Don’t expect to see any Apple gear at the GOP Convention in Cleveland next month–the tech giant announced that it will not provide any funds, devices, or support to this year’s convention, like it has done in the past. Why not? Apple is protesting Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about minorities, women, and immigrants.

So, @realDonaldTrump, you’re such a “great” businessman and negotiator. You’re costing the #RNC sponsors (#Apple, #Ford, etc.). WTF?!#HaHa!

— (((B. Paul Stuart))) (@BrianPaulStuart) June 18, 2016

Apple is the first company in Silicon Valley to take this stance. Others like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have already pledged some financial support to the convention. At the 2008 Republic and Democrat conventions, Apple donated about $140,000 worth of MacBooks and other products. In 2012, it did not donate free merchandise to the conventions because Democrats placed a ban on corporations financing their nominating events.

A spokeswoman for the GOP convention told Politico that “we are working with a variety of major tech partners who are focused on being part of the American political process.” In April, Google said it would attend the convention and would be the official live stream provider, despite pressure from protestors who called Google to back out because of Trump’s inflammatory comments. Microsoft will donate computers and software, but will not provide funds to Republicans, like it has in the past. Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s criticism of Trump, Facebook has pledged financial and other support to the convention.

Apple declined to comment on its decision, so it’s unclear whether or not it will still provide financial support to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to Politico’s request for a comment. Donald Trump has singled out Apple in speeches, criticizing CEO Tim Cook’s stance on encryption, while also calling for a boycott on its products.

Of course #Apple is uneasy over Donald J. Trump. Who isn’t? #rnc #uspoli #p2 https://t.co/wxjVfc31wD

— Truth Mashup (@truthmashup) June 19, 2016

Usually, tech companies donate to Democratic and Republican efforts equally. Apple typically does not engage in politics, but Cook has tried to forge relationships with Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Last year, Cook and a handful of top Republican house leaders dined in D.C. together.

However, Apple’s decision is not totally unprecedented. HP, who was a major donor to the GOP convention in 2012, backed out of funding this year’s convention because of pressure from activists at ColorofChange.org in June. The New York Times reported in March that several corporations were thinking about scaling back their donations to the RNC because of Trump’s political ideology.

“We want them to divest from hate. We want them to pull all their money and support,”  said Mary Alice Crim, field director for Free Press Action Fund, which is part of the anti-Trump campaign. She added that tech companies that are backing the convention need to be “thinking hard about where they put their brand, and whether they want to align their brand with racism, hatred, and misogyny.”

Inez Nicholson

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

The post Apple Won’t Support the RNC Because of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues his rise in the presidential election–from a businessman joking about running for president to the man who will almost certainly be the Republican Party nominee–several Republican leaders have had to decide whether or not they are going to suck it up and support him. While some Republicans have refused to support Trump or have withdrawn their endorsements because of his repeatedly racist rhetoric, many leaders have given him their political blessing as it has become apparent that he is all they have left.

In the beginning, there was obvious hesitation to support trump. Around a month ago, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and highest ranking GOP official, was nowhere near willing to commit to the Donald Trump bandwagon. Ryan had slammed Trump for his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country, pointing out the plan’s unconstitutionality and inherent lack of conservatism. And when Trump refused to disavow David Duke in February, Ryan responded by saying,

If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices.

It seems that Ryan and others have decided to weaken the Republican Party stance on bigotry, however, as several party leaders have now readily accepted Trump as their nominee, brushing off his inappropriate behavior and rhetoric as accidental.

A recent example of this hypocrisy? This week Trump has been under fire for inherently racist comments against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an attack add, Hillary Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Trump’s statement and some Republican Party members’ decision to speak out against him.

The video shows clips of Trump’s racist interview claims that Judge Curiel could not fairly judge his case because of his Mexican heritage. His statements are then followed by different clips of prominent Republicans disapproving of his racist claims.

Paul Ryan admitted that Trump’s statements were textbook examples of racism and that he regretted the comments. Mitch McConnell criticized Trump’s statements as stupid inappropriate. Newt Gingrich labeled the comments inexcusable and Trump an amateur. But, while these Republican leaders are disavowing Trump’s remarks on TV or in the news, the sad thing is they and the rest of the party are continuing to support him nonetheless. Party leaders have repeatedly acknowledged Trump’s blatant bigotry, inappropriate rhetoric, and repeated racism, but they still stand behind him and continue pushing for him to be our next President.

