a lawyer, you want to include jurors who are sympathetic to your narrative, considering factors like their sex, race, and marital status. Episode four of “American Crime Story” fills the 12 front-row seats for the nationwide event.

Jury Selection

The jury analysts contacted in O. J. Simpson’s case give simple advice: listen to the data rather than your own ethics. For someone like Marcia Clark, who strives to be racially fair and unprejudiced in the workplace, this advice may be hard to take to heart. Ordinarily, a woman being told to soften her appearance by dressing more femininely and changing her haircut would reek of workplace sexism. But in this case, it may be the only way Clark can get the jury on her side. As long as sexism and racism exist, the law will have to react to these very real prejudices.

“American Crime Story” paints Marcia Clark’s underestimation of race and its influence on the trail as her biggest mistake. She ignores what the focus group tells her about her poor rapport with black women because she has had great experiences with black-majority juries before. She’s content to allow the defense’s selection of black jurors because she sees them as logical and reasonable individuals. When her colleague accuses defense lawyers of playing the race card, our attention shifts its focus. At that point, the episode’s other central theme comes to a head—just who is in charge of O.J. Simpson’s defense team?

A Dream Team Divided

The dream team that we watched assemble in the previous episode is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. They’re still a supergroup a famous and successful lawyers, but there’s only room for so many big personalities at the defense table. There are many rational reasons to debate whether Johnny Cochran or Robert Shapiro should be the lead attorney. Shapiro started with the case, knows O.J. personally, and has invested significant effort, time, and money into his strategy. He’s also known as a settler, and at one point proposes that O.J. adjust his charges to manslaughter and hope for a lighter sentence.

On the other hand, we have Johnnie Cochran who is the total opposite of a settler. He comes alive in the courtroom, persuading juries and presenting the facts like no one else can. He’s a showboat, but prosecutors are right to be scared of his dedication and savvy. The decision between these two attorneys didn’t exclusively come down consideration of their talent. In large part, Cochran was chosen because he is black and will be able to relate better to the jury.

The police department begins to bend to the same pressure when District Attorney Garcetti suggest that they spice up their lineup with a black attorney as well. Marcia Clark shows both heart and cunning when she chooses this as the opportunity to recognize Christopher Darden, who had previously been overlooked for his effort.

Showing Some Heart

Because so much of this episode, and the show in general, is centered on Marcia Clark’s humanity working against her, it’s easy to miss that the show has some heart. In Murphy’s previous work, such as the early seasons of “Glee,” the show excelled when exploring an emotion plainly and honestly with no sense of bombast or pandering. These moments were rare but touching. In this episode of “American Crime Story,” we explore the tragedy of a double homicide without the lens of irony. Meeting the father of Ronald Lyle Goldman and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

Ronald Lyle Goldman’s father at his funeral and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

The good news is the Kardashian children did not make an appearance in Tuesday’s episode. The bad news is that the material that replaced it was still over-steeped in irony and cheekiness. Episode four chronicles Faye Resnick’s “authorship” of a tell-all Nichole Brown Simpson biography in pure Ryan Murphy fashion. Actress Connie Britton hamming up her chance to play the “bad girl” so much that the scene can’t be deemed kosher. Resnick’s book did play a part in the voir dire process, but there are dense sections of the episode in which Britton’s monologs about Nicole and O. J.’s intimate past. Murphy can’t resist giving you the saucy details and then reminding you over and over how saucy they are.

Episode four of “American Crime Story” walks the fine line between what is ethical and what is effective. Clark’s team of prosecutors are focused on doing what is right while Simpson’s defense team is focused on whatever method will actually work. I suspect we’ll see the prosecutors fall further and further from their position on the moral high ground, as they find themselves unable to compete with their opposition’s cutthroat willingness to do whatever it takes to win. We already know how this ends—the ‘bad guys’ win. And we’re beginning to see the prosecution’s confidence chipping away.

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” Wants A Good Jury, Not A Fair One appeared first on Law Street.

There is a mixture of excitement and dread that permeates the air around the holidays. Excitement because, for most, we get a few badly-needed days off, we can expect at least a few gifts, and we get to talk to those friends and family who we haven’t seen in months. Of course, the dread comes in because we have to scrape together enough funds to return the favor of those gifts, and we have to talk to those friends and family who we haven’t seen in months.

Different generations have different fears about what they’ll run into on the long, wintry visit home. For high school and college students, it’s the questions from older relatives like, “Do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend/horde of cats?” For professionals, it’s the questions from younger and older relatives like, “Do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend/horde of cats?”

And for many, we are not looking forward to having the inevitable discussions about politics with the set-in-their-ways relatives whose views differ so completely from ours.

While we’d like life to be like the Thanksgiving SNL skit where all disputes are solved by playing a little Adele, sadly the the melancholy tones of “Hello” will not stop your aunt or your grandfather or your young cousin who doesn’t know any better from questioning your political views, or even your way of life.

To help you out, here is a list of issues that might come up, and how you can keep from pulling your hair out. Deep breaths, you can get through this. Though, breaking out into song may be necessary.

Islamophobia

A hot-button topic on the campaign trail and in the news is, of course, the Syrian refugee crisis and its connection to ISIS. These might be subjects you would like to avoid with your grandmother who says vaguely racist things on a daily basis, but what if they come up?

First and foremost, remain calm. This goes for any touchy conversation. It is probably the easiest to get angry with our own family members, but nobody ever changed their opinions after being yelled at to stop their racist bullshit.

Facts are your friend, in this case, so point out the facts. There are millions of U.S. residents who identify as Muslim, but there isn’t an exact number because census data doesn’t record religious affiliations. Do you know why? Because U.S. citizens are supposed to be free from religious persecution. “Supposed to be” being the key phrase, here. Furthermore, ISIS wants the western world to be afraid of Muslims, and it wants people to misunderstand Islam so the Muslim population will subscribe to ISIS’ extremist views. Luckily, despite misconceptions perpetrated by conservatives and the media, the millions of Muslims who live, work and protect America are not extremists.

Sexism

It is a truth universally acknowledged that men and women deal with societal expectations based on gender. The stereotypical “having it all” for girls means finding a husband, landing a great job, and having a few children. For guys, it means making enough money to easily and happily support their spouse and 2.5 children. Maybe throw in a golden retriever for bonus points.

But the reality is that not everyone wants what society expects. While your parents and grandparents may have fit into that model, an exceeding number of young professionals do not. Maybe you’re a woman who does not want marriage or children, but has instead decided to focus on her career. Maybe you’re a man who has decided to be a stay-at-home dad while your common-law wife works a 9-to-5. Whatever your life choices, the best thing you can do when you receive passive aggressive comments about them is not to apologize.

You don’t need to make excuses or explain your way of life. When someone says, “your biological clock is ticking” or “you’d better settle down with a man before all the good ones are taken!” call out those comments for what they are: judgmental and outdated. Nobody needs to conform to sexist gender roles to feel fulfilled. Do what makes you happy and don’t say sorry. *Cues happy dancing*

Homophobia

Don’t forget to pack your rainbow flag before heading home so you can wave it in the faces of all your homophobic relatives! It is sure to be both entertaining and effective.

In all seriousness, most peoples’ homophobia stems from religious beliefs. So, if anyone complains about the historical decision to legalize same-sex marriage, you can ask them for a reason LGBT people should not be allowed to marry–outside of religious excuses. If they cannot give any legitimate reasons (and let’s face it, there really aren’t any), just remind them that we are a nation of many religions, and not everyone agrees with Christian ideals. Then wave aforementioned rainbow flag.

“Those damn millennials!”

If you are one of the thousands of 20-somethings who suffer from student loan debt, you’ve heard yourself referred to as an “ungrateful millennial” more than once this year. The generations that came before worked their way through college, after all, so why are we complaining about paying back that money? Why do we all want free handouts?

You can remind whichever relative brings it up that, in 1979, the minimum wage was $2.90 and students could easily pay for a year of school (public schools were around the $3,000 price tag) by working a job over the summer. Today’s minimum wage is $7.25, and that $4.35 bump per hour doesn’t really cover the difference in tuition costs, which now leave students with an average of $30,000 in debt. And that’s just undergrad.

Show them the math, and then tell them about how much you have to pay back on your loans every month. That amount, plus rent, insurance bills, and various other expenses like car loans and gas money, don’t leave a lot of expendable income for young graduates trying to break into their respective industry. And that lack of money probably has something to do with many young people putting off other big ticket items in their lives: settling down, buying a house, having kids, etc.

Remember, the greatest tools in your arsenal are facts and a calm demeanor. Keep an open mind, and if all else fails, stop talking and stuff your face with sugar cookies.

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 How to Deal With Family and Politics During the Holidays appeared first on Law Street.

On December 4, Spike Lee’s much debated new film “Chi-Raq” hit theaters. Some viewers approached the trailer and storyline with trepidation in the wake of its release, as the movie satirically approaches the issue of gun violence in Chicago. After an innocent seven-year-old girl dies in crossfire between the Spartans gang, led by rapper Chi-Raq (Nick Cannon), and rival Trojans gang, led by Cyclops (Wesley Snipes), Lysistrata (Teyonnah Paris), Chi-Raq’s girlfriend, leads a sex strike. The plot is loosely based off the ancient Greek comedy “Lysistrata,” by Aristophanes. Dolmedes (Samuel L. Jackson), the narrator of the film, alludes to such a connection in the opening scene.

Initially, I found the idea of a satirical film about gun violence in Chicago misguided and disconcerting, especially considering the disheartening reality of tragic loss multiple Chicagoans endure everyday due to guns. The name of the film itself references a Chicago nickname dubbed several years ago, its origins unknown, which compares the homicides in Chicago to the death of Americans in the Iraq War. The movie begins with the statistic: between 2003-2011 American deaths totaled 4,424, while homicides in Chicago from 2001-2015 topped 7,356. This year alone there have been 2,221 shootings in Chicago, and police have confiscated 6,521 illegal guns.

Some of the consistently serious tones of the movie revolve around Irene (Jennifer Hudson) the mother of the seven-year-old girl killed. No one admits to the killing, and witnesses neglect to come forth about it. The painstaking silence is strikingly similar to the case of Tyshawn Lee–a nine-year-old boy lured into an alley and killed on November 7th in Chicago in gang retaliation against his father. Not until November 27th did police take Corey Morgan into custody and charge him with first degree murder.

“Chi-raq’s” fictional storyline blatantly mixed with reality during a powerful scene when Lysistrata and her sex strike supporters shouted the names of victims Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, and Tamir Rice, among other names. But missing from the list was Laquan McDonald who, sadly, actually might have made the movie had Chicago Police not withheld footage of his shooting for over a year.

“Chi-Raq” could not come at a more relevant time. Yet the lag in political action against gun violence almost ensures that any moment would be appropriate for “Chi-Raq.” While politicians discuss stricter gun regulations yet again on account of the tragedy in San Bernardino someone will lose a son, daughter, brother, or sister to a gun. However, terrorism or assault rifles will not necessarily be the blame for these deaths. Instead, Lee brings attention to the realities of gun violence not always discussed after mass shootings.

Some Chicagoans may dislike “Chi-Raq” for its failure to depict the lived reality of the South Side of Chicago in a genuine form, but it is not meant to be absolutely true to life. Kevin Willmont and Lee poetically infuse insightful criticism of the politics of gun regulations, the systemic oppression of the black community, and the impact of gang violence. The satirical foundation of the plot might not appeal to everyone and the movie has its issues, but the serious moments constantly remind viewers of the real-life victims. Now the only thing I find disconcerting about the film is its likeness to the front page news: how long will the same tragedies continue to happen until things change?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chi-Raq: Not Just Satire appeared first on Law Street.

A non-profit in Brazil has taken a new approach to dealing with racist trolls on Facebook–confronting them with billboards in their own neighborhoods. The campaign is called “Virtual Racism, Real Consequences,” and was started by the Criola group, a non-profit that works to defend the civil rights of black women in Brazil. The group has started taking out billboards in the neighborhoods of Facebook and Twitter users who make racist comments, and plastering those comments on the billboards. While they blur out the face and name of the offender, the group is hoping that directly confronting the trolls with their own comments will hit close to home–pun intended.

billboards in Brazil place tweets in tweeters neighbourhood https://t.co/uyBWncey68 ‘ #advertising #digital pic.twitter.com/RKQfy6XR8C

— Jelle Deconinck (@DeconinckJelle) November 30, 2015

Virtual racism, real consequences. We’re liking this Brazilian campaign https://t.co/nM8XS22Sps#marketing4goodpic.twitter.com/3jHyESaox4

— Marketing Society (@TheMarketingSoc) November 30, 2015

The Criola group began the project this summer, using the geotags that often accompany social media posts to figure out where the racist commenters live. Then, it rents billboards near where the commenters live, and then display the comments on them. Although it blurs out the profiles of the people who make the comments, the campaign attempts to “educate” the offenders as well as passersby about the power of words. The group hopes that people will think twice about posting things online that could be hurtful to others.

The project was inspired by the racist comments that surfaced online after Maria Júlia Coutinho, the first black female meteorologist on Brazilian primetime TV, corrected another anchor on air. She received a lot of online racist backlash. Reading those comments inspired the Criola group to act.

Jurema Werneck, the Criola group’s founder, explained to BBC:

Those people [who post abuse online] think they can sit in the comfort of their homes and do whatever they want on the internet. We don’t let that happen. They can’t hide from us, we will find them.

While the campaign has been active in Brazil since this summer, it began receiving particular international press coverage this week. So, if you’re in Brazil, be careful about what you say online. It could come back to confront you head on.

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 Brazilian Non-Profit Criola Group Confronts Racist Social Media Users with Billboards appeared first on Law Street.

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump recently tweeted out some blatantly false statistics about murder in the United States. The tweet, which featured a graphic breaking down “USA Crime Statistics ~ 2015,” not only gets the facts about crime wrong but does so in a way that is pretty clearly racist.

Here’s the tweet:

“@SeanSean252: @WayneDupreeShow @Rockprincess818 @CheriJacobus pic.twitter.com/5GUwhhtvyN“

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2015

The graphic claims that the statistics are from the “Crime Statistics Bureau – San Francisco,” which does not actually exist. The San Francisco Police Department does have a Crime Analysis Unit that releases crime statistics, but it doesn’t publish information about the racial makeup of victims and offenders. For those statistics, we have to rely on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), which is a comprehensive report of offenses known to law enforcement in cities, states, and regions across the United States. The UCR is the most authoritative source for crime statistics in the United States–Law Street uses it to rank the Safest and Most Dangerous Cities and States in America.

According to the Crime in the United States report for 2014, the most recent statistics available, Trump’s numbers are clearly off. In total, 5,472 black and white Americans were murdered in cases where the race of both the victim and the offender are known. Here’s the breakdown according to the report’s supplementary homicide table:

Blacks killed by whites: 7.6 percent

Whites killed by blacks: 14.8 percent

Whites killed by whites: 82.4 percent

Blacks killed by blacks: 90 percent

The most blatant inaccuracy in Trump’s statistics is his claim that 81 percent of white victims were killed by a black offender. In reality, that number is about 15 percent, and the number of black victims killed by white offenders is nearly four times higher than Trump’s statistics claim.

Generally speaking, most murders involve a victim and offender of the same race–so no, there is not a massive inequality in the number of white people killed by black people. It is also important to note that when you look at cases where the relationship between the victim and the offender is known, most murder victims already know their assailant–meaning that murder by a stranger is much less likely than murder by a victim’s friend, family member, or acquaintance.

Trump’s tweet also comes after a notably crude statement that he made a couple days earlier. After a protestor interrupted Trump at a rally in Alabama yelling, “black lives matter,” a fight broke out and the protestor was badly beaten. Trump was asked about the incident later and said, “maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” He made a similarly controversial statement back in August after a homeless Hispanic man was badly beaten; one of the two alleged perpetrators cited Trump as his inspiration. When asked about it, Trump simply said,

I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. But they are very passionate. I will say that.

In both cases, Trump refused to denounce what happened, all but condoning the violence.

Trump’s recent tweet isn’t the first time that he’s been called out for playing fast and loose with evidence–though it may be the first time he’s trumpeted completely fabricated numbers. When Trump announced that he was running for president he kicked off his campaign with a clearly offensive comment about Mexican immigrants. He said,

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

He later tried to back up his claim citing an article from Fusion reporting the tragic finding that as many as 80 percent of all Central American girls who try to cross the border are raped in the process. Trump decided that the article supported his previous statements and when pressed to explain the connection, he said, “someone’s doing the raping.”

Despite all of these tenuous and inaccurate claims, Trump has retained a remarkably high level of support among conservative voters. In fact, he is notoriously difficult to fact check. Even when he cites blatantly wrong statistics or does a television interview where he repeatedly makes false claims, his comments, unfortunately, have no effect on his high poll numbers. We’ll have to see if this total mischaracterization of crime data is any different.

See more from Law Street–the authoritative source for crime data: Crime in America 2016

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 Donald Trump Doesn’t Like Real Statistics So He Uses Fake Ones appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, the lower house of the Italian parliament approved a bill that will let children born in Italy to immigrant parents receive citizenship if their parents have been residents in the country for at least five years.  If this bill passes in the Italian Senate, it will undo the principle of jus sanguinis (under which citizenship is only granted to those who have Italian ancestors) that has historically prevented children of immigrants from receiving full citizenship.

