Princeton University–the prestigious Ivy League institution whose famous alumni include Woodrow Wilson, Michelle Obama, and Queen of Genovia Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi–is suing the Department of Education in an attempt to block the release of its admissions data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to Buzzfeed News.

The lawsuit is an attempt to hinder the anti-affirmative action organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit whose mission is to remove race-based college admissions standards and is accusing Princeton of practicing anti-Asian bias in its admissions. The organization seeks to use a FOIA request to prove its accusations by releasing documents that Princeton gave to the DOE during a long investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights into anti-Asian discrimination that concluded in 2015. The investigation determined that this bias did not exist.

According to Buzzfeed, Princeton claims that it turned those admissions documents over to the department under the condition that sensitive data would be kept private, and that if the data were to be released, the department would be in violation of the Trades Secrets Act. SFFA perceives Princeton’s lawsuit as an inherent admission of guilt; however, the logic of that perception does not totally check out, for Princeton could not want to release the documents because it would reveal practices that are just bad PR, such as admission preferences for children of alumni or for celebrities.

Speaking to USA Today, Daniel Day, a spokesman for Princeton, said that the university filed the lawsuit “to honor the promise of confidentiality we make to all applicants and their families . . . [and] so future applicants will be willing to provide materials to [the university] knowing the confidentiality of their materials will be respected.”

This is not SFFA’s first attempt to reveal information about the admissions practices of Ivy League institutions, having also filed similar lawsuits against Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. SFFA filed a lawsuit in 2014 against Harvard, alleging that the university employed discriminatory practices in its undergraduate admissions process.

While progress has been slow–mainly due to the case being put on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin–some action has been taken. In September, a district court judge ordered Harvard to release six years worth of “comprehensive data” on its undergraduate admissions process. This order came shortly after Harvard attempted to get the suit dismissed.

In December, two Asian American high school seniors and Harvard applicants, working in conjunction with Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, petitioned a federal judge to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court). This  would allow them to file amicus briefs, participate in oral arguments, and submit evidence, according to a report from NBC News.

“We refuse to be used as a wedge by outside players stoking the insecurities of newer Asian immigrants, provoking them to lash out at the very programs that have helped communities of color gain access to higher education,” Nicole Ochi, supervising attorney for Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, said in a statement reported by NBC News.

The Harvard Crimson reported that 22.2 percent of those admitted into Harvard’s class of 2021 are Asian American students. While much has been said about Asians who oppose affirmative action–particularly in the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin ruling–polls show that a majority of the Asian American community still support the practice.

Last year, the Asian American Voter Survey found that, among respondents, 64 percent said that they favor affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education. A mere 25 percent of respondents disagreed with the practice.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

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

The post Princeton Sues the Federal Government to Protect Admissions Data appeared first on Law Street.

A state lawmaker in Arizona on Thursday proposed a bill that would prohibit colleges and universities from hosting classes, activities, or events that “promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people.” HB2120, proposed by Representative Bob Thorpe, a Republican, would also grant the state’s attorney general the power to withhold up to 10 percent of state aid to institutions that failed to comply with the regulations.

Thorpe said he is primarily concerned with schools “finding ways to divide people and put wedges between people,” instead of simply teaching historical facts. While conversations about different modes of thought, and about America’s stain of racial discrimination should be encouraged at institutions of learning, “let’s just ensure they’re accurately discussed,” Thorpe said. “What I don’t want is somebody to be treated negatively and poorly because, for example, they are a Green Party member or they’re a Democrat or they’re a Republican.”

In 2010, the Arizona legislature passed a bill that would have banned the Mexican-American studies curriculum at Tucson public schools. But the bill was challenged in federal court, and in a 2015 ruling, judges said the bill was a form of discrimination, and could be unconstitutional. That case is currently awaiting trial. Thorpe’s proposal would expand upon the 2010 bill, including in its ban certain activities and events, rather than just courses.