At best, Republican support of Donald Trump is some kind of misguided attempt to hold the party together. At worst, the support is grounded in a firm belief in Trump’s plan to destroy all racial diversity and cultural variety in America. GOP leaders need to wake up and realize that the remarks that Donald Trump keeps making on air and in interviews, time and time again, aren’t just silly mistakes–they are who he is. And, then, if party leaders really want to put the force of their party behind the bigoted monster Trump has become (or has always been), they need to accept the consequences that decision will have for their future as a political party and our future as Americans.

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 Republican Party Leaders Acknowledge They’re Backing a Racist appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan McMurray

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

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

Here’s some gross and weird racism to start off your Wednesday: a gun range in Arkansas has declared that it is a “Muslim-Free Business.” Jan Morgan runs the Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range, and is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment (although apparently not the rest of our Bill of Rights). She also subscribes to a particularly paranoid form of logic.

According to Morgan, the decision to ban Muslims from her business was based on an encounter in which:

Two Muslims walked in to my range last week with Allah Akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little English, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns. Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.

First of all, what in the world is an “Allah Akbar” ring tone? Allah Akbar is a phrase that means, essentially, “God is the Greatest.” It’s used in prayer or in times of distress. The name of the Libyan national anthem is similar — “Allahu Akbar” — but I highly doubt that’s what this woman was referring to. Was it just the phrase “Allah Akbar” over and over again?

On a more serious note, Morgan very well may have been concerned by the behavior of these two men. My guess is that the encounter she’s describing has been a little over exaggerated, but let’s pretend that it’s not. She and her customers may well have been concerned, and if they broke a reasonable rule that she’d created at her business — for example, having a valid ID — she had every right to refuse them service. Gun range owners do have the discretion to turn away people who seem, for example, drunk, or mentally ill. But that’s an individual decision based on the customer in question, not a blanket one.

Where the huge disconnect comes in, is that this apparently prompted her to ban anyone who is Muslim from her gun range, which makes about as much sense as banning all men because those two she encountered happened to be male. Or banning all young white men, because they are the most common to partake in mass shootings.

Morgan goes on to justify her paranoia and splendid racism with a list of nine reasons. Some are your garden variety xenophobia, but there are some standout examples of logical fallacies as well. Here’s a fun one:

In the 14 hundred year history, muslims have murdered over 270 million people. Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim. Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with. I hold adults accountable for the religion they align themselves with.

I enjoy how she starts this statement off with how not all Muslims are terrorists, but concludes that that doesn’t really matter. And she’s right, you can’t tell someone’s religion just by looking at them, so I’m assuming this leaves Morgan a couple choices: either ask her customers’ religion before they enter her business, or profile anyone who fits her definition of what someone who is Muslim looks like. Either is offensive, degrading, and inappropriate.

Also included in Morgan’s manifesto are random comments about Sharia Law coming to the United States, which no one can really prove, and lots about the violence of the “Koran.”

Morgan will have a suit brought against her by the ACLU. The executive director of the Arkansas ACLU, Rita Sklar, explained, “It’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal under the Civil Rights Act. It’s a violation of the right to religious liberty.”

Morgan, though, seems to have some support. If you want to really depress yourself, check out the comments on any article about this issue, or the Twitter mentions. That bothers me more than one crazy wingnut banning Muslims from her business, because it reminds me that so much of the country thinks this way.

Finally, Ms. Morgan claims she is a supporter of the Second  Amendment, but I think she needs a reminder of what the Second Amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And let’s put all arguments about the Second Amendment aside for a minute here, because although I have conflicted feelings about what it actually means, there’s one thing in there that’s crystal clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There are no caveats in there. This is in an Amendment to our Constitution, a document that tells us that all men are created equal. Not all Christians are created equal, or all white people are created equal, or all Americans. Everyone. While Morgan does own a private business, her love of the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that it’s right to ignore the rest of the document. The Bill of Rights isn’t multiple choice.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [John Biehler via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Arkansas Woman Bans “Muslims” From Her Gun Range appeared first on Law Street.