As the law stands today, children of immigrants, including those born in Italy, are given the permesso di soggiorno–a temporary residency card (the same one that study abroad students and short-term contractors receive) instead of an EU passport. Children cannot even apply for Italian citizenship until they come of age at 18. The application process takes years–waiting in line, submitting the same forms over and over, and living in fear of being arrested for not having the proper documentation. While they wait for their citizenship applications, these members of the “second generation” are not allowed to travel outside of the country. If the child of an immigrant is stopped by the police and they are not carrying the correct documents, they may be deported to their “country of origin”–even if they were born in Italy. Jus sanguinis is creating a generation of disenfranchised, second-class citizens. Filippo Miraglia, vice-president of ARCI, an organization that promotes social integration, explains that:

People born in Italy to foreign parents must now wait until they are 18 years old to request citizenship and they must have lived in Italy throughout their youth, and at least one of the parents must have a long-term permit to stay in Italy, must have a job, must own their home, and have no outstanding legal issues. And even then they can be turned down for subjective reasons based on the person processing the request.

Even in the rare case that these people obtain their documents, they still face widespread discrimination that is rarely addressed in the political sphere. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the Italian government has failed to take any effective action against racist and xenophobic violence over the past several years. There are relatively few political champions working to expand immigration rights for the second generation. Both the Northern League and Forza Italia have been adamant that immigration is negatively impacting Italy and have referred to the influx of immigrants over the past several decades as an “invasion.” Silvio Berlusconi made a series of racist comments during his time in power that reveal how little much of the Italian political elite care about creating a racially integrated society.

The new bill that has passed through the House is promising but without sufficient support in the Senate, it will lose momentum and fade into oblivion without making the slightest impact. Organizations like Rete G2  and ARCI  advocate for the rights of the second generation, but they have no representatives within Parliament to argue their case. Immigrants make up about 7 percent of the Italian population, yet they are largely excluded from political participation, the only arena in which they can fight for their own citizenship and security.

Before we dismiss Italian immigration policy as draconian and outdated, consider that over two dozen other countries use jus sanguinis (sometimes referred to as leges sanguinis) to determine citizenship. American citizens take for granted that nearly all of us receive birthright citizenship, but in an age where approximately 13 percent of the American population is comprised of immigrants, we too have to pause to assess the path to citizenship. This week, after a federal court overturned President Obama’s efforts to protect five million undocumented immigrants from deportation, the President has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case during its current term. The process of getting a green card and a work permit is arduous and requires patient navigation of a complex bureaucracy, but at least our legislative branch has moved to expedite the process and incorporate more immigrants into the legal citizenry. Our citizenship application, though complex and by no means perfect, is a dream compared to the Italian process.

Donald Trump’s threat to build a wall along the Mexican border earlier this year struck many of us as ridiculous, yet the Italian government has already built just such a wall to protect their borders–they have merely done so using an inefficient bureaucracy and institutionalized racism instead of bricks and mortar.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Dangers of Jus Sanguinis: Outdated and Restrictive Immigration Policy in Italy appeared first on Law Street.

I don’t know that we need a new think piece on the controversy on Mizzou, or on the email backlash at Yale. We don’t need to publish another op-ed on the developments at Ithaca and at Clairmont McKenna. You don’t need another talking head questioning whether this will be a growing trend among college students. Counterpoints to counterpoints, unsubstantiated claims on both sides of the aisle, social media feuds–we have plenty of all of those. And we especially don’t need these things from a privileged white girl a few years out of college who has no academic background in these issues nor any connection to any of these places, and can’t possibly know what students, particularly students of color, are experiencing there.

So ironically–here’s my opinion: all of us who aren’t at Mizzou, Yale, Ithaca, or Clairmont McKenna, let’s all just shut up for a few. Seriously. Let’s take a couple of minutes and shut the hell up, put our metaphorical pens down, and listen instead. Let’s listen to the people who are there.

This isn’t to say that I don’t have my own opinions–I do. I freely share them in my personal life.  I stand #InSolidarityWithYale, #InSolidaritywithMizzou, I try my best to be an ally, with the recognition that I don’t always do as good job as I could. And I don’t pretend to know what will fix these clearly deep seated, uncomfortable, and visceral problems in American society.

But in my professional life, I’m hesitant to share these, because I can only imagine that my voice adds to that tangled mess of op-eds, thinkpieces, and social media snippets that I believe no longer make a difference.

Here’s the thing: a lot of the people who write these pieces, like me, probably have an opinion. They probably feel strongly about one side of the debate or another. But they also realize something–we as writers and journalists in this 24/7 news cycle are tasked to write about the things that people are talking about. There are trending hashtags and search engine optimization, and I’m not saying that everyone who has written their opinion about these controversies in recent days are doing so because they want to get clicks to their respective media outlets, but I’ve got to think that it is a motivating factor for at least some. And as long as we in the media can keep pushing both sides of the controversy, as long as we add to the din of voices overshadowing the students, the faculties, and the people who really matter, the less we listen.

Regardless of how you feel about the protests at Mizzou, Yale, Ithaca, Clairmont McKenna, regardless of how you feel about the way they’ve been conducted (which frankly, is none of most of our businesses), and regardless of your opinion on overall college culture–these things don’t happen by accident. Students don’t just decide to fabricate how they feel, protest, or push for change for no reason. By speaking over them–by putting the media’s voices over theirs–we perpetuate the problem of no one listening. We need to listen to them, and quiet our voices so that other people listen too. Because that’s the only way that their voices are going to be heard and allow the conversations that so desperately need to be had.

So, with all the weight of that hypocritical lecture, I’m going to shut up and listen. I hope you do the same.

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 Fellow Writers: Let’s Shut Up about Mizzou and Yale appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 11:45 am

Roughly thirty African-American football players at the University of Missouri are boycotting the team until their demand is met: the resignation of the university’s president, Tom Wolfe.

Wolfe is accused of not appropriately handling some racially-based incidents on campus, including on September 12, when the Missouri Students Association president Payton Head was the recipient of racial slurs yelled at him from a pick-up truck on campus. On October 5, the Legion of Black Collegians were harassed while practicing for a homecoming performance. On October 24, a swastika was drawn in feces in one of the dorms.

Wolfe is also accused of ignoring a group of students when they approached his car to talk about the issue during the homecoming parade, and actually allowing his driver to hit one of them with his car. The allegations from that incident are detailed in the tweet below:

If you don’t know already, here is our story. #ConcernedStudent1950pic.twitter.com/BNi8NggYV6

— JB. (@_JonathanButler) October 13, 2015

Furthermore, Wolfe allegedly met with some of the concerned students, but did not take steps to assuage the issues on campus. It’s within this context that at least thirty African-American members of the football team have said they will not continue to play unless Wolfe steps down. The plan was announced via Twitter:

We are no longer taking it. It’s time to fight. #ConcernedStudent1950#MizzouHungerStrikepic.twitter.com/mnPZBviqJF

— LBC (@MizzouLBC) November 8, 2015

The university’s athletics department has said it stands by the students.

The overall air of protest at Mizzou also made headlines earlier this week when graduate student Jonathan Butler announced that he would embark on a hunger strike with the same goal–forcing Wolfe’s resignation. The football boycott is tied to Butler’s protest, and was overall organized by a student group called Concerned Student 1950. The 1950 in the group’s title is a reference to the fact that 1950 was the first year in which African-American students were allowed to matriculate at Mizzou. Butler explained his actions, stating:

I will be embarking on an indefinite hunger strike in opposition to having Tim Wolfe as the University of Missouri system president. I will not consume any food or nutritional sustenance at the expense of my health until either Tim Wolfe is removed from office or my internal organs fail and my life is lost.

Missouri’s next game is supposed to be against Brigham Young University on November 14. What will happen at that game, and exactly how many players have explicitly joined the protest are unclear. But one thing seems certain–these Mizzou students aren’t going to back down without a fight.

Update: 11:45am 

It was announced today that President Tom Wolfe will be stepping down–he announced his resignation at a University of Missouri System Board of Curators special meeting earlier today. 

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 University of Missouri Football Players Boycott Until President Resigns appeared first on Law Street.

Google’s philanthropic arm just announced that it is giving $2.35 million to organizations fighting for racial justice, specifically in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The $2.35 million will be dispersed in the form of grants. The groups that will receive them are tackling a wide range of problems within the greater umbrella of racial equality. The Oakland Unified School District will receive a grant for $750,000 to help improve graduation rates in its schools. The Silicon Valley De-Bug group is going to receive a $600,000 grant to work with at-risk communities in San Jose and aid individuals who are going through the criminal justice system. Finally, the Ella Baker Center will receive two $500,000 grants–one to go to Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who is working on an app to report police violence. The other $500,000 dollar grant will go to Restore Oakland and will help train formerly incarcerated individuals to work in the lucrative San Francisco area restaurant industry.

The official announcement of the philanthropic efforts was at a screening of “3 ½ Minutes, 10 Bullets,” a movie about the shooting death of Jordan Davis, a young black man, in Jacksonville, Florida. Davis was shot in 2012 by a white man named Michael Dunn, who was sentenced to life without parole.

Justin Steele, Google.org’s lead in the Bay area, explained the company’s motivation to take such a public stand on such controversial and political issues, saying: “we hope to build on this work and contribute to this movement for racial justice.”

Concerns over racial equality in the context of the American justice system and interactions with police have of course been particularly public since the death of Michael Brown in the summer of 2014. But Google is also attempting to take on the inequality in the Bay Area, a serious concern after the influx of tech firms over the last few decades have brought in waves of wealth and pushed lower-income residents out of their cities and neighborhoods. Steele explained, “this is our home. We want to support social innovators striving to make the Bay Area better for everyone.”

While $3.25 million isn’t that big of a donation for a multi-billion dollar company, the fact that Google puts such a priority on giving certainly is a good thing. The cause of racial equality, while controversial, is an incredibly worthy one.

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 Google Donates Money to Fight for Racial Justice appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Houston-area mother Roni Dean Burren vented her frustration on Facebook over the wording of a passage in her son’s “World Geography” textbook. The book called African slaves in the United States “workers” and “immigrants.” Dean-Burren’s post and corresponding video have since attracted an immense amount of feedback, drawing millions of eyes on Facebook. McGraw-Hill has now responded to this outcry, concluding that the wording does not live up to the publisher’s standards.

Initially, McGraw-Hill released a statement saying that it intends to change the online version of the book immediately. Dean-Burren combatted this, arguing that most schools don’t use online versions, and the current print version if not changed will remain in libraries and classrooms for the next eight to 10 years. McGraw-Hill then issued a statement saying that it will in fact be changing the wording in the book’s next printing. The company is also offering supplements to be inserted in the current books.

There are so many issues with this wrongly worded passage. The classification of slaves as “immigrants” and “workers” not only completely diminishes the horrific nature of the malicious institution, but it incorrectly depicts the relationship between African slaves and the Europeans that had already settled in America–the very relationship that has resulted in the skewed perceptions and discrimination that African-Americans continue to struggle with today. The passage also goes into detail about the arrival of other Europeans who come to work as indentured servants “for little or no pay,” while there is very little mentioned about Africans’ status as slaves. Dean-Burren called this characterization of slavery within the passage as “erasure.” African slaves that “migrated,” as the textbook described, during the Atlantic slave trade between the 14th and 17th century, were not “workers.” They were brutally kidnapped and taken from their homes against their will, treated like animals and torn apart from their families, and brought to a foreign land as less than human. The were then physically and mentally abused and forced to do manual and degrading labor. The United States was built on the swollen and whipped backs of these slaves. To incorrectly communicate that in a textbook is a great disrespect to these slaves and the generations that have followed them.

The significance of this issue goes beyond honoring the lives of these slaves, and the generations that have followed them. Students needs to know what the world has been through in order to make informed decisions later in life. They need to know that we once lived in a world where being a person of color, or a different religion, or even being a woman, meant that you were less of a person. McGraw-Hill should be doing more to remedy this issue within this passage of its textbook–the ramifications could be a lot worse than it thinks.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post McGraw-Hill to Edit Textbook that Refers to Slaves as “Workers” appeared first on Law Street.

While many media outlets and health officials alike are hailing the end of the outbreak of Legionnaires’ desire in the South Bronx, many more are celebrating the Mayor’s signing of a new bill to prevent future outbreaks of such diseases. The piece of legislation requires (not will require: it was effective immediately) landlords to “register, inspect and clean air-conditioning cooling towers on a regular basis, as well as to certify those towers.”

However, this legislation–while important–is very late in coming. The New York Times reported that,

The city’s Health Department was slow off the mark this time. And it had advance warning. Last January, eight cases were reported at Co-op City, a housing complex in the Bronx, and traced to a cooling tower. In May, nine cases in Flushing, Queens, were tied to a cooling tower and a water system in a senior citizens’ center. Although the equipment involved in these small clusters was quickly disinfected, no concerted effort was made by the city to inspect or monitor cooling towers more broadly.

Significantly, the bacteria behind the potentially lethal disease is inhaled far and wide across the city (the bacteria itself is often not lethal) often spewed from the cooling towers usually located on the roofs of buildings that provide water for air-conditioning units. Yet, the lack of concern that the Health Department showed for the outbreaks in the Bronx last January–those in Queens were quickly addressed–mirrors the cause of the most recent outbreak that killed 12 people: environmental racism. This form of racism led to a very slow response to this latest outbreak, which spurred resistance from South Bronx residents.

The generally abysmal health conditions in the South Bronx caused by environmentally racist policies and practices created the perfect storm in the bodies of those who died in the outbreak: pre-existing health conditions such as asthma and heart disease killed these twelve people just as much as the bacteria.

So all this emphasis on the cooling towers is important. It is important that policies are changed so that these towers do not literally spew poison.

But poison is not only being spewed by cooling towers in the South Bronx. It is being spewed by corporate policies that produce obscene amounts of pollution; it is being spewed by power plants that are concentrated in the area so as not to infect predominately white neighborhoods; it is being spewed by the industrial sites that cause asthma and generally make the air unbreatheable.

Until these kinds of poison are addressed–the kinds of poison that the government and corporations directly and deliberately channel into neighborhoods of color–then the new law to “protect” people from Legionnaires’ disease will simply draw attention away from the overall failure to protect South Bronx residents from even worse, chronic epidemics.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Real Causes of the Legionnaires’ Outbreak Stem From Environmental Racism appeared first on Law Street.

Though positive changes are on the horizon for certain aspects of immigration law affecting transgender asylum seekers, the language that courts use to process transgender asylum cases extends beyond the letter of the law itself. The language with which courts deal with transgender individuals and issues can fundamentally prevent transgender asylum seekers from gaining safety in the United States.

How does the language of asylum courts impact the case law and outcomes of transgender asylum seekers?

Transgender Asylum Case Law: A Legal Overview

Asylum seekers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) face particularly strong obstacles in their application processes. Some protections have been added to immigration case law that have increased protections for LGBT asylum seekers. In 1990, lesbian women and gay men gained protection under immigration law as a “particular social group” (PDF). This means that, in a similar way to how Title IX protects women from gender-based discrimination within the United States, lesbians and gay men became a likewise “protected” group that can be afforded asylum due to homophobic discrimination and violence in their countries of origin.

The dangers of language that is not trans-inclusive are extremely high for trans individuals seeking asylum.  In 2000 and again in 2004, immigration courts recognized people that they term “gay men with female sexual identities” as a “particular social group,” therefore providing that these people can be granted asylum protections if they are persecuted for being a “gay male with female sexual identity” in their country of origin. However, courts misgender many asylum seekers when they label them as such; by refusing to acknowledge the chosen names and accurate (female) pronouns for transgender women seeking asylum, the courts only provide protection for trans women seeking asylum insofar as they are misidentified as “gay men with female sexual identities.” This invalidating language refuses to accept trans women’s status as women, and makes it very difficult for them to make it clear to the court that the violence they face in their country of origin is because of their identity. Because of this refusal to use trans-affirmative language, courts subject transgender asylum seekers to a great deal of added abuse. Sure enough, until very recently, the U.S. government locked up transgender women seeking asylum with men, leaving these women vulnerable to extreme abuse and violence. This violence mirrors the transphobic violence that asylum seekers were trying to flee.

Case Study: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS

Misgendering language in immigration courts does even more than creating an indirectly damaging environment. This language creates strong precedent for transgender individuals to lose their asylum cases because of the uncertainty that misgendering causes. Imprecise and inaccurate language in the court can create tremendous and unnecessary obstacles for advocating for transgender immigrants seeking asylum.

In the case of Hernandez-Montiel v. INS (2000), Hernandez-Montiel applied for asylum on the basis of being a “gay man with female sexual identity” who had suffered past persecution in Mexico. The BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) denied the request. Hernandez-Montiel applied for asylum at age sixteen after being raped and harassed by police, and though this testimony was found to be credible, the BIA denied the asylum application because the Immigration Judge (IJ) identified Hernandez-Montiel’s social group as “homosexual males who wish to dress as a woman [sic],” which did not at the time qualify as a particular social group.

The 9th Circuit court overturned the BIA’s judgement, finding that “gay men with female sexual identities” such as Hernandez-Montiel, comprise a particular social group for the purposes of asylum cases, and that the sexual assaults that she experienced at the hands of police officers were “on account of” her membership in that group. The 9th Circuit decision also stated that “Geovanni is not required to prove that his persecutors were motivated by his sexual orientation to the exclusion of all other possible motivations.” Therefore, the court granted the asylum petition. This ruling is significant because it establishes the above-discussed precedent that “gay men with female sexual identities” who are persecuted on the grounds of this identity are eligible for protection under U.S. immigration law.