Arizona Rep. Bob Thorpe wants to ban all activities from college campuses in the state which “are designed… https://t.co/097tPVaAiB

— Ric Hudgens (@rdhudgens) January 13, 2017

As an example of the sort of programs or classes that he would like to do away with, Thorpe pointed to the University of Arizona’s “privilege walk.” The voluntary event is designed to “help participants to acknowledge their privileges, contextualize their own experiences, and learn about their peers.”

Thorpe acknowledged that this is the first draft of his bill, and that it will be revised. He also said his opposition to certain topics being taught in Arizona schools is tied to taxpayer dollars. “I’m not saying in my bill these classes cannot occur,” Thorpe said. “What I’m saying is taxpayers should not have to pay for them.”

Journalist and civil rights activist Shaun King was not too pleased with Thorpe’s bill. “All of this is completely and utterly disgusting,” he wrote in an op-ed for the New York Daily News. “That an aloof lawmaker wants to actually oversee and monitor individual activities and events to prohibit students and staff from discussing economic and skin privilege in this country is not just petty, it’s deeply problematic.”

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 Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Ban “Social Justice” in Arizona Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Praised as a “tremendous step forward” toward meaningful penal reform, the Mandela Rules provide a framework for what is and is not permissible in terms of detention conditions in prisons across the globe. With 10 million people in prisons worldwide, it’s easy to assume that there is a high demand for the humane treatment of prisoners. However, while the Mandela Rules have been commended for their progressive revisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) that have been in place since 1955, there is still no guarantee that prisons, domestically or internationally, will improve.

For a document that is supposed to provide governments the guidelines necessary to ensure that basic rights are afforded to prisoners, the Mandela Rules fail to provide incentives to abide by them or a method of accountability for prisons that break them. Furthermore, the lack of widespread discussion on the new rules is shocking, and perhaps telling of the low level of importance that both the public and politicians place on reforming the criminal justice system. Just like under the previous SMRs that the Mandela Rules revised, prisons will continue to cut corners, mistreat prisoners, and break this agreement unless there is more legal pressure and incentives to treat inmates with dignity.

The SMRs have since 1955 acted as the universally acknowledged minimum standards for the detention of prisoners and for the development of correctional laws, policies, and practices. On May 22^nd of this year, however, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the Crime Commission) passed a resolution approving the revised standards, named the Mandela Rules after the late South African President Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years. These changes were prompted after a review of the SMRs in place concluded that advancements in human rights discourse since 1955 left the SMRs out of date. The Crime Commission identified nine areas for revision, agreeing that the new standards should reflect advances in technology and society.

Rules on health care, LGBT rights, and solitary confinement are the key modifications in the Mandela Rules, but a prison that does not want to be held accountable for treating inmates with dignity can easily dismantle almost all of the updates. One of the most acclaimed aspects of the new rules is that indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited. Solitary is defined as confinement of a prisoner for 22 hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary is defined as confinement for fifteen consecutive days. So solitary confinement for fifteen consecutive days is not allowed, but what about fifteen days in confinement, one day out of confinement, and fifteen more days within? The new Rules have so many loopholes and almost no accountability for the “advances” they claim to make in the treatment of prisoners.

The Rules emphasize that prisoners should be protected from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. The United Nations will adopt these Rules later this year, though nothing but the potential for an internationally-backed slap on the wrist will prevent prisons from operating under standard minimums. If anything, the Mandela Rules simply say, “Look, we know prisons are bad, and prisoners are being tortured around the world. There’s not much we care to do about that, but here’s some advice that you should follow if you want.”