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

Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

Juliet Lapidos of The New York Times pointedly stated,

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

Whitewashing

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

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

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

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

Gender

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

Some findings surrounding the inequalities are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bechdel Test

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

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

The rules for the Bechdel Test are that the film:

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

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

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

LGBT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rayon

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

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

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

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

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

Oscars 2014

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

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

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

Additional 

New Yorker: Lessons From Late Night

Mic: 6 Disney Films That Are Undeniably Racist and Sexist

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

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

GLAAD: 2014 Studio Responsibility Index

GLAAD: The Vito Russo Test

KPCC: Oscars 2014: 8 Ways They Made Diversity History

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

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

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

Alex Hill

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

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

I’ve had trouble with the Redskins name ever since I was in elementary school. I never understood why the mascot of a professional football team was just a man with some feathers on his head. You would think that if a seven-year-old kid can see the wrong in naming a team “Redskins,” then adults would too. But sadly many of them do not. So to help get my point across, for the rest of this article I will refer to them as the R*dskins.

Daniel Snyder, owner of the R*dskins since 1999, has been pressured to change the name of the team by fans, politicians, and various advocacy groups who feel that the name is derogatory to Native Americans. In May 2013, in response to a question regarding the team’s name, Snyder told USA Today, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER – you can use caps.”

Seriously?

I get that you’re from Maryland Mr.Snyder, I am too. And I get that you are a die-hard R*dskins fan, though I am not. But can you seriously not see the racism behind the name of your team?

You are literally taking a whole group of people and turning them into caricatures, and when asked to just think about changing the name to something less offensive, your response is always a loud and clear.

Now, my issue with the name of the R*dskins is not just with Daniel Snyder, it goes a lot deeper than that. My issue runs with the players, the fans, the coaches, the media, and the NFL. Any and all these people could take a stand against Snyder and the R*dskins organization and possibly make a change. But who cares about Native Americans right? We only came to their country, took their land, killed their people, and made it ours. Then to rub salt in the wounds we took a stereotypical image of a Native American and made it a mascot alongside the likes of  falcons, jaguars, ravens, bears, rams, and a ton of other animals. Is that what you see Native Americans as, R*dskins fans? Animals?

You should be ashamed

I’ve been having this argument for years and years, and I have heard the same arguments as to why the R*dskins are a nice, genuine, wholesome team who are just misunderstood. I’ve heard the, “It’s been like that for so long, it would be weird to change the name now,” excuse. Well…

Slavery was normal in America for more than 200 years. People thought it would be “weird” if we gave Black people in America the same rights as White people. Laws change, social systems crumble, but universal truths are constant. What is true and right is true and right for all.

So often when I’m having this argument I say, “What if the team was called ‘Washington Blackskins’ with a Black person wearing a do-rag?” The person is often quiet for a very long moment before replying, “It’s not the same.”

How? How is it not the exact same thing? So what is racist for Black people isn’t racist for Native Americans? That in itself sounds racist to me, and whenever someone says that to me I just simply…

spazz out.

What’s funny to me is that most R*dskins fans are Black, and you would think that they would be more sensitive to racial slurs. I am willing to bet all the money in my bank account that if the team were called the “Washington Blackskins,” there would be a march on Washington, Black religious leaders and other Black activist would be holding press conferences, and a social media campaign with a witty hash tag would be in full effect. Since the slur isn’t directed at the Black community, we don’t really seem to care.

whatever right?

To Snyder, the NFL, and all of the team’s fans, the name isn’t racist. They see it as an entity to be proud of. They’ve watched R*dskins “heroes” such as Joe Gibbs, Sean Taylor, Clinton Portis, and many more, give a good chunk of their lives to this organization. Well I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, R*dskins fans: these guys are not heroes. In fact, they played an essential part in the continuing racism that plagues America today. Also, the original owner of the team, George Marshall, was a loud and proud bigot. He was the last owner in the NFL to integrate his team, and only did so because he was forced to do so by the federal government. “We’ll start signing Negroes, when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing Whites,” Marshall once said. This is the history that makes R*dskins fans proud?

I wish i could roll my eyes further into my head.