While this may seem like an unambiguous victory for trans women, this language causes a lot of confusion for advocates of transgender asylum seekers. For example, Lambda Legal–an advocacy organization for LGBT people–identified Hernandez-Montiel in a press release as an “effeminate gay man” and, in tandem with the courts, used male pronouns to refer to Hernandez-Montiel. However, specifically transgender advocacy organizations identified Hernandez-Montiel as a trans woman.

This language-based inconsistency and inaccuracy not only places Hernandez-Montiel and others at risk for being imprisoned incorrectly while awaiting decisions, but it ensures that transgender organizations cannot properly advocate for people who are being abused in the system.

Case Study: Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft

In a similar case four years later (2004), asylum applicant Reyes-Reyes–referred to by the court by her given name, Luis–was denied entry into the United States because of the extreme misgendering and refusal to acknowledge Reyes-Reyes’s status as a woman that continually manifested in the language of the court’s proceedings. In this 9th Circuit case, Reyes-Reyes, a citizen of El Salvador, applied for asylum, withholding of removal (so that she could stay in the United States longer, without being forced back to El Salvador), and relief under CAT (the Convention Against Torture) for fear of persecution based on Reyes-Reyes’s sexuality and gender expression. The Immigration Judge denied all of these applications, and the Board of Immigration appeals upheld these denials.

Reyes-Reyes fled El Salvador as a teenager 25 years ago for fear of persecution. The court characterizes Reyes-Reyes as “a homosexual male with a female sexual identity… Although Reyes-Reyes has not undergone sex reassignment surgery, he has a characteristically female appearance, mannerisms, and gestures… He has a ‘deep female identity’ and has gone by female names such as Josephine, Linda, and Cukita.” Using inappropriate male pronouns and insisting that Reyes-Reyes is gay instead of transgender, the court acknowledged that Reyes-Reyes has a history of being violently persecuted in El Salvador, having been kidnapped, raped, and beaten “because of his sexual orientation” at age 13. Reyes-Reyes told no one for fear of further brutality, and the Immigration Judge (IJ) focused deeply on this failure to report the crimes. The IJ determined that Reyes-Reyes had not established that the government of El Salvador, or anyone acting on the government’s behalf, would want to do Reyes-Reyes harm upon return. Because of this, it was ruled that Reyes-Reyes had failed to establish past persecution for the purposes of withholding of removal. Upon appeal to the BIA, Reyes-Reyes obtained pro bono representation and presented information from human rights organizations, government, and news sources detailing El Salvador’s hostile political and cultural climate “towards male homosexuals with female identity.” This information included an affidavit from an expert on Latin American culture. The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s denials.

The 9th Circuit court remanded these decisions, but not on the grounds that the court was wrong about Reyes-Reyes’s identity. Rather, the court remanded the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions to deny asylum due to incorrectly applied burdens of proof. This means that the legal precedents of misgendering Reyes-Reyes are still firmly established, including the assertion of her being a “male homosexual with female identity.”

In this case, too, Reyes-Reyes’s identity was interpreted differently by different sources because of the transphobic language used by the court to describe this asylum applicant. The LA Times identified Reyes-Reyes as a trans man, while the advocacy organization Immigration Equality identified Hernandez-Montiel as a trans woman.

Future of Trans Asylum Cases

Despite certain positive changes in immigration law regarding transgender asylum seekers, transgender detainees are still at extreme risk for abuse and violence while being detained in the U.S. Because of the courts’ transphobic language–the refusal to acknowledge the proper names and gender pronouns of transgender applicants, insisting on calling trans women “gay men with female sexual identities”–transgender asylum applicants are placed at increased risk of being denied asylum and being exposed to extreme violence.

Resources

Primary

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000)

Additional

 Center for American Progress: The Plight of Gay and Transgender Women Seeking Asylum

Immigration Equality: Asylum Law Basics

Bitch Media: Crossing Borders: LGBT People in Immigration Detention Are Often Targets For Abuse

Advocate: Transgender Immigrants to be Detained According to Gender Identity

Fusion: Why Did the U.S. Lock Up These Women With Men?

Lambda Legal: Mexican Gay Man Seeking Asylum Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Transgender Asylum Weekly: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS

FindLaw For Legal Professionals: Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft

LA Times: Transgender Man’s Case Tests U.S. Immigration Law

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Language of Asylum Law: Obstacles for Transgender Asylum Seekers appeared first on Law Street.

I guess it’s not about numbers.

It’s more about percentages. The percentages reveal more about the problem.

The percentages are more damning.

And here, you can see the percentages — glaring in how deeply they reveal the structural racism of the criminal justice system — in animated form.

Animated to best allow for comprehension, because the depth–the scale–of the criminal justice system’s racism is truly incomprehensible.

The percentages are damning because 95 percent of elected prosecutors across the country are white.

Only one percent of the 2,400 elected prosecutors in the United States are women of color.

And most prosecutors — especially considering the extremely racist impacts of prosecutorial discretion in the criminal justice system — wield even more power than judges or cops.

(Which is terrifying. Because cops in the United States kill U.S. citizens at 70 times the rate that cops kill citizens in other economically dominant countries.)

The animation — a project by the Reflective Democracy Campaign on Who Prosecutes America — illustrates in no uncertain terms the fact that almost 80 percent of prosecutors across the country are white men. Only 31 percent of the population of the United States is white men.

(The amount of power they have? Who wouldn’t be shocked by that?)

These white male prosecutors have almost complete impunity to run the system as they will. Their decisions are “almost entirely outside of public scrutiny.”

And these decisions? These decisions that they make? These decisions include altering the jury pool so that more Black people will be killed by the state, as such:

Federal prosecutors often seek the death penalty in federal court in cases that otherwise would be tried in state jurisdictions with substantial minority populations.  Because the federal districts are much larger – they are made up of many counties – they are predominately white. Crimes that are usually prosecuted in state courts can be prosecuted in federal courts based on any “federal interest” such as a carjacking. Federal prosecutors have repeatedly sought the death penalty in New Orleans, Richmond, St. Louis and Prince Georges County, Maryland, where African Americans make up the majority of the population in the county and the jury pools. The decision to prosecute federally in these jurisdictions alters the racial makeup of the jury pools from predominantly black to predominantly white. Those same federal prosecutors seldom seek the death penalty for crimes that occur in counties with largely white populations.

These decisions include seeking life sentences for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

Life. Sentences.

That means that these decisions include sending mostly people of color to die in prison because they carried pot in their pockets, something that white people like me do daily without fear.

This animation is important. This animation is key.

Because this animation demonstrates why and how so many people of color are sentenced to death, daily, by white men.

And it’s completely legal.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Christian Senger via Flickr]

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Many Prosecutors Do YOU Think Are White? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new police chief in Ferguson, Missouri and his name is Andre Anderson. Ferguson leaders have introduced him as the city’s first African-American head of the police, because they believe he’s the right man for the very tough job.

Anderson is taking a six month leave from his Glendale, Arizona commander post to take on the new role of the city’s interim police chief. If all goes well, this is a role that could potentially become permanent by the end of his service.

Anderson told reporters his first priority would be “simply to build trust” and enhance the city’s recent efforts to get officers to develop positive relationships with people in the areas they patrol. Anderson explained this is not something the force can do on its own. He said to the residents “we cannot do this without you. I believe together, we can forge better relationships.” In addition, Anderson also plans to train his officers to guard against bias and escalation, and focus on hiring more qualified Black officers.

While the effort for a change within this department is appreciated, this does not mean the problem has been solved. Change will not come with just a new temporary police chief who is Black and has plans to hire more Black cops and work with the community. Yes, these are all steps in the right direction, but change will not come until our society, which includes police officers, respect Black lives.

After the August 9 shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, an unarmed Black teenager who died at the hands of a white Ferguson police officer, the Ferguson Police Department was suddenly under the microscope. Brown’s killing sparked a revolution in Ferguson, creating weeks of fiery protests and threw a national spotlight on the St. Louis suburb of 21,000. The protests only increased when Wilson was not indicted by a grand jury.

Darren Wilson made comments describing what he did as the “right thing to do,” because he wasn’t quite sure what Brown could be capable of. He claimed that during their scuffle, Brown was abrasive, and tried to lunge at him more than once. He also claimed that Brown told Wilson he was “too much of a p– to shoot him.” But many people question the accuracy of his story, as well as Wilson’s reasoning. Even though he claimed the outcome would have been the exact same had Brown been white, this is something many are uncertain of, as Brown was also unarmed. The controversy has continued, as the department  saw many resignations after the release of a report from the Justice Department that found a culture of racism in the police department and municipal offices. Former Police Chief Tom Jackson was among the city officials who resigned.

A large issue between police officers and minority communities is that community members fear or do not respect white police officers. If there are more Black police officers in the community, this relationship could change, but it’s not enough. This is a great step in the right direction, but that does not mean the problematic culture doesn’t still exist. There’s still a long way to go to ensure that everyone is treated fairly by the law.

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 Ferguson’s New Interim Police Chief: Step in the Right Direction, But Still Not Enough appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street, including Campus Crime rankings, celebs with JDs, and the latest controversy with Harper Lee’s new novel.

#1 Campus Crime 2015: Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates For Mid-Sized Colleges

Student safety is a high priority for all colleges and universities. While colleges and universities are typically safer than the areas that surround them, many schools face important and unique challenges. Law Street’s Campus Crime Rankings were created to serve as a comprehensive look at the safety of our college campuses, and to act as a resource for students, families, and college communities. Read full article here.

#2 Seven Celebrities You Didn’t Know Had Law Degrees

While law degrees are usually associated with stern, hardworking, white-collar professionals, there are other J.D. holding candidates who portray a different image. In fact many of us look up to these people without even knowing it, as they resemble some of today’s hottest celebrities and athletes. Read full article here.

#3 Atticus Finch Was Always Racist

This week, the white fiction world has been up in arms about Harper Lee’s portrayal of fictional, white lawyer Atticus Finch as explicitly racist in her long-awaited second book, “Go Set a Watchman.” 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.

This week, the white fiction world has been up in arms about Harper Lee’s portrayal of fictional, white lawyer Atticus Finch as explicitly racist in her long-awaited second book, “Go Set a Watchman.”

This second book shows Atticus — hero of Lee’s 1960 classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” in which he defended Tom Robinson, a Black man who was falsely accused of raping a white woman–referring to Black people as  “still [being] in their childhood as a people.” “Go Set a Watchman” also reveals that Atticus once attended a KKK meeting.

Mainstream (read: white-dominated) audiences are apparently stunned by this “new shocker.” But the thing is, Atticus’s racism really isn’t shocking at all.

“Go Set a Watchman” does not reveal anything that an anti-white supremacist reading of “To Kill a Mockingbird” wouldn’t have revealed: Atticus Finch, even when being hailed by generations of English teachers and study guides as preaching anti-racism, was always, in fact, racist.

Even the very words out of Atticus’s mouth in the 1960 publication mirror his words now: while in “Go Set a Watchman,” he calls Black people children (carrying on an infantilizing and violently imperialist legacy of rhetoric), his rhetoric is just as racist–if slightly more subtly–in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

In a passage that is widely cited as proof of Atticus’s anti-racism, he explains to Scout that “baby, it’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn’t hurt you.” He is referring, here, to being called an “n-word lover.”

It doesn’t hurt you.

So, by Atticus’s logic, Tom Robinson’s being called a rapist can’t hurt him; it just reflects badly on the people who are accusing him. Black people being called the n-word aren’t hurt, aren’t being threatened, and aren’t being violently attacked: it just reflects badly on the people who are doing the name-calling.

No, no, no, Atticus Finch.

Because Atticus trying to preach anti-racism to Scout is actually profoundly racist: to minimize the power of words–words that can lead to a lynching and that can lead to teenage Black bodies being left in the streets for hours after being murdered by white cops–is to minimize the power behind words. Because some words–like the n-word and like “n-word lover”–are backed by powerful, violent institutions of white supremacy, and this power makes these words lethal.

To ignore that in his explanation to Scout is to ignore the fact that racism is not individual. It is not personal. It is institutional, and it is deadly. His lack of understanding of this demonstrates quite clearly his casual racism–racism that may not be, granted, intentional–but this casual, colorblind-esque racism is perhaps most dangerous of all. Because we don’t recognize it. Sometimes, we even valorize it.

“To Kill a Mockingbird” is widely valorized as a “progressive’ book. And this is the larger problem with the book and with Atticus’s character and racism–Atticus was always positioned as a white savior.

Justice, in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” always had a white face.

Black people needed, in this book, to be saved by the just, progressive white man. How is it surprising, then, that in this newer iteration, Atticus is explicit about his understanding of Black people as being “in their childhood”? That belief is exactly what he acted out when he served as the white savior in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

So, intentionally or not, the character of Atticus Finch has always upheld white supremacy. Atticus Finch has always been racist.

It says more about us than it does about these books that we are so damn surprised.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Atticus Finch Was Always Racist appeared first on Law Street.

Since 1981, the number of children of incarcerated parents has increased by an extremely dramatic 80 percent. Along with the more than 50 percent increase in the number of incarcerated women–75 percent of whom are mothers–well over half of all adults incarcerated in state and federal prisons today have at least one child under the age of 18.

Though the numbers are grim, they are far from the whole story. How does mass incarceration affect children of incarcerated parents, and how have these children come together to advocate for their needs?

Consequences of Parental Incarceration for Children

Having a parent in prison can have an impact on a child’s mental health, social behavior, and educational prospects. The emotional trauma that may occur and the practical difficulties of a disrupted family life can be compounded by the social stigma that children may face as a result of having a parent in prison or jail. Children who have an incarcerated parent may experience financial hardship that results from the loss of that parent’s income. Further, some incarcerated parents face termination of parental rights because their children have been in the foster care system beyond the time allowed by law.

Unlike children of the deceased or divorced who tend to benefit from society’s familiarity with and acceptance of their loss, children of the incarcerated too often grow up and grieve under a cloud of low expectations and amidst a swirling set of assumptions that they will fail, that they will themselves resort to a life of crime or that they too will succumb to a life of drug addiction.

Children Fighting Back

1. I have the right to be kept safe and informed at the time of my parent’s arrest.
2. I have the right to be heard when decision are made about me.
3. I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent.
4. I have the right to be well cared for in my parent’s absence.
5. I have the right to speak with, see, and touch my parent.
6. I have the right to support as I struggle with my parent’s incarceration.
7. I have the right not to be judged, blamed, or labeled because of my parent’s incarceration.
8. I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent.

1. I have the right to be kept safe and informed at the time of my parent’s arrest: (1) Develop arrest protocols that support and protect children; (2) Offer children and/or their caregivers basic information about the post-arrest process.
2. I have the right to be heard when decisions are made about me: (1) Train staff at institutions whose constituency includes children of incarcerated parents to recognize and address these children’s needs and concerns; (2) Tell the truth; (3) Listen.
3. I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent: (1) Review current sentencing law in terms of its impact on children and families; (2) Turn arrest into an opportunity for family preservation; (3) Include a family impact statement in pre-sentence investigation reports.
4. I have the right to be well cared for in my parent’s absence: (1) Support children by supporting their caretakers; (2) Offer subsidized guardianship.
5. I have the right to speak with, see, and touch my parent: (1) Provide access to visiting rooms that are child-centered, non-intimidating, and conducive to bonding; (2) Consider proximity to family when siting prisons and assigning prisoners; (3) Encourage child welfare departments to facilitate contact.
6. I have the right to support as I face my parent’s incarceration: (1) Train adults who work with young people to recognize the needs and concerns of children whose parents are incarcerated; (2) Provide access to specially trained therapists, counselors, and/or mentors; (3) Save five percent for families.
7. I have the right not to be judged, blamed, or labeled because my parent is incarcerated: (1) Create opportunities for children of incarcerated parents to communicate with and support each other; (2) Create a truth fit to tell; (3) Consider differential response when a parent is arrested.
8. I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent: (1) Re-examine the Adoption and Safe Families Act; (2) Designate a family services coordinator at prisons and jails; (3) Support incarcerated parents upon reentry; (4) Focus on rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration.

Led by youth who have had a parent incarcerated, Project WHAT! raises awareness about children with incarcerated parents with the long-term goal of improving services and policies that affect these children.  WHAT! stands for We’re Here And Talking, which is exactly what the team is doing. Over seven million children have a parent on parole, probation, or incarcerated. The program employs young people who have experienced parental incarceration as the primary curriculum content developers and facilitators for trainings.

By directly employing youth in their advocacy efforts, Project WHAT! utilizes both long-term advocacy and direct-action strategies. By striving toward long-term goals–like the ones described above–while offering short-term assistance–immediately empowering youth and children through both their programming and their paid employment opportunities–Project WHAT! is a prime example of youth-led organizing across the country. Indeed, children of incarcerated parents in Michigan have also organized to open their own chapters of Project WHAT!.

So where are we now?

Children of incarcerated parents are uniquely impacted by the criminal justice system, even when they are not, themselves, incarcerated. From emotional and psychological trauma, to increased poverty, to being separated permanently from their parents without parent or child’s consent, mass incarceration devastates many of the children whose parents are incarcerated. However, coalitions of children like Project WHAT! are working to ensure that their needs are met, even if the criminal justice system is not interested in meeting them.

Resources

Osborne Association: Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Bill of Rights

Rhonda L. Rosenthal, PC: Severing the Parental Rights of Inmates

California Watch: Number of Children With Parent in Prison Growing

IndiGoGo: Project WHAT! Building a Youth-Led Movement for Prison Reform in Michigan

Community Works: Project WHAT!