Yes, state and federal prisons do have their own separate laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners, but are those laws abided by? The answer, especially in the United States, is a resounding “No.” Even though prison guards are expected to keep inmates safe, there were more than 5.8 million violent crimes self-reported by inmates in 2012. Four percent of the prison population reports being sexually victimized while in prison in the past year, and over half of the incidents involved a prison guard or other staff member. Even though health care is supposed to be afforded to prisoners, 1,300 lawsuits have been filed in the past ten years in Illinois alone against the state because health care in Illinois prisons is so poor that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These are only a few examples of failures of concrete laws that have been breeched, and continue to be broken, in prisons across the country. If the initial SMRs were never fully realized in prisons across the world, what hope do we have that the Mandela Rules, which raise the standards that were never even abided by in the first place, will actually be implemented?

Several sponsors of the new SMRs note the importance of civil society in the success of the Mandela Rules. The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Fathi said, “The Rules are only as good as their implementation.” Fathi expressed that both the public and decision makers must be aware of the rules and see them as a national priority in order for the Mandela Rules to be effective. But what if we live in a society in which the public does not see the humane treatment of prisoners as a national priority? And what if we live in a society in which private groups are swaying lawmakers to extend prison sentences and to create harsher punishments? While the Mandela Rules do offer a sort of cheat sheet for evaluating a state’s prison performance, they do not do anything about the public apathy towards the inhumane treatment of prisoners and they do not erase the negative stigmas that pro-prison lobby groups and lawmakers have instilled in the minds of millions. None of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates have mentioned the Mandela Rules in their campaigns or expressed a plan to ensure that they are implemented in our prisons. If civil society has a critical role to play in the humane treatment of prisoners, and the current campaign rhetoric by governmental leaders is any indication of what civil society cares about, the outlook for prison progress looks bleak.

How do we ensure that these minimum rules will be followed? While the Mandela Rules do call for a more humane treatment of prisoners, and require a more accepting environment and safer prison standards, which is certainly wonderful, they should not be praised as a revolutionary feat. What would be revolutionary is if the United States and other countries would actually adopt these rules in practice rather than merely going through the motions.

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 Prisons Won’t Get Better Just Because We’ve Signed Another Document appeared first on Law Street.

How do Millennials help America build a better future? With over 1,200 business-casual-clad young activists and leaders packed into a chilly ballroom washed with blue stage lights, Generation Progress rallied Millennials in Washington, D.C. at its national summit on Thursday in an attempt to find out.

Now in its tenth year, Generation Progress’s “Make Progress” National Summit offers young people a day packed with well known speakers, inspiring dialogues, and stimulating buzzwords. With keynote speakers on the main stage and breakout sessions on topics ranging from diversity in public office to sexual assault prevention and student debt, attendees throughout the day were empowered through education on critical issues. Through communal support and prodigious encouragement from American leaders, the mood was alive with the goal of the day: creating progress.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened up the summit with an invigorating speech that earned dozens of standing ovations. Reverberating energy, Senator Warren spoke about college affordability, diversity, and social change inspired by activism. During one pause, an audience member yelled out “Run for president!” to which the Senator responded with a big grin and a chuckle, while everyone else jumped to their feet and erupted in approving cheers and applause. Her most applauded statement was that the progressive Supreme Court decisions over the past weeks were the direct result of young activists who dedicate their lives to fighting for social justice, stating, “We get what we fight for. Are you ready to get out there and fight?”

This morning I told young people at #MakeProgress: You get what you fight for. pic.twitter.com/JhwTtTzGBa

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 16, 2015

Michele Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, later took the stage for a sobering panel on reforming the criminal justice system. She expressed her belief that young people putting pressure on their elected officials and demanding change is critical, and commended the Millennial generation for its high level of engagement with issues of importance, simultaneously striking down the notion that our generation is unengaged or uninformed.