Just because you think it isn’t offensive doesn’t mean that it actually isn’t. In fact, many Native Americans do find the name to be incredibly insulting.

• Oneida Nation has encouraged Americans to lobby the NFL in support of the name change at www.changethemascot.org.
• A group of Native Americans sued the team back in 2013 arguing against the team’s trademark rights to the name. Trademarks that are deemed racist are illegal under U.S. federal law.
• The 2,000-man protest at the 1992 Super Bowl consisted of members from various tribes (Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, Choctaw).
•  Hundreds protested at the home stadium in Landover, Md. on Thanksgiving day 2013.
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a video last year that consists of leaders from seven different tribes calling for the name to be changed, and released a new and even more powerful video showing everything that American Indians are, R*dskin not being one of them.

Thankfully they are not competely alone in their fight to get the R*dskins to change their name. There have been numerous politicians, former athletes, and plain old citizens who have helped in the conflict.

• President Barack Obama said, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”
• DC Mayor Vincent Gray said that if the team wanted to relocate from Maryland to DC they would have to consider changing their name.
• Fifty senators sent a letter to the NFL (really just Roger Goodell) saying that the NFL needs to change the name.

“The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter reads. “We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team…We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports.”

thank you… its about damn time

Native Americans aren’t cartoons. They aren’t caricatures, or mascots. They are people like you and me, and deserve to be treated with a lot more respect than we have given them over the past hundred years. Their voice may be small in America, but it can still be clearly heard, and as long as one Native American is offended by the word, I think it’s worth discussing what can be done to fix that.

So, I’m going to help out you R*dskins fans a little bit since I don’t hold grudges. Instead of the R*dskins, you could call yourselves the Pigskins! The name still has the same syllables as the original name, it’s a lot less racist, and pigs are super cute and super smart. You could even have RG3 race a pig across the field to start every game or something.

HTTP- Hail To The Pigskins!

That was just a suggestion off the top of my head, you could change it to literally anything and it would probably be better than the R*dskins. Just please for the love of god change that racist name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Past Time to Change the Racist Redskins Name. Why Aren’t You Angry? appeared first on Law Street.

As those of us who don’t live under a rock know, an audio recording was leaked to the media last weekend of Clippers owner Donald Sterling making racist remarks. Last Tuesday, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver addressed the comments and levied historic punishment against Sterling, which included a $2.5-million fine, a lifetime ban from the NBA, and a forced sale of the basketball team that Sterling has owned since 1981. The punishment has earned Commissioner Silver the praise of basically everyone, but the envy of none. That’s because forcing Donald Sterling to sell his basketball team will be fraught with legal difficulties.

The greatest legal obstacle to overcome before finding the Clippers a new owner may be the antitrust hurdle. Several attorneys have opined that there’s little precedent beyond financial instability that permits a commissioner to force an owner to surrender ownership rights. The NBA Constitution, made public last week, is also arguably overbroad with regard to the behavior that can earn an owner the boot. Section 13(a) states that ownership stakes may be terminated if an owner “willfully violate(s) any of the provisions of the Constitution and by-laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.” That could include almost anything.

Leagues have been taken to court over similar antitrust issues. In 1994, former New England Patriots owner Billy Sullivan sued the NFL for antitrust violations after the league refused to let Sullivan sell a portion of the Patriots through a public stock offering.  The NFL settled the case with Sullivan for $11.5 million.

A potential antitrust case is also possible considering the domain Silver would exercise over potential buyers. Silver, like other sports commissioners, is likely to veto any buyer who plans to relocate the team to Las Vegas, due to the omnipresence of gambling in Nevada.

Sterling, on the other hand, would likely fight if the team was to be sold for anything less than $1 billion. The Milwaukee Bucks, ranked as the least valuable NBA franchise, sold this year for $550 million, $45 million more than their Forbes valuation. Considering the Clippers are in a bigger market and will soon be signing a lucrative media deal, Sterling could demand at least a $1 billion price tag.