San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents: From Rights to Realities

Reporting on Health: Children Who Witness Parent’s Immigration Arrest May Suffer Lifetime Health Consequences

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Children of Incarcerated Parents Fact Sheet

Youth.gov: Children of Incarcerated Parents

Justice Strategies: Children on the Outside: Voicing the Pain and Human Costs of Parental Incarceration

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Children of Incarcerated Parents: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead 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.

GOP presidential candidates are nervously returning money and double checking their finances this week. An investigation recently revealed that the leader of the white supremacist group that is said to have radicalized Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old white man who murdered nine black people during a bible study in Charleston last week, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns.

Sixty-two-year-old Earl P. Holt III is president of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a self-declared “conservative activist group” that opposes “race mixing” as a religious affront and that “vilifies blacks as an inferior race.” Holt has donated $65,000 to campaign funds in recent years, including 2016 GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Holt has provided $8,500 to Senator Cruz since 2012. Another $1,750 was given to Senator Paul’s action committee, and $1,500 was donated to Senator Santorum, who attended Sunday’s memorial service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. A spokesman for Cruz’s campaign was quick to say that the money donated by Holt would be immediately refunded. Also in hot water to return money funded by this extremist organization is Paul, who said today that he would also be foregoing the money donated by Holt. Santorum  finally denounced the funding on Monday afternoon, saying he would be donating the money to the victims’ families.

GOP candidates got cash from white nationalist cited by Charleston shooting suspect http://t.co/sLN6nNSdYV pic.twitter.com/d1Gqsdz9D4

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 22, 2015

Over the past four years, a user named Earl P. Holt III has posted racist comments on The Blaze, a conservative news outlet. On a February 2014 article, the user–who is suspected to be the same Earl P. Holt III who is funding Republican campaigns–wrote that black activists would “kill you, rape your entire family, and burn your house to the ground.” Roof echoed these chillingly racist remarks as he complained to his victims in Charleston last week, saying: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” A close associate and former director of the CofCC, Jared Taylor, was asked by Holt to handle all media inquiries relating to the Charleston massacre. When asked about the online user going by Holt’s full name, Taylor stated: “If there’s a statement that is ‘Earl P. Holt III’, he probably made it.”

On Saturday, Internet sleuths discovered that Dylann Roof had a website complete with a racist manifesto, which states that he learned about black on white crime from the CofCC website. Roof says it was the Trayvon Martin killing and his opinion that George Zimmerman did no wrong in shooting the unarmed black teen that began his obsession with “black on white violence.”

In an online statement, Holt said he was not surprised that Roof had learned about “black-on-white violent crime” from the CofCC. He stated that the Council is one of the few brave activist groups that are not afraid to “accurately and honestly” disclose “the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.” Holt said the Council of Conservative Citizens should not be held responsible for Roof’s actions just because he gained “accurate” information from the website.

Santorum has declared the statements made and sentiments held by Holt to be “unacceptable.” But isn’t it unacceptable to have your campaign financed by individuals and groups that represent the beating heart of racism? It’s easy to wonder if Cruz, Paul, and Santorum knew that their campaigns were receiving donations from a man who runs a white supremacist organization. Moreover, if the media had not exposed Holt’s status as a white supremacist, would the candidates have donated and refunded the money? Hopefully this exposure will shed light on the often amoral campaign financing process and lead to more scrutiny about where our presidential candidates are getting their money.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates in Hot Water After Receiving Donations From White Supremacist Leader appeared first on Law Street.

Sharonda Coleman-Singleton.

Reverend Clementa Pinckney.

Cynthia Hurd.

Tywanza Sanders.

Myra Thompson.

Ethel Lee Lance.

Reverend Daniel L. Simmons.

Reverend Depayne Middleton-Doctor.

Susie Jackson.

So, fellow white folks. Know any of these names? Any of these lives?

No?

But we all know the name in the headline.

Stop saying his name. Stop sharing his manifesto. Infamy was one of his goals. #Charleston #DontSayHisName

— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) June 20, 2015

That’s why you clicked on this post, right? Outraged, right, because we would never pick up a gun and murder Black people, in a church for crying out loud, so how can we possibly all be this killer kid?

But we don’t need a gun and we don’t need a confederate flag to be the Charleston shooter.

Because the murderer in Charleston was, yes, an individual young person, but the murderer was also all of us white folk.

It’s all of us who tweeted #notallwhitepeople after the shooting but criticized Black people in Baltimore for rising against state violence.

We know #NotAllWhitePeople are racist; we're attacking a white supremacist system, so stop whining. pic.twitter.com/Y5wR0ebSVv

— • J a y n a • (@jxchristine_) June 18, 2015

It’s all of us who let him say that he slaughtered Black people to “protect” white women, and we still remained on the proverbial sidelines, letting him murder people in our name.

It’s all of us who prioritize our white tears over the lived experiences of people of color.

It’s all of us, even when we don’t remain passive in the face of state violence.

Because even when we don’t remain passive, we can travel down the street–or even run down the street–confident that we won’t get shot by cops.

Because even when we do protest against white supremacist state violence, we benefit from it.

We benefit from it, and we can do nothing to change that except, maybe, beginning to acknowledge it, and encouraging other white folk to acknowledge it, too.

Because the Charleston shooting is not an exception. This young man’s racism and racist violence are not exceptions.

Dylann Roof is not an extremist, he's the logical expression of #WhiteSupremacy & nostalgic settler-colonialism: http://t.co/Q1f822CCpG #USA

— Kamal Fizazi (@kamalfizazi) June 23, 2015

He has been honest. He has been explicit about what every single structural foundation of this country is entrenched in.

The young man who took so many lives in Charleston is simply more honest than the rest of the country. He explicitly states what all of these foundational fixtures of U.S. society implicitly yet violently impose on people in this country and across the world every day–from our slavery-defending and genocide-based Constitution; to the racist “war on drugs” that is actually a war on communities of color; to the fact that Black History Month is the only time narratives by any kind of POC are highlighted in our schools; to the microaggressions that dominate the workplace, internet, media, and just about everything else; to the environmental racism that is killing even more people of color than police violence–white supremacy.

White people — all of us, no matter how radical our politics or how intersectional our identities (my dis/abilities and queerness do not make me any less white)–materially benefit from and participate in white supremacy.

So yes, we are all Dylan Roof.

And if we don’t want to be?

Well, acknowledging our positions in a white supremacist country and turning off our white tears in favor of genuinely prioritizing those that white supremacy kills is a fine place to start.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fellow White Folks: We Are All Dylan Roof appeared first on Law Street.

America has a race problem. America has a gun problem. America has a violence problem. America has a problem with racially motivated gun violence.

A massacre occurred Wednesday at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina when nine black people were fatally shot during their weekly bible study. Twenty-one-year-old Dylann Roof confessed to shooting and killing these nine people. The massacre is being reviewed as a hate crime and was almost certainly racially motivated.

Dylann Roof has been charged with 9 counts of murder and one weapon possession charge in the #CharlestonShooting: http://t.co/l3EcsDWT1I

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 19, 2015

Several interviews with former friends of Roof have raised a concern that I simply can’t disregard. One of Roof’s friends said in an interview in response to the massacre on Wednesday:

It was a race thing because he had told me that black people was taking over the country…that he wanted it to be segregation[…]white with the white, black with the black[…]I mean he was drunk one night and he was just talking about him wanting to hurt a whole bunch of people. And whenever he was saying he was wanting to do something crazy, I just blew it off and didn’t really pay attention to him because he was intoxicated.

The fact that one of Roof’s friends didn’t think anything of his seemingly constant racial slurs, threats of violence against black people, or the plans he revealed to him about the massacre is horribly disconcerting. What Roof did is obviously not this friend’s fault. But the reality is that in 2015, a young man can get drunk and spout off plans to murder people because of their race and his friends can brush it off. They’re desensitized to racist banter, to threats of violence, to prejudice, and to xenophobia. The American society that Dylann Roof lives in brushed off and “didn’t really pay attention” to his grossly discriminatory views because, unfortunately, they aren’t uncommon.

From politicians to a young man from South Carolina, animosity toward minorities in America is a systemic, institutionalized, and far-too-accepted issue that is somehow only discussed in depth when we encounter a tragedy. I couldn’t help but notice the us-versus-them narrative present in both Roof’s remarks to the people in the church at the time of the shooting and in Donald Trump’s presidential announcement from earlier this week. It has been reported that Roof said to the victims, “I have to do it… You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” Just a few days ago, Trump made similarly racist remarks against Mexicans as he announced his candidacy:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

Both Roof and Trump use “you” collectively, grouping an entire race in Roof’s case and an entire country in Trump’s, in an attempt to justify their disgusting prejudices. Both men use rape as a tool–a justification for their hatred–even though these beliefs are completely unfounded. Roof alleged that black people are taking over the country, and Trump declared that Mexico is “killing us economically.”

Summary of #DonaldTrump's speech: "I'm white & rich and I only like other white rich people… & all Mexicans are drug dealers & thugs, bye"

— Neighborhood Queer (@MartyredWisdom) June 16, 2015

While I seriously doubt that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign speech was anywhere on Dylann Roof’s radar, the point I’m trying to make is that the roots of racism run deep in this country’s core and we overlook them far too often. Whether this problem arises out of ignorance or out of naivety I’m not quite certain, but either way, it needs to stop.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America Has a Huge Racism Problem appeared first on Law Street.

With mass incarceration under scrutiny, questions arise about alternatives to the punitive practice. One such set of alternatives–a process called restorative justice–is on the rise across the country in youth courts and schools.

Restorative justice has been practiced around the world for quite some time, but how do these dialogue-based alternatives to incarceration operate within the United States’ criminal justice system? Is restorative justice a radical means to advance social justice in an age of mass incarceration, or is it merely another way to reinforce the power structures of the current system? Read on to learn more.

Retributive Versus Restorative Justice

In order to appreciate the differences in approach that restorative justice poses, it is important to first understand that the United States’ criminal justice system operates under a retributive justice approach. Retributive justice is based on the idea of punishment, and the theory behind it is that the state is the ultimate victim of crimes and thus has the power to punish people it deems criminals. This domination-based form of justice is one basis for punishing “victimless crimes” such as drug offenses so harshly. Under retributive justice theories, the state is positioned as the victim.

In other words, the current criminal justice system’s emphasis on retributive justice relies on the logic that:

Retributivism answers the question ‘why punish’ by saying that the offender deserves punishment, and as simple as this statement sounds, its underlying meaning contains a couple of important points about morality and law.  Retributivism as a theory of punishment requires retribution as a rationale for law.  A retributionist assumes that the law exists for a reason — a moral reason.  All crime, even victimless crime, involves a social harm — a moral harm.  In other words, violating the law not only offends against the law of the land, but the moral code of the land.

Restorative justice, however, is grounded in an entirely different logic, philosophy, and practice. Restorative justice is defined by restorative agencies such as the Insight Prison Project as:

A philosophy and a social movement which provides an entirely different way of thinking about crime and victimization.  Our current retributive justice system focuses on punishment, regarding the state as the primary victim of criminal acts and casting victims and prisoners in passive roles. Restorative Justice, by contrast, focuses on healing and rehabilitation… It assumes that the persons most affected by crime should have the opportunity to become involved in resolving the conflict.  The goals of restoring losses, allowing prisoners to take responsibility for their actions, and helping victims move beyond their sense of vulnerability stand in sharp contrast to the conventional focus on past criminal behavior and increasing levels of punishment.

By taking the ideals of community and individual accountability and upholding the goal of mutual understanding and healing, restorative justice processes ensure that police, prosecutors, and judges are not the only ones with power over deciding someone’s fate after a crime has been committed. When prosecutorial and/or judicial discretion is utilized to make restorative processes available to people, the power of deciding how to move forward shifts to the person accused of committing a crime and the people most closely impacted by that crime.

This power shift can involve processes such as victim-offender mediation, conferencing, service provision, and “victim” assistance, as applicable. In the most well-known and widely used forms of restorative justice–mediated community conferences and circles–the offender(s), victims(s), and other closely impacted community members will come together in a mediated dialogue to address the context and harm done by the crime. During this process, the offender is expected to accept responsibility and agree to the group consensus of how to move forward, whether through community service, rehab, or other options. In these types of processes, the offender must agree to following through on the agreement; failing to do so will trigger a return to a traditional, retributive justice approach that will likely result in jail time.

Restorative Justice in Action

Currently in the U.S., restorative justice is most often used in the context of youth offenders and the juvenile justice system. Especially due to the extremely high rates of recidivism in the juvenile justice system, restorative justice, which often produces extremely low recidivism rates, is becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to incarceration in many juvenile courts across the country.

Many schools are using restorative processes as a way to keep their youth out of the school-to-prison pipeline. By engaging in restorative processes of mediation, schools are doing the following:

Forging closer, franker relationships among students, teachers and administrators. It encourages young people to come up with meaningful reparations for their wrongdoing while challenging them to develop empathy for one another through “talking circles” led by facilitators.

These talking circles, a trademark of restorative processes, often serve as alternatives to the suspensions and expulsions that fuel the school-to-prison pipeline. By resisting racialized zero-tolerance policies that do not give students a chance to repair any harm they might have done–and that might have been done to them–restorative practices in schools give students, teachers, and administrators the opportunity to identify deeper causes of problems in schools that allow more holistic approaches to students acting out.

Schools from California to Colorado to New York are implementing and expanding their restorative justice programs in order to avoid shipping their students directly into the juvenile justice system. In New York City, restorative programming in schools is being used with increasing frequency and impact:

Over the past few years, the Department of Education has been building its capacity to implement restorative justice programs. The department has provided training to teachers from 55 middle and high schools through the Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, which will be training 45 more schools this July and plans to add another 45 in the fall.

At Flushing International High School, where students hail from over 40 countries, social worker Tania Romero said that restorative practices have decreased incidences of violence between students of different nationalities and allowed for deeper conversations on issues like racism. “All schools should be entitled to this,” she said.

While experts acknowledge that restorative justice does not offer a quick fix either to juvenile justice or to schooling issues, many schools are becoming committed to advocating for the kinds of structural and cultural changes that can make restorative justice processes even more effective.

In other cases, however, restorative processes resemble traditional court processes more than they do school-based conferencing or mediation. In Brownsville, New York, for example, where youth of color are particularly targeted by the criminal justice system and jailed at extremely high rates, the city has established a youth court system in which youth offenders try and sentence each other to various sanctions, including community service, essay-writing, and tutoring. In this program, youth are trained for 30 hours and take a 16-page bar exam to prepare for the responsibility of trying and sentencing their peers. Though some might be skeptical of the ability of youth to effectively diminish the crime rates of their peers, the youth going through these restorative processes have a 93 percent compliance rate, which indicates an extremely low recidivism rate–much lower than that produced by the traditional juvenile justice system.

What Are We Trying to Restore?

Despite its success at lowering recidivism rates, restorative justice is often the recipient of criticism. Because restorative justice is a process that relies on the actions of those in the criminal justice system–judges and prosecutors must refer defendants or people convicted of crimes to restorative processes, and reserve the right to re-enact retributive processes if restorative methods are deemed ineffective–many people and organizations criticize restorative justice for being powerless to truly change the criminal justice system from within.

The co-opting of restorative processes by the state actually risks reinforcing the power structures that shape the harm done by crimes to begin with. For example, state-mandated restorative processes may force mediation event participants like police and youth of color together, ignoring the extreme power differences between these individuals and therefore ignoring structural power dynamics and risking perpetuating harm upon people who may have committed a particular crime, but who are also targeted by state violence.

As such, it is crucial to note that restorative practices may be practiced in disproportionate ways that ignore societal power structures. One study shows that schools with more Black students are less likely to use restorative processes because of racialized assumptions about the student population. Further, some question whether restorative practices are accessible to people living with certain dis/abilities.

What then does restorative justice seek to restore? If structural inequality was the baseline condition under which a crime was committed, is restorative justice satisfied with restoring that unjust baseline? Critics of restorative justice and advocates of the more structurally minded transformative justice argue that restorative justice, by nature of working within the criminal justice system, can never truly address these issues of systemic oppression.

So What’s the Verdict?

Restorative justice–especially in the context of the juvenile justice system–has tremendous potential to offer alternatives to incarceration for people who would otherwise be targeted for mass incarceration. Recidivism rates decline and community involvement increases, and these are all impacts that critics of mass incarceration certainly applaud. However, while restorative justice is certainly an important move toward reforming the criminal justice system as is, its lack of emphasis on structural and systemic oppression that is the basis for mass incarceration to begin with makes it an inadequate means of truly transforming the criminal justice system.

Resources

Primary

Oakland Unified School District: Welcome to Restorative Justice

Additional

Conflict Solutions Center: Retributive vs. Restorative Justice

Conflict Solutions Center: What is Mediation?

Partnership for Safety and Justice: Restorative and Transformative Justice: A Comparison

Insight Prison Project: A Restorative Justice Agency

Restorative Justice Online: What is Restorative Justice?

The New York Times: Opening Up, Students Transform a Vicious Cycle

Chalkbeat New York: City Preparing to Expand Restorative Justice Programs

National Public Radio: An Alternative to Suspension and Explusion: ‘Circle Up!’

New York Daily News: Teens are Judge and Jury in Brownsville Youth Court, Delivering “Restorative Justice”

PBS Newshour: To Curb Conflict, A Colorado High School Replaces Punishment with Conversation

Eastern Mennonite University Center for Justice and Peacebuilding: How Effective is Restorative Justice?