After asking the audience to “stand up if you have participated in a march, a protest, or an online day of action in the past six months,” more than half of the room was standing. Jawando stated, “the only time Congress pays attention is when there is enough action that forces them to pay attention.” She praised those who partake in activist movements, particularly the sit-ins that forced members of Congress to face the consequences of adverse decisions, and encouraged all to become involved. The discussion then led to a breakdown of the 1994 crime bill that increased mandatory minimums for those sentenced to prison, created the “tough on crime” rhetoric that is only recently beginning to be critically questioned, and created a definition of criminals as young people of color. Jawando said that many current members of Congress were members in 1994 when this draconian bill was passed and that “some of those members don’t really want to concede, they don’t want to admit they were wrong.” She then expressed that while discussing reform is important, action needs to be immediate. “Yeah we are tweeting about it, we’re writing about it, we’re marching in the streets…But we still have to pass a bill y’all.”

Jawando made a few key remarks that resonated deeply with the young, social justice-minded audience; first, that there is a strong connection between the people who are elected and the changes we see in society. Second, that humanizing issues and telling personal stories of injustice is the most powerful way to inspire change. And third, that there is a dangerous misconception that people who are in prison always deserve to be there; Jawando stated that this mindset of “otherization,” or the “us versus them” mentality, will continue to act as a barrier to change until these divisions are broken.

.@MicheleJawando shares her personal experience on discrimination & the criminal justice system #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/43TsktDXrl

— LCLAA (@LCLAA) July 16, 2015

My favorite breakout panel occurred in the afternoon: “It’s On US: Advocates Creating Cultural Change” featuring keynote speaker Tina Tchen. Tchen, Assistant to President Obama, Chief of Staff to Michelle Obama, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, gave an inspiring and informative speech on Generation Progress’s national campaign to prevent sexual assault. One in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted or experience some form of sexual violence by the time they graduate college. “We know, and you know, that this is a crisis on campuses,” Tchen said. The It’s On US movement on college campuses aims to fundamentally change the environment of rape culture and shift the conversation to be empowering for survivors and encouraging for those who have the ability to intervene in situations that could end in assault. “We are fundamentally on our way to a society that recognizes and supports survivors,” Tchen said over snaps and applause. Panelists encouraged students to join or start It’s On US on their respective college campuses, and to take the pledge to end sexual assault.

"It's not just about stopping sexual assault on campus. That is just the start."-Tina Tchen at #MakeProgress @ItsOnUs pic.twitter.com/apyLvEcAlR

— Chante Harris (@chante__harris) July 16, 2015

The final speaker of the day, and the most anticipated, was Vice President Joe Biden. All smartphones were whipped out to welcome the Vice President and most summit-goers found themselves on tiptoe in their chairs to catch a better glimpse of the esteemed guest. Mr. Biden gave a powerful, insightful, but occasionally lighthearted speech, that felt much more like sitting down for an after-dinner conversation with an affectionate grandfather than an address by the Vice President. The VP touched on a range of topics, from the need to create affordable education, to climate change, to closing the expanding wage gap in the country. He even called on politicians to resist donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund their primary election campaigns, potentially an allusion to Senator Bernie Sanders who also cares deeply and advocates against the privatization of political donations.

"If you could do only 1 thing to increase equality what would it be?" @VP asks the #MakeProgress crowd. "Get private money out of politics"

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) July 16, 2015

The Vice President expressed his sincere appreciation and confidence in the Millennial generation, stating “There’s more reason today than ever before to be idealistic, optimistic, tenacious, passionate, and principled.” The most prominent message Mr. Biden delivered during his time on stage was that passion, just like the passion in the room before him, is what generates social change and makes progress.

"I applaud your passion. Never apologize for it. Never explain it away." @JoeBiden at @genprogress #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/T5cowdiCLT

— Emily Dalgo (@DalgoEmily) July 16, 2015

Generation Progress’s Make Progress National Summit concluded with a slew of selfies with Joe Biden and a ballroom full of young activists stepping back into the D.C. sun with newfound inspiration and admiration for the causes they believe in. The summit, though only one day long, has the power and the potential to ignite young minds for years to come. Make Progress is proof that Millennials do care about the issues. They are engaged, they’re active, and they’re ready to fight. Outside, the only audible sound was of heels clicking and dress shoes clacking on the sidewalks as the attendees trickled out of the summit. But one sound still echoed in everyone minds: applause and cheers for change, for action, and for progress.