There’s also the antitrust complication posed if NBA Hall of Famer Magic Johnson were to buy the team. Having one of the all-time affable NBA legends purchase a franchise in a city that adores him seems like the perfect fit, but consider the issue this way: Can someone force a businessman to sell his most lucrative asset to the guy he spoke disparagingly of in a private message, especially if that guy has unparalleled clout and is most likely to leverage power in writing contracts with area media networks? Sterling’s lawyers would say no, and they could be right.

Beyond antitrust issues, forcing Sterling to sell his team could be complicated by marital issues. The team is currently owned by a family trust, which could be liquidated or divided if Sterling initiated divorce proceedings against his wife, Rochelle Stein. Generally, property acquired during marriage in California is considered community property and subject to equitable distribution. Were Sterling to seek court intervention for a divorce proceeding, a California family court would halt any sale of the Clippers — absent mutual assent of the parties — in order to equitably distribute the community property of the marriage.  A court could potentially even award the Clippers to Stein (unlikely, but stranger things have happened in LA).

There’s also the possibility that probate court could complicate a Clippers sale. That’s right, in what would be filed in the “be careful what you wish for” hall of fame, Donald Sterling could die and totally screw things up for the Clippers. Like in family court, a probate court judge would presumably halt any sale of the team subject to the terms of the family trust and/or Sterling’s will. If Sterling died before a sale date was set (not a ridiculous scenario), the NBA would have the displeasure of convincing a judge that the owner-approved complaint against Donald Sterling stripping him of his ownership rights also applies to the heirs and wife of Sterling despite them not having violated NBA policy.

There you have it. If he can’t go to the games, then Donald Sterling will see you in hell.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Andrew Blancato

The post Punishing Donald Sterling Is About to Get a Lot Harder appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that many Americans feel there are too many lawsuits in this country. If you’ve ever been selected for jury duty, then you know that one of the most common questions asked before sitting on a civil case is whether or not people sue too often. The answer back to the attorney is often “yes,” not just because the panelist is seeking to avoid jury service, but because that’s the view espoused by many when reflecting on the American zeitgeist.

This sentiment is caused, or at least reinforced, by the media’s reporting of lawsuits. The headlines that make the largest waves are often based on huge, seven-digit verdicts. Laura Beth Nielsen and Aaron Beim alluded to this correlation in a recent paper claiming the courts are not as favorable to plaintiffs as the media often portrays, yet the media’s reports are what the public absorbs. Neilsen and Beim’s chief example is a Boston Globe report of an MBTA worker who was awarded a $5.5 million discrimination verdict. The verdict was later reduced by 80 percent on remittitur, an important detail the Globe did not feature as prominently as the original verdict. It seems that cases alleging discrimination in the workplace carry a stigma with the public and media.

Just as the figures of a verdict can be lost on the average American, so too can the merits of the underlying discrimination case. In 2009, former Los Angeles Clippers executive Elgin Baylor sued team owner Donald Sterling alleging racial discrimination. A jury of 12 unanimously rejected Baylor’s suit, and many called the hall of famer’s action frivolous.

Cases alleging tales of sexual discrimination are no different. This year alone, cheerleaders from three different NFL teams have sued their employers, often alleging sexual harassment among a variety of different wage claims. Knee-jerk reactions to such suits are often negative, as evidenced in the comments section of ESPN articles covering the matter.

A closer look at both situations may evoke a more tolerant response. Since his lawsuit, Elgin Baylor’s former employer has allegedly been caught on tape making racist comments against African Americans, and some former Clippers aren’t surprised by his discriminatory tendencies. Details have also emerged in the cheerleading case of the Buffalo Jills, whose employer allegedly instructed them on how to control their menstrual cycles and how to wash their “intimate areas.”

In sum, it’s never a bad idea to reserve judgment on a lawsuit that appears in the news or on TV, even one alleging discrimination. In fact, suits alleging workplace discrimination often already have safeguards in place against frivolous litigation, like the EEOC’s Right-To-Sue-Letter. But even absent an EEOC investigation, plaintiffs should be afforded a blank slate. Few things in this country are as ubiquitously opposed as prejudice and discrimination. Those who decide to sacrifice time, money, and privacy to personally combat these evils in a public court should be heard with an open mind.

____

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [BuffaloProCheer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Rethinking Discrimination Suits in Light of Buffalo Jills, Donald Sterling appeared first on Law Street.