Restorative Justice Online: Restorative Justice in Schools: The Influence of Race on Restorative Discipline

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Can Restorative Justice Change the Criminal System? appeared first on Law Street.

A prosecutor is “an administrator of justice” whose duties are “to seek justice, not merely to convict.” According to the American Bar Association,

It is an important function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. When inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law come to the prosecutor’s attention, he or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action.

Chances to combat these injustices often occur in the strong role of prosecutorial discretion in determining someone’s prison sentence. Many argue that prosecutorial discretion is such an enormous responsibility that prosecutors have the power to be strong social justice advocates. Many others, however, suggest that prosecutorial discretion leads to tremendous racial disparities in sentencing. So the question is: Is it possible for prosecutors to be social justice advocates? Or is the criminal justice system overall too big for prosecutors to make any social justice-oriented, system-wide changes from within?

In Defense of Prosecution?

In her Brennan Center post entitled “Prosecutors Can Play a Role in Ending Mass Incarceration”–which argues exactly that–Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center’s Justice Program reminds us of the various roles of prosecutors:

The reality is that prosecutors play a unique and immensely powerful role in the criminal justice system. They decide who gets charged, and most importantly, with what crime, and what plea bargains to accept and reject. Sentencing recommendations from prosecutors carry immense weight with judges.

Largely due to this prosecutorial discretion, federal courts impose 20 percent longer sentences on Black men than they do on white men who are convicted of committing similar crimes. Courts similarly impose longer sentences on Latino men than they do for white men convicted for similar crimes.

Many interpret these roles as evidence of prosecutorial racism, because prosecutors determine the course of such huge pieces of defendant’s cases. The immense racial disparities in charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing are all directly traceable to prosecutors’ structurally informed choices. However, Eisen uses this information to argue that the point at which a prosecutor encounters a defendant’s case is already beyond the point at which interference is needed. Eisen asserts that prosecutors can and should play a role in preventing crimes and recidivism.

This is consistent with both the Brennan Center’s recommendations that it should be the priority of federal prosecutors to reduce incarceration, recidivism, and violence, and with former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s shifting priorities for law enforcement. Calling for a “Smart on Crime” approach, Holder has stated:

Of course, as we refine our approach and reject the ineffective practice of calling for stringent sentences against those convicted of low-level, nonviolent crimes, we also need to refine the metrics we use to measure success; to evaluate the steps we’re taking; and to assess the effectiveness of new criminal justice priorities.  In the Smart on Crime era, it’s no longer adequate – or appropriate – to rely on outdated models that prize only enforcement, as quantified by numbers of prosecutions, convictions, and lengthy sentences, rather than taking a holistic view.

Prosecutors wishing to pursue such a holistic approach may learn about doing so by exploring resources such as those provided by the Vera Institute of Justice’s Prosecution and Racial Justice Program.

Prosecutors and Restorative Justice

When writing of the extremely large roles prosecutors play in determining the course of the lives of people accused of crimes, activist and scholar Angela Davis argues that:

Whether or not prosecutors intentionally or unconsciously discriminate against defendants of color in the charging and plea-bargaining processes, their decisions–even the race-neutral ones–may cause or exacerbate racial disparities. Their tremendous power and discretion is often exercised in ways that produce unintended and undesirable consequences. However, that same power and discretion can be used to remedy the problem.

Some of these remedies may include ensuring that alternatives to incarceration are widely available across the country. One way that prosecutors can provide alternatives to incarceration for people convicted of committing crimes is through restorative justice processes. Restorative justice is defined by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency as:

Restorative justice offers alternatives to our traditional juvenile and criminal justice systems and harsh school discipline processes. Rather than focusing on punishment, restorative justice seeks to repair the harm done. At its best, through face-to-face dialogue, restorative justice results in consensus-based plans that meet victim-identified needs in the wake of a crime. This can take many forms, most notably conferencing models, victim-offender dialogue, and circle processes. In applications with youth, it can prevent both contact with the juvenile justice system and school expulsions and suspensions. Restorative justice also holds the potential for victims and their families to have a direct voice in determining just outcomes, and reestablishes the role of the community in supporting all parties affected by crime. Several restorative models have been shown to reduce recidivism and, when embraced as a larger-scale solution to wrongdoing, can minimize the social and fiscal costs of crime.

By utilizing prosecutorial discretion to refer people convicted of crimes to restorative processes instead of being incarcerated, prosecutors can avoid contributing to mass incarceration and can avoid inflicting the devastating collateral consequences of incarceration. Restorative justice alternatives are currently being used successfully in piecemeal initiatives across the country in schools to avoid suspensions and expulsions that contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. However, many criticize practitioners and advocates of  restorative justice for staying within the overall criminal justice system because restorative justice works within the system and assumes that there are equal conditions to “restore,” it arguably ignores the fundamental injustices that shape mass incarceration to begin with. Therefore, prosecutors who attempt to advance social justice ends with restorative justice alternatives to incarceration may make positive differences in individual people’s cases, but have an arguably limited impact on mass incarceration as a whole.

#PlotTwist: Changing Who Gets Prosecuted

Along these same lines, some prosecutors may also attempt to advance social justice goals through the prosecution of corporations that are exploiting human labor, perpetuating abuses, and damaging the environment. Critics of these approaches argue that this kind of prosecution is not holistic: it addresses individuals and individual corporations, not the systems that facilitate the abuses in the first place.

Similarly, it is possible for prosecutors to specialize in criminal and civil cases against cops who discriminate and violently abuse their power. Certainly, many social justice advocates actively demand more prosecution of cops. Much of the recent #BlackLivesMatter uprisings recently have been focusing on the fact that prosecutors don’t tend to charge cops who beat and/or murder people of color.

However, many criticize these attempts, too, because they exist only within an already racialized system, thereby reinforcing the power of the criminal justice system that created mass incarceration to begin with. When social justice advocates–or prosecutors–try to use the criminal justice system for social justice aims, they are implying that the criminal justice system does, in fact, deliver justice, when many believe that it does not.

As the prison abolitionist blog Prison Culture published in a post in the wake of George Zimmerman murdering Trayvon Martin in 2012, prosecuting cops or vigilantes who target people of color in the name of “justice” serves to reinforce people’s beliefs that they should turn to the criminal justice system for solutions:

I think that making the main focus of our activism with respect to Trayvon’s killing the prosecution of George Zimmerman is short-sighted. Additionally, it does nothing to address the root causes of racism and oppression which were surely the fuel for this murder. For black people, our history on issues of crime, law, order, and punishment is complex and usually conflicting. In this moment, I question why we as black people who know that there is no “justice” in the legal system are expending the majority of our energy demanding “justice” from said system. How are we going to find “justice” in the prosecution of Zimmerman? The answer is quite simply that we will not.

Attorney and author Paul Butler generalizes this frustration to the role of prosecutors in general. In a forum at NYU in 2009 (see video above), Butler disagreed with moderator Anthony Barkow about the potential role of prosecutors in serving social justice ends:

Butler contended that with racial profiling by police and mandatory sentences for many drug crimes, prosecutors have little power to fight these problems from the inside. To answer the question at the center of the debate, the efforts of good people would be wasted as prosecutors, in Butler’s view. Barkow, however, said that attorneys, even when they are not the lead prosecutor, can and do make discretionary decisions that allow them to work within the law to have influential voices in cases. ‘Supervisors will often defer, extensively in my experience, to the line prosecutors,’ Barkow said. ‘So the line prosecutors making all these discretionary decisions are really kind of driving the bus most of the time…Butler’s overarching position on how good people can and should behave in regards to our system of justice was quite clear, provocative, and sobering.’ He maintained that the way to fight social and racial injustice was not to be a part of the institutions that help to further it. ‘The determination of who goes to criminal court in chains…should not depend so much on race and class,’ Butler said in conclusion. ‘As long as it does, we need people who believe in social justice and racial justice to stand up, to be strong, and to refuse to be complicit.’

So, Can Prosecutors be Social Justice Advocates?

While injustices in the overall criminal justice system make it hard or even impossible for prosecutors to be social justice advocates from within the system, there may be piecemeal, individual roles for prosecutors to play toward incrementally achieving some social justice goals amid broader injustices in the criminal justice system.

Resources

American Bar Association: Prosecution Function

Open Society Foundation: Racial Disparity in Sentencing

Leadership Conference: Race and Prosecutorial Discretion

Brennan Center for Justice: Federal Prosecution for the 21st Century

American Civil Liberties Union: Words From Prison: The Collateral Consequences of Incarceration

Race, Racism, and the Law: Prosecutors as the Most Powerful Actor in the Criminal Justice System

Brennan Center for Justice: Prosecutors Can Play Role in Ending Mass Incarceration

School Book: Alternatives to Suspension: Inside a ‘Restorative Justice’ High School

Partnership for Safety and Justice: Restorative and Transformative Justice: A Comparison

Nation: Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop

Prison Culture: Trayvon Martin and Black People for the Carceral State

Crunk Feminist Collective: Trayvon Martin and Prison Abolition

New York University Law: Butler and Barkow Discuss the Role of Prosecutors in Social and Racial Justice

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Role of Prosecutors as Social Justice Advocates appeared first on Law Street.

So, this week in LesboLand… K-Stew’s mom apparently outed her (in a week of oh so many highly public parental outings); Orange is the New Black basically broke the internet; and Wells Fargo is the latest massive corporation to want to use white lesbians to make a profit.

It must be Pride Month.

(Or just another week in the life of lesbian drama. I’m not picky about cause and effect.)

I came out a decade ago, and a decade ago, I didn’t know about Pride Month. (WE GET OUR OWN MONTH. Which is upsetting for all kinds of reasons related to heteronormativity and the fact that mainstream Prides are so super white-washed and corporatized…but I told myself when I sat down to write this that I wouldn’t be quite as ornery as I usually am. Let’s see how that goes.)

Today, my bedside table has not one, not two, but three stacks–borderline obnoxiously sized stacks (this is not a massive bedside table we’re talking about here)–of queer YA books on it, not to mention a couple of nifty (if not overpriced) Babeland products, and my YA fantasy novel manuscript (spoiler alert: QUEERNESS).

Over a decade ago, I skittishly went online–remember this sound??–and, sweat forming on my upper lip, copy-pasted into Word Perfect as many Star Trek: Voyager fan fiction stories under the “femslash” category as I could. I would read them nervously, quickly, always ready to click into another document with my AP U.S. outlines open, my eyes stuck on one part of the screen as I created a scroll-effect from holding down the delete key as I read.

Erasing the evidence of my queerness (because I didn’t recognize it–though everyone else did–in my flannel, keys-on-belt-loop, thumbs-hooked-into-pockets, all-I-ever-think-about-is-women…ness), even though I didn’t know that’s what it was.

Today, I make no effort to hide my queerness. It’s not something that occurs to me anymore. And there’s a lot of privilege wrapped up in that. I know. I know.

And I feel it every time the OITNB theme song whines out of my roommate’s bedroom (or my own)–we’re still so starving for “representation”–often, no matter what the racist cost of that representation.

Because if OITNB weren’t mediated by a blonde white woman; if The Fosters didn’t positively portray such a brutal and racist criminal justice system; if mainstream Prides were still protests, marches against intersectional systemic oppression rather than white-dominated, corporate parties.

I wonder what Pride Month would look like in the mainstream media.

(And there’s the orneriness.)

But we need to stay ornery. Because yep, we are everywhere. But we’re also oppressed by white-supremacist, heteropatriarcal, ableist systems.

Everywhere.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lesbians! Lesbians Everywhere! appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taelor Bentley

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

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

A New York man named Kalief Browder, who spent three years behind bars without a trial after being accused of a robbery in 2010, committed suicide this past Saturday in his Bronx home. His story is now raising questions for many about the prevalent injustices inherent in our prison system.

In 2010 Browder, then 16, was arrested on suspicion of stealing a backpack. He was eventually sent to Rikers Island where he would spend three years awaiting a trial that he hoped would prove his innocence. Browder spent roughly two of his three years in solitary confinement suffering intense physical and emotional abuse and was severely beaten by officers and other inmates. He also attempted suicide at least six times.

In a 2013 New Yorker interview with Jennifer Gonnerman, Browder recalled punishments he would receive from the guards for attempting to commit suicide. Browder recalled one incident where he ripped off the sheets of his bed in his jail cell and fashioned them into a noose. When he was about to hang himself, guards stormed into his cell, tackled him into his bed, and punched him repeatedly. As a punishment for this suicide attempt, the guards starved Browder for up to four meals at a time.

In 2013, he was allowed to go home after the charges against him were dropped. He never had a trial. 

His attorney, Paul Prestia, described the difficulties that he faced after leaving prison, saying, “every day was a struggle. He lived with a degree of sadness every day since his release.” Prestia said:

When he came out [of jail] and I first met him, he was completely broken — I had to show him how to use a computer; he had to get a job. These were issues he was going to have for his whole life. It’s not his fault. He didn’t deserve that.

After his release, Browder experienced deep bouts of depression and became increasingly paranoid. Six months after his release, Browder attempted suicide, and was hospitalized. During his time in the hospital, Browder was said to be gaunt, restless, and deeply paranoid. While he was eventually released from the hospital, and succeeded for some time–at one point earning a 3.5 GPA at Bronx Community College and tutoring GED students, these issues appear to have persisted. Browder committed suicide on June 6; he had just turned 22 years old.

Browder’s story is deeply tragic and problematic. Someone stuck in a prison for three years waiting for a trial should not be subjected to severe beatings, starvation and other mistreatments. Of the 10,000 inmates at Rikers Island, about 1,500 have been there for the last year without being convicted of a crime. It’s hard to determine how long the wait for a trial usually is; some statistics say a few months, while others wait several years. In Browder’s case, a real trial was never had, and he was released without the necessary resources.

The horrible facts of Browder’s incarceration echo multiple concerns about the way we treat our nation’s prisoners, particularly the racial inequalities in the justice system. The U.S. is said to currently imprison a larger percentage of its Black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid. African Americans are incredibly overrepresented in prisons. Despite making up only 13 percent of the population, they made up 38 percent of state prisoners in 2011. This highly problematic reality is highlighted by cases like Browder’s: how many lives must end before citizens, particularly African-American men, are treated fairly in our justice system?

There are also concerns specifically about Rikers Island that are now coming to light. A report from the U.S. Department of Justice described “rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force” by guards against teenage inmates on Rikers Island. Surveillance footage obtained by Gonnerman shows Browder being beaten by a guard and assaulted by a large group of inmates. Prestia points out that the fact that this kind of treatment happened in the U.S. is shocking, stating:

When you go over the three years that [Browder] spent [in jail] and all the horrific details he endured, it’s unbelievable that this could happen to a teen-ager in New York City. He didn’t get tortured in some prison camp in another country. It was right here!

In April in a statement provided by the New Yorker, New York City Mayor Bill de Blaiso said that Browder’s “tragic story put a human face on Rikers Island’s culture of delay — a culture with profound human and fiscal costs for defendants and our city.” Since Browder’s release some progress has been made and de Blaiso’s administration has issued a series of major reforms at Rikers. For example, it was able to end the practice of putting 16 and 17-year-olds into solitary confinement. While that’s certainly progress, the tragic end to Browder’s story still brings up many seriously problematic issues that are far from being solved.

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 What Kalief Browder’s Tragic Story Tells Us About the Prison System appeared first on Law Street.

People cite it all the time: women make 77 cents to every dollar men make. We use it as a linchpin in arguments about equal pay, feminism, glass ceilings. We offer it up as proof–because mind-bogglingly, we still need to “prove it”–that feminism is a necessary thing.

But the whole 77 cent thing? Not actually true.

Because that statistic is assuming that the default status is whiteness. But really, Black women make 64 cents to every white man’s dollar. Latina women, 53 cents. Native American women, 60 cents. Similarly, women with dis/abilities (race wasn’t specified, as far as I could find) make 67 cents to men without dis/abilities’ dollar, and 87 cents to what men with dis/abilities earn. Queer women? Especially queer and trans women of color? Similar story.

But even that, even complicating the wage gap narrative we offer as “concrete proof” that sexism is, you know, a thing, is not enough. Because sexism at work manifests in way, way more than just pay differentials. It’s more than straight-up (pun intended) discrimination.

Workplace culture is a massive part of the misogyny of the job market (in so many more ways than I have space to discuss here). As Anne-Marie Slaughter, president of the New America Foundation, wrote in 2012 for The Atlantic:

The culture of “time macho”—a relentless competition to work harder, stay later, pull more all-nighters, travel around the world and bill the extra hours that the international date line affords you—remains astonishingly prevalent among professionals today. Nothing captures the belief that more time equals more value better than the cult of billable hours afflicting large law firms across the country and providing exactly the wrong incentives for employees who hope to integrate work and family.

But let’s even put aside “family” for a moment–because some women wanting (or needing) time with their families (implication: their kids) isn’t the only reason that “time macho,” as Slaughter calls it, is a misogynist expectation.

“Time macho” is misogynist because it places value on a kind of masculinized “endurance” that is simply unhealthy: the burden of being first in the office in the morning and last to leave at night disproportionately falls on women of color, queer women, women with dis/abilities (and combinations thereof) because we have more to “prove” in this society.

“Time macho” is misogynist because it defines “production” as the primary value while feminizing self-care as weak, as less “tough,” as less competitive. It places short term over long term, and it promotes disdain for those of us who try to take care of ourselves.

“Time macho” is misogynist because it is yet another way that women are not permitted to say “no” without consequences: the rape culture of the working world, “time macho” creates workplace cultures in which women have to say yes to the extra night shift, to the additional project, to the seven-day work weeks in unhealthy and unsafe environments, to the 10:00 PM conference call.