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 Generation Progress Encourages Millennials to “Make Progress” appeared first on Law Street.

When I learned I had the opportunity to go to TedxPennsylvaniaAvenue, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. The event promised a noteworthy variety of speakers ranging from senior staffers at the White House to the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, all promising to open up a number of enlightening discussions. The event fulfilled that promise and more, by bringing up questions about important societal issues such as youth prisons, the benefits of Medicaid, being homeless in America, and urban youth development programs. As we struggle to address these ideas in our society, forums like TED are becoming increasingly important.

Held in the Newsuem’s Forum theater on June 24, an audience of about 500 gathered to listen to some of the world’s most innovative thinkers and doers share their ideas centered around the topic of “What Works?” at the local, national, and international levels. Some of the more prominent speakers included Elizabeth Birch (former president of the Human Rights Campaign), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), and Robert Rubin (former Secretary of the Treasury and former chairman of Citigroup). With catered meals and special musical guests in between speakers, TEDxPennAve goers were able to take in each speaker at their leisure throughout the day. During lunch, I stood and took in an exhibit inspired by TED Senior Fellow Candy Chang. An artist, designer, and urban planner, Chang created an interactive wall on the side of a home in New Orleans for people to share their hopes and dreams. It prompted people to think about their secrets and wishes and to share them. Chang explained her inspiration:

This neglected space became a constructive one, and people’s hopes and dreams made me laugh out loud, tear up, and they consoled me during my own tough times. It’s about knowing you’re not alone; it’s about understanding our neighbors in new and enlightening ways; it’s about making space for reflection and contemplation, and remembering what really matters most to us as we grow and change.

Image courtesy of Katherine via Flickr

I added my secrets and wishes to one of the boards in the exhibit, forced to face issues I had been ignoring. Like the talks, this exhibit really made you think and look in the mirror–adding to the overall feeling of reflection noticeable at the event. 

Another highlight was listening to Patrick McCarthy, President & CEO of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. McCarthy’s talk centered around the issue of youth prisons. He claimed that these prisons undermine the development of young people who get into trouble with the law, expose them to grave dangers, and ultimately fail to improve public safety. McCarthy has worked for the past 23 years to reform juvenile justice systems through the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, and is launching an effort to close youth prisons. Like all of the speakers at the day’s event, McCarthy’s talk contained such strong passion and empathy for his cause that I quickly was able to understand his problem with youth prisons and found myself taking a side on an issue I honestly hadn’t thought much about beforehand.

That was a theme constant throughout the event. Each talk contained such a compelling argument, and opened up new questions I hadn’t considered. That’s essentially the goal of TED events–creating specific conversations from broad topics like “What Works?”

TED began in 1984 as a conference where technology, entertainment, and design converged. Beginning as a conference, TED now runs multiple platforms for these independent thinkers. Between 2001-2006, TED added three major additions to its organization including a sister conference known as TEDGlobal held in locations around the world, the TED Prize–which grants winners one wish to change the world, and releases many of the talks online. 

Today it exists as a nonprofit devoted to spreading ideas in the form of short powerful talks discussing many topics, from science to business to globalization, in more than 100 languages. TEDx events–the x indicates that it was independently organized–help share ideas in communities around the world. Overall, the organization aims to provide a platform for speakers so that people around the globe can gain a better understanding of some of the most pressing international issues and feel a desire to help create a better future. Through these talks, audiences are exposed to speakers who are engaging in cutting edge work for numerous causes. The speakers often demonstrate constructive ways that people can help with these causes on a personal level.

For me, the impact this TED Talk had was challenging me to re-think my view of the world and brainstorm new ideas for how I can make a difference outside of my field of choice. I was reminded that no act is too small, because any energy put toward an issue can help make a difference. Each speaker did such an exceptional job of connecting diverse issues rather than creating dividing lines. This fall, a TedxTalk will be held at my school, Beloit College, and while the talks are supposed to be specific to the growth and positive change of the city of Beloit and surrounding areas, I am curious to see what other types of dialogue it will open where I live. We have a lot to change in this world–Ted Talks present an innovative platform to do so.

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 TED Talks: A Platform for Social Change? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

#2 Brian Williams’ Troubles at NBC Continue

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

#3 Crips and Bloods: Unlikely Allies in Baltimore Riots

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

Chelsey D. Goff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jake Ephros

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

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

A group of Catholic nuns is denouncing the influence of big money in U.S. politics by conducting a 36-city tour across the country. The group, NETWORK, led by Sister Simone Campbell, kicked off its Nuns on a Bus campaign called “We the People, We the Voters” campaign. The group is advocating social justice through voter registration and expansion. The group has been the subject of criticism from other parts of the Catholic church, though, as part of an expanding internal conflict between Vatican authority and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

The Nuns on the Bus began their campaigning in 2012 when they condemned income inequality in battle ground states. In 2013 they addressed immigration reform. It isn’t hard to see why some more conservative church authorities would reprimand Sister Campbell and her group. A report from the Religion News Service (RNS) describes an attack by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, on the LCWR: “(Müller) said the sisters were focusing too much on social justice issues, such as caring for the poor and advocating for immigrants, and were too active in promoting healthcare reform.” In 2012, the LCWR was censured in a “doctrinal assessment” for exactly these actions. The Vatican isn’t alone in its criticism, though. The website CatholicCulture.org came out with a scathing article by its founder, Dr. Jeff Mirus, in August. “For decades, the LCWR has been vitiated by feminism, the New Age, Wicca, Modernism and just plain secularism,” Mirus writes.

By staying largely silent, Pope Francis has yet to be fully mired in the controversy. But a column in The Guardian expresses great disappointment in the Pope: “The really disheartening thing about the pope’s unwillingness to end the nuns’ censure – indeed, about his unwillingness to openly support them – is that his stated values are no different than the ones the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is being punished for carrying out,” writer Sadhbh Walshe noted. Cardinal Müller’s reproach of the LCWR is seemingly unregulated by Francis, who has long championed a greater church focus on social justice issues.

How is social justice work compatible with Catholic teachings, and what exactly is meant by “social justice”? For Sister Campbell, NETWORK, and the LCWR, social justice includes advocating for accessible health care, immigration reform and reduced corporate influence in elections. For Cardinal Müller and the Vatican, social justice advocacy is restricted to redressing abortion access.

If nothing else, this case illustrates the complex dynamics of religious authority and the dangers of generalizing when talking about religion. Two opposing interpretations of Catholic teachings on social justice are currently at war, and we wait on Pope Francis to make a statement. While it would be immature to demand that he take one side or another, it would be equally disappointing if he did not use his clout to make a meaningful statement on the matter. This case does more than just illustrate some different Catholic interpretations; it begs the question, why shouldn’t Pope Francis come out in support of the LCWR and activist nuns like Sister Campbell?

Francis also has the opportunity reject the exclusion of feminism from sanctioned church activity. Moreover, he has the opportunity to illustrate how feminism can support sanctioned church activity. Compatibility is the question here. How is feminism compatible with current Vatican doctrine and authority? The extent to which they are compatible can be suggested and advocated for, if not expressly dictated by, Pope Francis. If feminism has truly “vitiated” organizations like NETWORK and the LCWR, then it is also responsible for anti-torture campaigns, environmental activism, and advocacy of nuclear weapons restructuring.

From such an outsider’s perspective, it will never be my place to insist on this or that church doctrine. But Pope Francis, should he make a statement, as he has the opportunity to shape the relationship between feminism and the church.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [TexasImpact via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

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

The post How Pope Francis Can Shape Relationship Between Feminism and the Church appeared first on Law Street.