Because if we don’t, we know there are plenty of men (or other token women) waiting in the wings to get paid more than we get paid to do the same thing we do; plenty of men (and women, because we get sucked into this, too) waiting to give us less-than-stellar recommendations about us being “not a great fit” in the office, being “disagreeable” or “confrontational” because no, nope, actually, my health is more important than your misogynist expectations.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Time Macho” is the Rape Culture of the Workplace appeared first on Law Street.

Within the past few years there has been an enormous amount of shocking incidents involving police brutality. Even with protests nationwide it seems that nothing has been done to stop this issue. Now, people are angry yet again over another incident involving the ridiculous actions of a police officer. The video aftermath of a pool party in McKinney, Texas has gone viral, and infuriated many who have seen it.

On Friday, June 5, a group of Texas teens gathered together at Craig Ranch North Community Pool. Craig Ranch’s strict homeowners’ association rules prohibit bringing more than two guests to the pool. But the invite to the pool party spread around Twitter, leading to many other guests. According to bystanders, when a crowd of teenagers showed up, stood by the gate, and yelled to be let in, things got out of control. Kids began to jump over the fence as a security guard tried to get them to leave. The security guard was outnumbered, and called the police. The authorities were told there was a “a disturbance involving multiple juveniles at the location, who do not live in the area or have permission to be there, refusing to leave.” There were also numerous calls to the police reporting fights as well.

But Tatiana Rhodes, the 19-year-old girl who hosted the pool party, shared a different side of the story. Tatiana said that she and some friends had organized the party and were enjoying it when a conflict with a white neighbor broke out. Rhodes told E. Johnson IV, a photographer who recorded the conversation and uploaded it online:

This lady was saying racial slurs to some friends that came to the cookout. She was saying such things as ‘black effer’ and ‘that’s why you live in Section 8 homes.’

According to Rhodes, who is black, a white neighbor approached her and smacked her in the face.“That’s when both of the women attacked me,” the teen said.

However, what really sparked national outrage was a video taken by Brandon Brooks and posted on Twitter. In an email to NBC News Brooks stated:

When I started the video was right after all the kids who got put on the ground had gotten up and ran away. The cop was chasing after all those kids just putting every black person he saw on the ground.

Here’s the video, but keep in mind, it is NSFW due to language and violence:

The video went viral, leaving people truly disgusted at the actions of the police. One of the officers, later identified as Eric Casebolt, was recorded forcefully pinning an unarmed 14 year-old-girl in a bikini to the ground and handcuffing her. In the video Casebolt can even be seen pulling the girl’s hair and pushing her face toward the ground. The officer also drew his gun and pointed it at several unarmed teens in the area as well. Casebolt, a Navy veteran with 10 years on the McKinney force, has been place on administrative leave after the video surfaced. Police Chief Greg Conley stated:

Our initial reaction was to place the officer on administrative leave until we can conduct a complete and thorough investigation of the incident….The McKinney Police Department is committed to treating all persons fairly under the law. We are committed to preserving the peace and safety of our community for all of our citizens.

The girl who was tackled by Casebolt was detained and released. “Ultimately, everyone was freed. Other than the person who was arrested, everyone was released to a parent or guardian or to a responsible adult,” Conley said. McKinney police had to call in extra dispatchers to handle incoming phone calls, many asking for Casebolt to be fired. Mayor of McKinney, Texas, Brian Loughmiller, described feeling “disturbed and concerned” over this incident. Overall, the incident left many people with one question: how threatened could an experienced police officer feel by an unarmed 14 year-old-girl?

Spoke with my family about #McKinney. My dad’s response: “If you are that afraid of a bunch of teens in bikinis, you shouldn’t be a cop.”

— Russell Drew (@RussOnPolitics) June 8, 2015

Who can we call when the police are the ones threatening our safety? Police once made citizens feel safe and secure but many now feel even more threatened when the police are present. This video leaves parents angered and frightened for their children’s safety, as well as teens who could become an officer’s next target. With situations like these becoming more and more common, one can only hope that justice will begin to be served.

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 Police Brutality in McKinney, Texas? Video of Officer Goes Viral appeared first on Law Street.

In 2006, the criminal justice system helped Josh Duggar’s family expunge his record of abuse and protected him from being exposed in media reports as someone who had “forcibly fondled” younger girls (a.k.a. molested children).

Every day–then, now–the criminal justice system targets people of color–especially women and trans people of color–for abuse and shootings (a.k.a. public executions for walking while Black or Latina).

And yet.

And yet we continue to use pictures of him in suits instead of finding pictures that try to reflect him negatively (see featured photo), like the mainstream media insists on doing with young people of color slaughtered by cops.

When Black young men are murdered by cops, they are cast as “thugs.” When a young white man is accused of child abuse, he retains his status as ‘poor cult victim.’

This serves both racist and misogynist ends: white perpetrators remain victims, and his misogyny is cast as an exception (caused by his cultish family).

The mainstream media likes to speculate on the “scandalous” aspects of how the family helped cover up the abuse; how the family, in fact, abused him through their extremism and his isolation from “mainstream culture”; but we don’t like to speculate on how Josh Duggar is not, in fact, an exception. Josh Duggar is the rule.

Duggar is an embodiment of rich white cis male non-dis/abled privilege, and while the control his family exerts over him is indeed frightening, their misogyny is not an exception.

The Duggars may be particularly explicit in the ways they preach and practice misogyny, but what pieces focusing on the cultish aspects of the Duggars that facilitated the abuse miss is that every person in this country–every. single. person.–is raised to hate women. The Duggars may be more explicit than most, but they are not alone: Josh Duggar’s apparent belief that women and girls exist for male pleasure is the same belief that we are all raised with.

It’s called rape culture, and it’s everywhere.

The fact that the Duggars isolated their children so much that they didn’t have a TV misses the point: all of us with TV, too, receive the same message–in a heteropatriarchal society like this one, women are disposable.

Because rape culture is not isolated to “cults.” It is everywhere.

Because women–especially women of color–are disproportionately targeted by the same criminal justice system that protected Duggar when the first police report was issued against him.

Because living in a heteropatriarchal society makes us much more vulnerable to debilitating mental health issues.

Because “strong women” in the mainstream media is still the only trope we’re allowed to hope for.

Because the kind of misogyny that the media ascribes to the cult of the Duggars is the same kind of misogyny that we are exposed to every single time we turn on the television, interact with men in the street, or are educated in a public school system that still focuses on “great” [read: genocidal] white men and does not teach consent as the golden rule in health classes (a.k.a. teach rape culture to all students).

Because we can condemn–or pity–Josh Duggar as much as we’d like.

But ultimately, we must recognize that his privileged positions and entitled, abusive actions are the rule, not the exception.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Josh Duggar is Not an Exception: On Rape Culture in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Beginning as a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter developed into a movement and became a leading force in the fight against police brutality and racism across the nation. People from all walks of life are uniting for justice, are inspired to speak up, and most importantly are ready to take action. But how did #BlackLivesMatter reach the masses? How has it developed into such a profound transformational force? Read on to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter, its inception, and the movement to end police brutality and racial inequality in the United States.

What is #BlackLivesMatter?

#BlackLivesMatter (BLM) is a movement that focuses on anti-African-American racism in the United States. It was founded by three Black women: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Although it began as a social media hashtag, they created the infrastructure for the overall campaign, framing it as “not a moment, a movement.”

According to #BlackLivesMatter, racism is still prevalent in American society through the marginalization of Black communities, which are intentionally left powerless and voiceless. In this regard, the movement asserts the right of all Black people to liberation.

BLM has opened up a broader conversation about long-standing racism and violence against Black communities in the United States. It aims to affirm the lives of all Black people who suffer from racial oppression in American society, including Black trans people, Black queer people, Black immigrants, Black incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, Black millennials, Black women, low-income Black people, and Black people with disabilities. 

The Inception and Evolution of #BlackLivesMatter

#BlackLivesMatter was created after Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American boy from Florida, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, on February 26, 2012. In July 2013, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.

The outcome of the trial led to resentment from Black communities, and America as a whole, as Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman shot him. The day after the acquittal, people took to the streets in major cities including Miami, New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Newark, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. More than 100 U.S. cities held demonstrations in support for Trayvon Martin.

Garza, one of BLM’s co-founders, used Facebook to express her outrage over the fact that nobody was held accountable for the death of an unarmed Black teenager. She finished her sentence with the phrase “we got us and our lives matter.” Cullors went further and added the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter when re-posting her friend’s message. People started to use this hashtag when talking about racism and extrajudicial killings of Black men in police custody. As a result, #BlackLivesMatter was born as a national organizing project. Watch the video below to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter from Garza.

Nearly a year later on July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after a police officer allegedly put him in chokehold for 15 seconds while trying to take him into custody. That’s when #BlackLivesMatter started to solidify as a movement. According to Elephrame, a social media tracking website, two days after Garner’s death, more than 300 people marched in Staten Island, including Garner’s family.

Less than a month after that, on August 9, 2014, 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Demonstrations became pervasive in cities both large and small. Thousands of people travelled to Ferguson to participate in marches, demanding justice for Brown and other victims of police violence. The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag became omnipresent on Twitter in relation to Ferguson protests and racism in general. More than 119 cities participated in a National Moment of Silence honoring the many Black citizens who have died as a result of police violence. Watch Oakland residents speaking on Ferguson and #BlackLivesMatter protests in the video below.

During the ensuing months, divided demonstrations continued to transform into a collective force. At the end of November 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice was shot and killed by a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio. As the Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the New York police officer who used the chokehold to take Garner into custody on December 3, 2014, people began to demand justice even more fiercely. More demonstrations were held, reaching as far as Paris, London, and Melbourne. By the end of 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was already a strong platform for many protesters, with a broader mission, and a list of demands. 

The movement carried into 2015. BLM continued to incite discussions in academia, art communities, religious establishments, and high schools and universities. A #BlackLivesMatter exhibit was featured in an art gallery in Seattle, providing viewers with different perspectives on the movement. Cornell University Africana Studies and Research Center held a community talk about #BlackLivesMatter and the current state of activist movements, taking a social history perspective. These are only few examples of the movement’s proliferation and effects.

On March 4, 2015, a St. Louis County grand jury acquitted Wilson of all charges in the death of Michael Brown. The actions of protesters became even more pronounced, disrupting public transportation and shutting down highways and bridges while marching for Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others.

On April 19, 2015 another Black man, Freddie Gray, died in the hospital after he was taken into custody by the Baltimore police. The events that followed shook the whole country as protests turned violent in some areas. Some police officers were injured, a state of emergency was declared, the National Guard was activated, and a 10 p.m. curfew was established in Baltimore. However, all officers involved in Gray’s death were charged with a range of crimes, including murder and manslaughter. During these latest events, many local chapters of #BlackLivesMatter marched in solidarity with Baltimore, including those in Chicago, Ferguson, and New York.

In the last 289 days, there were 431 general demonstrations and 430 for individual victims of police brutality, totaling at least 861 #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations.

An International Voice 

#BlackLivesMatter has a visible connection to other movements across the nation and abroad. Nationally, Palestinian solidarity activists, the low-wage workers movement, and Black Youth Project 100 (BYP 100) among others, all marched in support of BLM. In addition, medical students at 70 colleges, the so-called “White Coats for Black Lives,” held demonstrations in #BlackLivesMatter support. Internationally, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy marches and London’s Campaign Against Police and State Violence, among others, also stood in solidarity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement and its cause.

#BlackLivesMatter Tactics

The main tactic of the #BlackLivesMatter movement is to disrupt business as usual, including work, commuter travel, commerce, and other daily activities of U.S. residents. The rationale behind this tactic is based on the premise that people across the country need to wake up and recognize that anti-Black racism is a pervasive part of American society. BLM protesters disrupted traffic on Interstate 93 in Boston, shut down the BART station in West Oakland, California, partly shut down the Mall of America, and disrupted business as usual in many other places, all in the hope of drawing attention to its cause. 

What does #BlackLivesMatter aim to do?

#BlackLivesMatter put forward national demands and a vision for a new America. It seeks legal redress in the Michael Brown case, and asks the government to release the names of all officers involved in killing Black people for the last five years. It also calls for the creation of an advocate’s network that can institute changes across police departments, and demands that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weapons to police departments across the country. #BlackLivesMatter also demands more re-investment programs, specifically, re-directing law enforcement funds to federal departments charged with providing employment, housing, and educational services.

According to #BlackLivesMatter, its vision for a new America is as follows:

We Want an End to all Forms of Discrimination and the Full Recognition of our Human Rights. The United States Government must acknowledge and address the structural violence and institutional discrimination that continues to imprison our communities either in a life of poverty and/or one behind bars. We want the United States Government to recognize the full spectrum of our human rights and its obligations under international law.

In its vision, the movement includes not only the end of racially charged police violence and structural changes in police departments across the states, but also demands decent housing, quality education, and the end of the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline.

#BlackLivesMatter developed rather specific proposals with regard to the de-militarization of local law enforcement departments across the country, including requesting a comprehensive review by the Department of Justice into systematic abuses by police departments, and the repurposing of law enforcement funds to support community-based alternatives to incarceration. While not all demands are specific and policy oriented, BLM is working in conjunction with think tanks and non-profits such as the National Organization for Women and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation, to continue conceptualizing policy aims. 

Criticism of #BlackLivesMatter

Even though many Americans support #BlackLivesMatter, there are those who simply don’t believe that racism in the justice system exists. In this view, African Americans encounter law enforcement frequently because they commit more crimes, thus more of them end up in the prison system. Police officers are viewed as protectors of public order, while African Americans are seen as solely responsible for the current state of their community. Watch the video below to learn more about this point of view.

In addition, an #AllLivesMatter hashtag was created to counteract the #BlackLivesMatter movement. In this view, law enforcement should treat all people with respect and dignity. The rationale is as following: if #AllLivesMatter, then #BlackLivesMatter too. Essentially, #AllLivesMatter protesters are making a point of including all races in the conversation about police brutality; however, supporters of #BlackLivesMatter as well as its founders consider such phrasing an act of colorblindness that completely excludes race from the equation, devaluing the whole point of the movement.

Conclusion

#BlackLivesMatter has already established itself as a movement for social change, transforming isolated incidents of police brutality into a larger agenda of eliminating racial inequality in American society. It’s impossible to predict if the movement will be able to sustain itself until it reaches its goal and the government meets BLM’s demands; however one thing is sure, #BlackLivesMatter is already changing peoples’ perceptions of racial inequality in America, creating dialogue, and clearing out the path for future leaders who will take on the issue of anti-Black racism. 

Resources

Primary

#BlackLivesMatter: National Demands

#BlackLivesMatter: A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

Additional 

Elephrame: Track Black Lives Matter Demonstrations

Occupy: Black Lives Matter: The Evolution of a Movement

Political Research Associates: Five Right-Wing Media Narratives Attacking the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement

Front Page Mag: Which Black Lives Matter?

Huffington Post: Stop Slandering Black Lives Matter

National Review Online: Black Lives Matter

Huffington Post: Reactions on the Streets After the George Zimmerman Verdict

Gothamist: Black Lives Matter Protesters Stock Forever 21 With ‘Never 21’ T-Shirts

Thee New York Times: Baltimore Enlists National Guard and a Curfew to Fight Riots and Looting

KARE11: Black Lives Matter March in Support of Baltimore

Michigan Live: EMU Student Wears ‘Black Lives Matter’ T-Shirt Over Gown at Graduation

Huffington Post: What People Are Really Saying When They Complain About ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protests

King 5: Art Gallery Features ‘Black Lives Matter’ Exhibit

Star Tribune: Twin Cities Students Walk Out of Schools to Join Black Lives Matter Protest

The New York Times: Beyond ‘Black Lives Matter’ 

Alternet: Eight Developments of the Black Lives Matter Movement Most People Don’t Know About 

Dick Gregory: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Heard Around the World

NPR: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Slogan Becomes a Bigger Movement 

Cornell University: Scholar Leads Talk on ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement 

Washington Post: From Trayvon Martin to ‘Black Lives Matter’

International Socialist Review: Black Lives Matter: A New Movement Takes Shape

The New York Times: Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death

California Sunday Magazine: How Three Friends Turned a Spontaneous Facebook Post Into a Global Phenomenon

Boston Globe: Protesters Snarl Morning Commute on I-93 Near Boston

Sfist: Protesters Chain Themselves to BART Trains at West Oakland, Temporarily Halt Transbay Train Service

Huffington Post: #BlackLivesMatter Protesters Shut Down Part of Mall of America

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 #BlackLivesMatter: How a Hashtag Sparked a Powerful Movement appeared first on Law Street.

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).

Now. People of color who are incensed by white supremacy and the murder of Freddie Gray (and so, so many others) have as many viewpoints about the efficacy and ethics of property damage as there are… well… people. There is no one way to understand or react to protests, anger, and anti-racist (and racist) rhetoric, so I’m not suggesting here that all or even most people of color are comfortable with or support the hashtag #BaltimoreRising as opposed to #BaltimoreRiots (for example). The reactions of people of color to racist violence are not, nor have they ever been, monolithic.

But.

Go lecture the police about non-violence.

— Brienne of Snarth (@femme_esq) April 27, 2015

But. As people with white privilege–the privilege (even when we are queer, poor, and/or dis/abled) of living in this world without our every action being viewed as suspicious; without our every action being interpreted as representative of all white people; without fear that ourselves, our students, our children, our friends, our family, or our colleagues will be murdered by cops because they were walking down the street while Black–we don’t get to watch the uprisings via Twitter, shake our heads, and produce tweets like this:  

Can we just focus on the real issues and injustice behind the #BaltimoreRiots? People have the right to be angry, not violent. — Sarah K (@wildflower93x) April 28, 2015

Or this:

If you act like wild animals and ruin others property dont get confused when you end up in a cage. #BaltimoreRiots #BlackPrivilege

— The Counselor (@anyclinic) April 28, 2015

As people with white privilege (there is no such thing as Black privilege, as is made clear by the dehumanizing, racist animalization that accompanies “The Counselor’s” claim above), we don’t get to condemn Black people’s responses to systemic, pervasive, ever-present, white supremacist, violent oppression. This hypocrisy is especially clear when, as Derrick Clifton over at Mic highlights so well, we do not flinch when white people start fires in the streets.  

If we view rioting as a mass temper tantrum expressed through violence & property damage, white sports fans do that monthly. #Tradition — jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015

We do not flinch when white men–their privileged masculinity popping out of their face paint and sports jerseys–burn cars, set fires, vandalize businesses, cause millions of dollars in property damage, or injure over 100 people… drum roll… because their favorite sports team either won or lost a game.

Where are all the think pieces & coverage of the pathology of white culture every time white frustration vents violence & destruction?

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015

So… according to the white-mediated mass media, Black people pouring into the streets because yet another young Black person was murdered by police for making eye contact with a cop is apparently more disturbing than white men whose entitled rage is so close to the surface that they will set cars on fire over sports and military forces covered in armor and locked-and-loaded with various deadly weapons aimed at Black youths…

You can’t “reform” the brutality out of the police. There’s no reforming systematic violence. You dismantle the institution itself

— Roqayah Chamseddine (@roqchams) April 28, 2015

We really need to re-evaluate what we’re afraid of, white folks. And we need to do it now.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey, Fellow White People: We Need to Shut Up About Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Just a cursory glance at recent social movement-esque trends on Twitter reveals a disturbing tendency of national conversations.

I am currently arching one eyebrow–judging hard–at the fondness we seem to have for localizing national problems in Midwestern states. Observe: homophobia, we locate in Indiana with #BoycottIndiana, almost as though it is the only place with queerphobic laws. Racism and police violence, we locate in Ferguson, as though this city in Missouri itself embodies racism across the country. Even Colorlines.com, an excellent source for intersectional news about structural racism in the U.S., has a separate tab for “Ferguson” on its site. Many tweets hashtag the names of several Black men who were brutalized by cops (or cop stand-ins, in the case of Trayvon Martin), but the only location identified is #Ferguson. No #StatenIsland or #NewYorkCity (where Eric Garner was strangled to death) or #LosAngeles (where Rodney King was savagely beaten by cops in 1991).

Focusing on individuals rather than identifying larger trends (like city-wide implementation of racist stop-and-frisk policies, or nationwide and international waging of a racist “war on drugs”), this place-based use of hashtags allows us to displace racist violence into conveniently “conservative,” Midwestern states like Missouri and Indiana.

This is similar to the trend in films such as “Boys Don’t Cry” and “Brokeback Mountain,” which portray violent homophobia and transphobia as individual acts of hatred rather than structural realities. They also position these acts as being located primarily in rural locations like Falls City, Nebraska and the mountains of Wyoming.

While I was born and raised a city girl, I know (because I have friends, I’ve dated different folks, and I read things like this and this) that vibrant queer cultures exist in rural spaces, and, though I navigate the streets of New York City with the privileges of being white, I know that racist, queerphobic violence is inflicted vis a vis laws and police batons in city centers every day.

As writer Lauren Anderson notes,

[R]ural gay youth teach [urbanites]:
1. Identities are a process of collective action, not a condition waiting for discovery
2. Multiple visibility strategies in play
3. We need to stop moralizing about who does queerness right.

When we erase these kinds of perspectives by asserting that coastal urbanity is the only site of vibrant queer cultures, all it does is romanticize queerness in cities and propagates violence to fellow queers who are from rural areas and/or from Midwestern and southern cities.

And speaking of violence…

Using Ferguson to represent racism and Indiana to represent homophobia risk erasing the massive violences inflicted on queer people of color (as well as white queers and non-queer people of color) that occur in everyday life in cities. Frighteningly, it may well be precisely this erasure that makes #BoycottIndiana and #Ferguson so popular: if we blame individual conservatism and “backward” rural cultures, then we do not have to do the hard labor of dismantling the structural white supremacy and anti-queerness upon which this country–including its cities–operates.

(Looking for more than what I can explain with my limited perspective? Try renting Scott Herring’s Another Country: Queer’s Anti-Urbanism from the library, or read the introduction online here.)

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Boycott Indiana, #Ferguson, and Romanticizing Coastal Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Across the United States, it is estimated that more than 61,000 youth are incarcerated each night, and more than 65 percent of these young people are youth of color. The overwhelming majority, 75 percent, are incarcerated for non-violent offenses.

The U.S. incarcerates youth at vastly higher rates than any other country in a world. Given that these incarcerated youth die from suicide at a rate of two to three times higher than the non-incarcerated youth population, there is no shortage of controversies surrounding the jailing of youth.

Read on to learn about the different controversies surrounding the incarceration of juveniles in the American justice system.

Death in Prison Without a Jury: An Overview of Youth Incarceration

Though all 50 states and the District of Columbia have defined legal differences between adults and youth who are accused of committing crimes, different states have different standards and definitions for what age someone has to be in order to be prosecuted as a juvenile. Additionally, there are many provisions that allow for certain juveniles to be prosecuted as adults, even if they are technically considered to be juveniles.

For some youth, this can be seen as an initial advantage: juveniles accused of crimes are not entitled to a trial by jury in light of a 1971 Supreme Court decision. Instead, youth are sentenced at the discretion of judges. But this exposes youth to tremendous vulnerability at the hands of judges who are accused of making decisions on the basis of race, even if it’s unconsciously. As Judge LaDoris Cordell argues, regarding the grossly disproportionate number of youth of color in the juvenile justice system:

What is hard is that if you go up to your average juvenile court judge, and that judge is the one who sends these kids off–we’re the ones ultimately responsible for these statistics–that judge will look you dead in the eye and say, “I’m not unfair, I’m not racist, I’m not prejudiced. I do the best I can.” And that judge is telling you the truth. . . . But what is at play here in most cases? I’m not saying there aren’t those judges who are so prejudiced and so racist; there are those. But I think, in the main, most are not. But I think what happens is that stereotypes are so embedded in the psyche of human beings, that those stereotypes come to play. So that when a young black kid comes into court before a white male judge, who perhaps doesn’t have any experience dealing with young black males… a mindset comes up in that judge’s head… Assumptions get made. . . . I think, in the main, that’s what happens, and I think that’s what accounts for those statistics. . . .

However, the risks of being tried in adult courts are also astronomical: approximately 2,500 youth are currently enduring life in prison without parole for crimes committed when they were children. In addition, youth are likely to experience extreme abuse in adult prisons. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, “Children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities and face increased risk of suicide.”

Additionally, according to Human Rights Watch, while one out of every eight black youths who are convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison, only one out of every 13 white youths convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison.

In New York and North Carolina, this fate is particularly dangerous for youth: these are the only two states that try 16 and 17-year-old young people as adults. In both of these states, the age of adult criminal responsibility is 16, so judges must automatically treat these youth as adults. The prosecution of 16 year olds as adults–and their subsequent processing through the adult, rather than juvenile, system of incarceration–occurs in New York automatically, regardless of the severity of the accused crime. This means that every year, over 200,000 youth under the age of 18 in the U.S. are tried, prosecuted, and incarcerated as adults.

Even young people who are incarcerated as juveniles, however, experience tremendous hardship within the system. In addition to some debilitating and abusive conditions, youth in the juvenile justice system, whether currently incarcerated or on probation, are required to pay money to the courts for their own incarceration and probation. Youth on probation are responsible for payments such as supervisory fees, as well as fees for staying in juvenile hall while awaiting placement in group homes.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

As schools are militarized across the country–with increased police presence and military training for the police placed in some of our schools–the number of students being funneled from schools into the juvenile justice system is correspondingly increasing. Overall, a 38 percent increase in law enforcement presence in schools between 1997 and 2007 is intimately related to 5 times more students being arrested in schools.

Most of these youths–even those who are not incarcerated extensively after their arrest–lose out on further educational opportunities due to schools’ zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies in schools, which mandate harsh punishments for first-time (and often minor) offenses, emerged from zero tolerance approaches to President George H.W. Bush’s “war on drugs.” According to Professor Nancy A. Heitzeg, sociology instructor and the Program Director of the Critical Studies of Race/Ethnicity program at St. Catherine University, zero tolerance policies in schools are directly related to the funneling of students from schools into prisons:

While the school to prison pipeline is facilitated by a number of trends in education, it is most directly attributable to the expansion of zero tolerance policies. These policies have no measurable impact on school safety, but are associated with a number of negative effects‖ racially disproportionality, increased suspensions and expulsions, elevated drop-out rates, and multiple legal issues related to due process.

By criminalizing “bad behavior” among children in schools instead of supporting students who are in need, zero tolerance policies have, according to Washington Times reporter Nikki Krug, “produced unnecessary student suspensions for even the slightest violations of conduct, leading to higher risk of failing, dropping out and criminal prosecution for minors.” These higher drop-out rates make recidivism and further involvement in both the juvenile and adult justice systems much more likely, with 70 precent of students who become involved with the juvenile justice system dropping out of school entirely.

Young People in Solitary Confinement

Once involved in the juvenile justice system, many youths find themselves devastated by the impacts of solitary confinement. While New York has recently stated that it will end the solitary confinement of youth and those who are pregnant, the punishment is still a reality for many incarcerated youth elsewhere.

Locked in total isolation in small cells for 23 hours a day, children under the age of 18 are locked in solitary for days, weeks, and months on end across the United States every day. The mental health consequences of youth being locked in solitary are even more extreme than they are for adults. The Attorney General’s office has reported, for example, that half of youths who kill themselves while incarcerated do so while they are in solitary. Of those who are not in solitary at the time of their death, 62 percent had endured solitary confinement before.

The youths who do survive solitary are often plagued by the trauma they endure for years to come. In fact, Juan E. Méndez, a United Nations expert on torture, has argued that solitary confinement, especially when practiced on children under 18, amounts to torture.

Juvenile Justice and Racial Justice

According to the National Juvenile Justice Network, youth of color are disproportionately targeted by the juvenile justice system: “In every juvenile offense category—person, property, drug, and public order—youth of color receive harsher sentences and fewer services than white youth who have committed the same category of offenses.” This means that even though white youth commit the same crimes as youth of color, youth of color are criminalized and receive harsher sentences while white youth are more likely to get community service rather than incarceration.

Among these youth of color who are targeted by the juvenile justice system, a great number identify as LGBT. According to the Center for American Progress, around 300,000 LGBT youth are arrested and detained each year in the U.S., and approximately 60 percent of these youth are black and Latina. These youth are much more likely than non-LGBT peers to be targeted for abuse once incarcerated.

Juvenile Injustice?

Though issues abound in the juvenile justice system, many individuals and organizations are committed to making changes to the system. While efforts to reform and overhaul the juvenile justice system are underway, it is clear that youth who have gone through the juvenile justice system are taking the lead in efforts to ensure that justice, rather than injustice, is served. Until these problems are solved, the youth justice system may continue to be unjust.

Resources

Annie E. Casey Foundation: A Collection of Juvenile Justice Resources

Human Rights Watch: The Rest of Their Lives

Human Rights Watch: Growing Up Locked Down

American Civil Liberties Union: Stop Solitary

Center for American Progress: The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender Youth

PBS: Is the System Racially Biased?

Equal Justice Initiative: Children in Prison

Colorlines: Paying to Get Locked Up

Colorlines: More Police in Schools Means More Students Arrested

Advancement Project: Momentum Grows Against Zero Tolerance Discipline and High-Stakes Testing

NOLO: Do Juveniles Have a Right to Trial by Jury?

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Juvenile Justice System: Inequality and Unjust Treatment appeared first on Law Street.

Amid sustained calls to “fix this now” and the trending Twitter hashtag #boycottindiana, Indiana’s Republican leadership has quietly been maneuvering to maintain the increased discrimination against LGBT residents that Governor Mike Pence‘s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) enabled. The Indiana legislature voted this week to deny protective provisions that would have ensured that religious protections cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT people. According to Think Progress editor Zack Ford, due to recent legal developments, “outside of the few municipalities with local protections, anti-LGBT discrimination is still legal throughout most of the state.”

And although #boycottindiana is trending hard on Twitter, the RFRA is hardly the only devastating bill to come out of Indiana recently.

But it’s the only one causing majors trends.

Why? One of the big reasons: mainstream (read: overwhelmingly white) LGBT advocates, organizations, and issues have largely gained the support of big businesses and corporations. (Yes, I know that the pizzeria that supported the RFRA made an absurd amount of money from the controversy. But that’s not the systemic trend, which favors corporations making profit off of and cooperating with upper- and middle-class, white LGB people and organizations.)

Whiteness must be decentralized from the LGBT movement. I’m sick of hearing about Leelah Alcorn and not Blake Brockington #HisNameWasBlake

— Ryan Mishler (@storyofryguy) April 9, 2015

So what could be trending under the hashtag #boycottindiana, but is not?

An incredibly scary amendment to Senate Bill 465, which addresses the operations of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, was passed in the Indiana House this week. Though much ire and rage have been focused on the Indiana Republican leadership that was responsible for the RFRA, it was Democratic Representative Terry Goodin who proposed adding the drug testing requirement to the bill.

Drug testing requirements in order to receive welfare fundamentally introduce even greater racism into welfare programs: even though white people tend to use illegal drugs at comparable or even higher rates than people of color, people of color are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates for drug related “crimes” than white people. This means that people of color who are welfare recipients are going to be disproportionately targeted by the new provision’s requirement that recipients with histories of drug-related “crimes” be required to undergo testing. These folks will be stripped of their welfare benefits if they fail two tests.

So… Why is the #boycottindiana hashtag not blowing up with rage over this new twist to already-racist policies? Do my fellow white queers think racist laws are alright while homophobic laws are not?

Racial justice is LGBT justice.

So… Where are the trending boycotts against all kinds of racist laws across the country, like the resurgence of Jim Crow-esque laws that suppress the votes of Black and Latina people by mandating ID requirements for voting?

Where is the #boycottwhitenessinLGBTorganizations hashtag? The #boycottmassincarceration hashtag, or the #boycottracism hashtag? The #boycottwhitesupremacy hashtag?

Oh, yes. We can’t boycott those things. They’re too integrated into what makes this country operate.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s Something Scarier Than Religious Freedom Going on in Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

Lauded broadly as a triumph for love conquering all, the Ad Council’s viral PSA “Love Has No Labels”  is an attempt to spread the message that, as its mission states, “before anything else, we are all human. It’s time to embrace diversity. Let’s put aside labels in the name of love.” You can watch the video below.

My first reaction was: Yes! Because love does have the tremendous capacity to be stronger than hatred or apathy–even persisting in the face of institutionalized violence and microaggressions.

So, sure, yes. But also, no. No, no. No!

Because, contrary to what the video states, love does have race; it does have gender; it does have dis/ability; it does have age; it does have religion.

When we put aside labels or dismiss them as individualized bias, when we do what this PSA and its attendant website implore us to do, we proclaim ourselves “colorblind” and ignore what created these labels: systemic oppression.

Oppression is institutional, not only interpersonal. We cannot dismantle violent oppressions like racism and ableism by kissing and hugging behind an x-ray screen and then using the shock value of emerging from behind the screen, smiling, to rid the world of the white supremacy that shapes racist institutions and the environmental racism that shapes ableism.

“Putting aside” these labels–proclaiming yourself “colorblind”–will only ever benefit people who are on the more privileged ends of the labels at hand.

You cannot “put aside” race if you are a person of color. You cannot “put aside” dis/ability if you have disabilities. You cannot “put aside” sexuality if you are queer.You cannot “put aside” age if you are subject to ageist discrimination.

Interlocking systems of oppression that define our society–and, of course, our labels–will not allow it.

These labels–race, dis/ability, age, body type, sexuality–that Love Has No Labels wants to dismiss outright are vital to our existence. For better and for worse, they intimately shape all of our lives. So, they do matter.

Labels do affect love. Labels affect love because I need my girlfriend to understand that because of my mental dis/abilities, my day-to-day is quite different from hers. Similarly, she needs me to understand the endless ways that as a white woman, I walk through the world with privileges that she has never had. And we both need to accept that while we can never truly understand each other’s respective experiences of oppression, that’s okay, as long as we’re always working to do the best we can.

Which, I guess, is what this “Love Has No Labels” thing is trying to do to begin with. But still, it bothers me. More than that, it enrages me. Because the problem is not “bias,” as the PSA’s website would have you believe. The problem is not individualized bias that can be dissolved by a touching video. The problem is the institutionalized forms of violence that create and perpetuate bias.

Ultimately, it’s all in the label itself. This PSA campaign says we should “embrace diversity” immediately before it says we should “put aside labels.” So we’re embracing difference by putting difference aside? How about we try embracing difference by actually acknowledging it, not erasing it?

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Love Does Have Labels: We Need to Acknowledge Them appeared first on Law Street.

Much ado has been made about the potential impacts of gay marriage on immigrants, and the potential impacts of comprehensive immigration reform on LGBTQ people. But what does all that mean? How do laws aimed at immigrants and laws aimed at LGBTQ people impact those who are both immigrants and LGBTQ? Read on to learn about the different difficulties of LGBTQ immigration, what progress is being made, and what problems still exist.

“Don’t Separate my Family”: Marriage and Immigration

When people hear about immigration and gay rights together in mainstream media sources, chances are that the conversation is about the impacts of gay marriage on immigration policy and individual couples in which one partner is an immigrant and the other is a citizen.

In the build up to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which provided full federal recognition of legally married same-sex couples by striking down a critical component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many couples in which one partner was not a citizen were featured in efforts of advocacy for gay marriage. A perfect example is the couple featured in the YouTube clip above. In the aftermath of federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a good deal of media coverage focused on long-term lesbian and gay relationships in which one of the partners was granted legal immigration status through marriage to a citizen partner. This New York Daily News article, for example, frames the triumph of gay marriage advocates in New York through the lens of immigration, discussing same-sex marriage as a win for a binational couple’s ability to obtain a green card for one of the partners.

Legal recognition for same-sex marriage has somewhat been a boon for proponents of more accessible immigration. LGBTQ couples no longer need to live in fear that they will not be able to live together in the U.S. because their marriage isn’t recognized: after the DOMA decision, same-sex couples have the right–as straight couples do–to have an immigrant partner obtain a green card through their marriage to a citizen spouse. Prior to the DOMA decision, no federal rights of marriage, including federal taxes and federal benefits, were afforded to same-sex couples, even if they were married in a state where it was legal. There was a lack of ability to obtain a green card for an immigrant partner in a binational couple; these rights are now assured. Transgender immigrants in a binational marriage, rest assured–whether you’re in a straight or  gay/lesbian relationship, the DOMA decision ensures that you or your partner can qualify for a green card.

New Concerns After the DOMA Decision

After the DOMA decision, however, concerns remain for LGBTQ immigrant couples. For example, investigative reporter Seth Freed Wessler writes for Colorlines.com that,

The parts of the marriage-based visa process that include investigation by federal immigration officers into the validity of a marriage… [can pose a problem for] LGBT couples who may not be out to their families, communities, neighbors or bosses, the prospect of a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer showing up at their apartment building or calling their mother to ask about the relationship poses a pretty serious risk.

This is indeed something to be concerned about, and it may well bar access to green cards for many LGBTQ immigrants. Yet it is precisely this articulation of the U.S. as a liberal bastion and safe-haven for LGBTQ people–juxtaposed against “homophobic” countries–that causes many LGBTQ people to critique the entire framing of same-sex marriage as a vehicle for positive immigration policy.

Many LGBTQ people argue that fighting for marriage takes away attention, energy, and resources (millions and millions of dollars worth) from addressing the underlying issues of structural racism, state oppression and heteronormativity that shape anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ attitudes to begin with. Queercents writer Yasmin argues that marriage “being presented as THE immigration cause for LGBT people” detracts crucial attention away from comprehensive immigration reform, which she and many others assert should be the focal point of immigration efforts. Responding to American Apparel’s same-sex marriage-inspired “Legalize Gay” shirts Yasmin writes that:

Do people wearing this t-shirt have a clue what it really means to be illegal? To be, for instance, an ‘illegal alien’ who gets swept up in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid and be deported soon thereafter? To not be able to travel freely because they lack the proper documentation? To pay for their school tuition and rent in cash because they lack social security numbers? [And i]t’s not just the undocumented whose lives are effectively erased by this t-shirt, but the millions who are being funneled into the prison industrial complex in order to increase its profits.

Even if an undocumented immigrant who is LGBTQ is familiar with the fears and oppressions discussed here, they may not have marriage available to them–or may not desire marriage–if they want a green card.

Executive Action and Legal Challenges

President Obama’s executive action in November 2014 that attempted to grant relief from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is being legally challenged by 26 states. These legal challenges have left millions of people in limbo, without knowing their status or rights, because the parents of U.S. citizens and families who were protected from deportation under his executive orders now must wait to learn what courts will decide about the legal challenges.

The impacts of Obama’s exercise of executive power (and, then, the impacts of the legal challenges to this power) for LGBTQ people have been much debated in LGBTQ communities. Staff correspondents Rachel Roubein and Lauren Fox argue in the National Journal that Obama’s actions on immigration were a tremendous help to LGBTQ people. They cite, among other things, the life-saving potential of prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, which can prevent many LGBTQ people from being deported.

Other critics are less optimistic about the potential of Obama’s executive action to serve as the immigration overhaul that many desire, even if the cases against it are unsuccessful. Colorlines.com reporter Julianne Hung reminds her readers that:

The terms [of the action] are stringent: It will apply only to those who have been in the U.S. for five years or more; those who came to the country as young teens; and parents of U.S. citizen children and green-card holders. People with various criminal violations on their records will be barred from relief.

While these familial provisions were portrayed as being meant to keep families together, they do not grant access to many of the 267,000 undocumented LGBTQ adults who will not qualify for relief under Obama’s action because they lack these kinds of familial connections. These stringent terms may be particularly prohibitive for many of the 20,000-50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants in the country, for whom accessing potential relief will likely be particularly difficult due to virulent institutional transphobia that trans immigrants face.

“Mass Incarceration of Immigrants”

Currently, there’s a “mass incarceration of immigrants” in which the state and prison corporations generate many billions of dollars of profit from privately run and revenue-generating facilities that lock up people who are immigrants. In light of that, many LGBTQ immigrants are concerned about prisons generally, and the ways transgender people are targeted for especially horrific treatment in prisons and immigration detention centers. When the Department of Homeland Security came out with new immigration detention policies in 2014 that were aimed at preventing sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities, many lauded the changes as a victory. LGBTQ immigrants in these centers often experience much higher rates of abuse than their non-LGBTQ peers, so the changes were often welcomed by LGBTQ immigration advocates.

However, transgender immigrants did not receive adequate protections under the new guidelines. National Center for Transgender Equality director of policy Harper Jean Tobin referred to the new policies in the following way:

A tremendous missed opportunity which adds urgency to ending our multibillion-dollar mass incarceration of immigrants… The lack of adequate protections for transgender immigrants in particular makes it clear that these vulnerable individuals are not safe in detention facilities and should no longer be detained.

Many transgender asylum seekers are detained in the wrong facilities, particularly women being placed in all-male facilities, making those women targets of extreme sexual violence in immigration detention facilities.

This kind of abuse is experienced at higher rates by transgender immigrants, but LGB immigrants also are sexually abused at 15 percent higher rates than their non-LGB peers in detention facilities.

Organizations like the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Sylvia Rivera Project’s Immigrant Rights Project work at the intersections between immigration and LGBTQ justice. They operate in ways that attempt to make detention safer for LGBTQ immigrants specifically while also working to make detention and deportation non-existent for all immigrants.

Conclusion

For immigrants who are LGBTQ, obstacles to obtaining a green card and safety from deportation can be much greater than for immigrants who are not LGBTQ, though the obstacles and the stakes are quite high for all immigrants. Same-sex marriage may chip away at these obstacles for some LGBTQ immigrants in binational, married relationships, but more overarching reform of the system of detention and deportation of immigrants may be a more holistic way forward for LGBTQ immigrants.

Resources

Primary

Oyez: United States v. Windsor

Additional

National Immigrant Justice Center: Stop Abuse of Detained LGBT Immigrants

Sylvia Rivera Law Project: Immigrant Rights Project

National Center for Transgender Equality: Our Moment For Reform

ABC News: DOMA Ruling Could Mean Green Cards for Gay Immigrants

Colorlines: LGBT Immigrants Could Face Hard Road Applying for Green Cards

Washington Post: Gay Marriage Fight Will Cost Tens of Millions

MakeZine: Is Gay Marriage Racist?

Queercents: Legalize Gay: Or, So You Think You’re Illegal?

Queercents: Uniting American Families Act: Fact, Fiction, Money, and Emotions

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action

AlJazeera: 26 States Sue Obama Over Immigration Plan

National Journal: In Immigration Action, the LGBT Community Once Again Feels Left Behind

Feministing: Is Mass Incarceration and Detention of Women Becoming the New Normal?

Center for American Progress: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Immigration: Not Just About Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

This won’t be news to anyone who experiences it, but this “just in”–being targeted and locked up by racism and the criminal justice system dramatically increases people’s experiences of depression, suicide ideation, and many other types of “mental illness.”

Except here’s the thing: like Bruce E. Levine over at AlterNet has shown, the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has shoved under the table a survey that demonstrates the explicit connections between high rates of mental illness and mass incarceration, racism, unemployment, heterosexsim, and classism.

One of the most damning aspects of the survey is that the rate and severity of experiencing mental illness is double for adults who have contact with the criminal justice system compared with adults who don’t. (Seriously. Check it out.) There seems to be the perception that this country locks up people because they experience mental illness: this is often true, and is repulsive. But if we want to look at the proverbial big picture, we also have to consider the ways that mass incarceration–and the solitary confinement often involved with imprisonment–and the virulent racism that shapes the prison-industrial complex actually cause mental health issues.

Levine writes, “[f]or decades doctors — and Big Pharma — have pointed to neuroscience [as explanations for “mental illness”]. Cultural variables are often more telling.” Indeed. But by SAMHSA’s logic, why damn the system that produces these mental illness-causing oppressions when you can convince people to buy overpriced, toxic pharmaceuticals drugs and therapy from it?

Of course, people who experience these oppressions don’t need government-sponsored studies and surveys to elucidate the ways that racism, mass incarceration, classism, and heterosexism make many of us live with severely impaired mental health.

Personal Example Time: I am certain that my being a white queer woman in this society fundamentally shaped my diagnoses as depressed and bipolar. Expected to be easily “corrupted” and traumatized because of my whiteness and white privilege; expected to be dedicated to others and feel guilty for putting myself first because of my womanness and heterosexism; expected to daily endure the structural and interpersonal impacts of sexism and queerphobia and always be “polite” about it…my diagnoses (and the feelings that precipitated seeking them) are not surprising.

White men–much like those who shoot people in schools and much like Germanwings co-pilot Andrea Lupitz–are routinely portrayed empathetically by mainstream media sources (instead of being called terrorists) because of their emotional angst and “understandable” mental illness when they kill over 100 people. However, people (especially working-class women) of color who defend themselves against attack are imprisoned, villified, and pathologized. In light of this, the consequences of not addressing racism, heterosexism, and classism in mental health are… well… life-threatening.

And far, far beyond depressing: the causes and consequences are outraging.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Incarceration Leads to Depression, So Why Don’t We Stop? appeared first on Law Street.

I was heartbroken last month to hear that Jon Stewart would be leaving his seat on “The Daily Show” for presumably bigger and better things after an impressive 16 plus years as the show’s host. Even though I was so sure that my girl Jessica Williams was primed to take Stewart’s spot, I was both impressed and excited when Comedy Central announced yesterday that South African comedian Trevor Noah had been awarded the coveted position. The world appeared to be geared up to embrace Noah and his international spin on politics, until fans of the show began to comb through his Twitter account and found some old tweets that have been deemed offensive to both women and Jews.

.@Trevornoah, new ‘Daily Show’ host, faces criticism for tweets http://t.co/K7QeoYNGQz pic.twitter.com/CWa34wcgI2

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 31, 2015

Some of the tweets in question include:

South Africans know how to recycle like israel knows how to be peaceful. — Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) June 2, 2010

So she gets fat? RT @missdanibagel: When a woman is loved correctly, she becomes 10 times the woman she was before

— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) July 18, 2014

Almost bumped a Jewish kid crossing the road. He didn’t look b4 crossing but I still would hav felt so bad in my german car! — Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) September 18, 2009

This one is a gem.

A hot white woman with ass is like a unicorn. Even if you do see one, you’ll probably never get to ride it.

— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) November 28, 2011

His comments have been called both anti-semitic and anti-feminist, but we need to take a second to remember one thing–Trevor Noah is a comedian. He’s not a politician, school principal, or “real” news correspondent. He makes a living telling jokes and making people laugh, and while humor is in fact subjective, these tweets appear to have been intended as jokes.

He’s not the first comedian to have his social media taken out of context, and he won’t be the last. As a top source for televised comedy, Comedy Central likely understands this and doesn’t seem to be putting too much stock in the controversy. I doubt Noah will lose his new position over this, but how he handles the situation will be telling.

Noah seemingly acknowledged the controversy Tuesday, sending out a tweet just before 9 a.m. Eastern time that read, “Twitter does not have enough characters to respond to all the characters on Twitter.” The tweet was deleted shortly after. Maybe he’s already learned his first social media lesson, at the very least: don’t fuel the Twitter trolls.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Trevor Noah: First and Foremost a Comedian appeared first on Law Street.

From the time we are in elementary school, we are told that copying from someone else’s paper is wrong. As we get a little older, we are given other names for this copying: plagiarism and intellectual property theft. Often, even those who believe that intellectual property laws are a threat to creativity and equitable access to knowledge recognize that even if something is not illegal, it is better form to give credit where credit is due. But a new question has popped up recently: does this logic apply to culture, as well? Some say yes and call it cultural appropriation. But what exactly is cultural appropriation, and when do we cross the line between appropriation and appreciation?

 What is cultural appropriation?

Cultural appropriation is often defined as being similar to intellectual property theft, but with more overt and culturally offensive aspects.

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or theft of icons, rituals, aesthetic standards, and behavior from one culture or subculture by another. It generally is applied when the subject culture is a minority culture or some how subordinate in social, political, economic, or military status to the appropriating culture. This ‘appropriation’ often occurs without any real understanding of why the original culture took part in these activities or the meanings behind these activities, often converting culturally significant artifacts,practices, and beliefs into ‘meaningless’ pop-culture or giving them a significance that is completely different/less nuanced than they would originally have had.

Viewed as a direct continuation of imperialist violence–which assumes that the land, labor, and bodies of people of color are available for white consumption–cultural appropriation “treats all aspects of marginalized cultures… as free for the taking.”

Conversations about the controversy also often come up when discussing music, such as this interview with Azealia Banks over white artists’ cultural appropriation.

But can you really steal a culture?

On the flip side of things, some people believe that accusations of cultural appropriation need to be wielded much more carefully. Arguing that “you can’t ‘steal’ a culture,” American political commentator and linguist John McWhorter asserts that, “with gay white men and black women, for example, it’s not as if the black women are being left without their culture after the ‘theft’ or as if gay white men are somehow out there ‘out-blacking’ the women they ‘stole’ from.” (This refers to white gay men who affect speaking patterns and mannerisms that are often more readily culturally associated with black women.) McWhorter warns that people accusing others of “stealing” culture through appropriation are using the very specific term too loosely. He argues that the loosening of our language allows flippant accusations to be made when more serious issues can be dealt with.

Additionally, accusations of cultural appropriation often generate assumptions about the race, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality of the people involved. This is alluded to by Howell in the video above, which he starts by cautioning viewers not to pre-judge what he says by the color of his skin. He goes on to argue that it is a compliment to people of color (specifically, he is talking about black people) when white people want to engage in aspects of black culture that they find attractive and fun. Reminding his viewers that it is not “wrong” or “low-class” to be black or to perform blackness through dress or actions, Howell argues that cultural appropriation is not actually appropriation at all, but rather a form of a compliment that has the potential to dismantle racist and/or classist assumptions about black people.

In a similar vein, it is often argued that accusing someone of appropriating another culture can force unwanted assumptions onto people. These incorrect assumptions happened to a bride named Krista, who was accused online of cultural appropriation for pictures of her wedding that were posted online. The wedding integrated aspects of Lenape culture, a Mid-Atlantic Native American tribe. Krista, however, reminded online discussants that she has a Lenape background, even though people assumed she was white based on her features and the color of her skin.

Appreciation or Appropriation?

Here are some examples of widely-talked about accusations of cultural appropriation in recent pop culture.

Case Study: Miley Cyrus

Accused by many as putting on a tremendously racist “minstrel show” in her “We Can’t Stop” video and its performance at the 2013 VMAs, Miley Cyrus has been resoundingly condemned by Anne Theriault for having “used black women as props — like, literal props... Miley was, at one point, slapping a faceless black woman on the ass as if she was nothing more than a thing for Miley to dominate and humiliate.” Critics also noted the historical significance of Cyrus’ performance; like so many other white performers before her, Cyrus used black culture and black bodies to re-brand her own image. Her unapologetic use of black women’s bodies to make herself look “cooler” was described by Jody Rosen of Vulture: “Cyrus is annexing working-class black “ratchet” culture, the potent sexual symbolism of black female bodies, to the cause of her reinvention: her transformation from squeaky-clean Disney-pop poster girl to grown-up hipster-provocateur.”

Following Cyrus’ performance there were powerful calls for black female performers to “just say no” to requests to be in her videos or shows in the future. Musician Big Freedia made sure Cyrus knew she wasn’t even succeeding at her attempts to twerk, sardonically offering, “just get me and Miley together so I could give her ass some lessons.”

In the midst of these accusations of Cyrus’ cultural appropriation, however, there were calls to “go easy” on the performer. In the rush to defend Cyrus, Washington Post columnist Clinton Yates asserted that, “it is inherently racist to imply that there is anything wrong with anyone other than black women twerking.” Arguing that the term “hood” connotes affection when said by white people today, McWhorter had a series of questions for those calling Cyrus out on racism. He wanted to know, “How do we know Cyrus isn’t sincere when she says she loves “hood” culture? Because she’s white? I’m afraid that’s a little 1955.”