Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Supreme Court stalls on Troy Davis death penalty case

TroyDavis2 According to AP reports yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court has "recessed for summer without acting on his latest appeal, likely delaying any developments in his case until fall".

While this is likely a de facto stay of execution, it is by no means certain.

What is certain, that the elected officials who influence the outcome of this case are moved towards justice by appealing to their self-preservation instincts as incumbents.

What does this mean?

It means that Larry Chisolm who was elected in 2008 as first Black district attorney of Chatham County (which encompasses Savannah, Georgia) presumably wants to get re-elected. A campaign plank of his during his campaign centered on fairness.

Now, with our help on a national level, we can help his constituents keep him accountable to that pledge. Clearly, if he chooses to look the other way, Black voter turn-out the next time around may not be what he'll need to stay in office.

Let's help Troy Davis by signing this petition to DA Chisolm requesting that he reopen Troy's case.

For more information on Troy's case, please visit the AmnestyUSA site.

For more information on the death penality, please visit the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP).

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

A warrior woman: fighting for life against breast cancer, brother Troy Anthony Davis’ death sentence

By Margaret Summers
Guest Contributor
Courtesy of National Coalition for the Abolition of the Death Penalty (NCADP)
 
Mcorreira1 Martina Correia, a 42-year-old African American from Savannah, Georgia, is a “warrior woman,” inspiring death penalty abolitionists as well as women like her struggling with breast cancer.

Correia’s brother is Troy Anthony Davis, convicted in 1991 for the shooting death of white police officer Mark MacPhail. There is no physical evidence linking Davis to the crime.  No murder weapon was produced. Seven of nine witnesses who initially implicated Davis have since recanted, stating in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into naming him.   Davis’ attorneys are appealing his case before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court will determine whether or not to review Davis’ habeas petition on June 25, and make its decision public on June 26 or June 29. If the appeal is rejected, Davis will be executed.

The case has generated global attention. Former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, the NAACP, and human rights organization Amnesty International, have called for Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue to grant Davis clemency. Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, former FBI Director William Sessions, and several former prosecutors and judges, have filed an amicus brief supporting Davis’ plea.

Long before her brother’s involvement in the criminal justice system, Correia opposed the death penalty. An Amnesty International member since age 13, she resigned her U.S. Army nurse position when told she couldn’t express “political opinions” against capital punishment. Since her brother’s conviction, “I speak at universities, high schools and before community groups.  I talk about the injustices that lead to arrests of innocent people, why so many people of color get the death penalty, and how and why prosecutors select people for death sentences. I don’t just talk about my brother on death row, but the system that put him there.”

She didn’t know what to expect when Davis was tried. “I anticipated that my brother would get his day in court,” she explains. “But our judicial system is fraught with biases.    Until my brother was accused of killing a white police officer, I didn’t realize just how black I was.”

Watching Davis’ trial, “I felt like people were angry that my brother had attorneys from out of town,” says Correia.  “I thought he would have more time in the courtroom to argue his case, but he only got 20 minutes, and then a bell rang when he ran out of time.” Alarmed, Correia stepped up her fight for Davis’ exoneration.

Then in 2001, Correia was diagnosed with breast cancer. When chemotherapy treatments resulted in hair loss, she shaved her head and wore hats or scarves. The prison initially barred Correia from wearing head coverings during visits with Davis for “security reasons”; weapons could be hidden in headgear. Davis intervened. Correia was made an exception, “but whenever I wore a scarf the prison guards made me take it off to search it.”

Determinedly working through exhaustion, Correia’s only concession to debilitating chemotherapy is to request airfare from sponsors of appearances located more than five hours from her home. Otherwise, she drives herself, although chemotherapy makes her sleepy. “I have to try to stay awake while driving. When a speaking engagement’s over, I go home and rest, ”she says.  

Correia serves on the boards of death penalty abolition organizations like Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty and New Hope House.  She also participates in efforts to increase federal funding for breast cancer research. She is a lobby delegation team leader in the National Breast Cancer Coalition. She teaches health maintenance classes to women with cancer in Savannah’s St. Joseph’s/Candler Health System.

Somehow Correia balances her advocacy with raising her 14-year-old son Antone, an Honor Roll middle school student, whose winning social studies project in a state competition last year was entitled: “How Does the Troy Anthony Davis Death Penalty Case Impact Georgia?” Antone, who considers “Uncle Troy” a role model, wants to be a medical researcher when he grows up, and find the cure for breast cancer that has stricken his mother and thousands of women.

Correia says her brother’s confinement on death row and her illness are difficult for her and their family but “I trust God, I have faith. It’s like Troy said when he was minutes away from execution (before the current U.S. Supreme Court appeal), ‘God didn’t take me this far to leave me.’ I pray for Troy and for Mark MacPhail’s family. I ask God to let me live to see my brother freed and my son graduate from school.  My biggest prayer is that my mother doesn’t continue to suffer. If Troy is executed it will break her heart.

“I’m going to fight this system until somebody says, ‘We made a mistake,’ she adds. “I know that the name Troy Anthony Davis is a name known all over the world by people who believe in truth, justice and fairness. That’s all I’m asking for, fairness.”


The NAACP and Amnesty International U.S.A. are co-sponsoring a “Week of Witness” for Troy Anthony Davis, June 19-26 2009. Faith communities are asked to pray for the Davis and MacPhail families during that week, sign a petition, ask their religious leaders to sign a clergy letter, or discuss Davis’ case during regular weekend worship services.  Additional information, please visit the “Week of Witness”.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

“God sent the Shooter”: White Christian terrorism and the assassination of Dr. George Tiller

By Sikivu Hutchinson

Guest Contributor

“God sent the shooter,” the signs wielded by anti-abortion protestors at the funeral of slain doctor George Tiller proclaimed.  Last week’s assassination of abortion provider and feminist George Tiller in a Kansas church on the so-called holy seventh day was not only a barbaric act of religious cowardice but a terrorist assault on the rights of women.  Tragically similar to the 1998 murder of New York doctor Bernard Slepian, Tiller’s murder was the culmination of years of attempted murders, death threats, bombings and arson attacks waged against abortion providers by white Christian terrorists.

Despite the scope of this orchestrated campaign mainstream media rarely identify these acts or those who commit them as “terrorist.”  Those who invoke Christian fundamentalism as justification for their barbaric incursions against women and their allies are dismissed as aberrations, even though the profiles of the killers are always the same, the suspects—generally disaffected white middle aged males, aligned with a crackpot anti-government militia and/or fundamentalist ethos steeped in the bloody retribution of the Old Testament—virtually plucked from central casting.

These spasms of Christian fundamentalist violence are largely peculiar to the United States.  Anti-abortion activism in Western European countries such as Great Britain, France and Italy doesn’t inspire anywhere near the level of militant resistance seen here.  This virulent strain of fundamentalism was nourished by three theocratic Republican administrations that dismembered the Constitution and effectively sanctioned criminal campaigns against abortion providers.  So while the U.S. condemns Muslim religious fundamentalism and trumpets itself as a beacon for individual and civil liberties unbridled by theocratic intolerance it has become a breeding ground for the most dangerous Christian fundamentalist terrorist movement in the world.

Christian fundamentalism has always objectified women’s bodies as patriarchal property and territory for reproductive control.  It’s no surprise then that white men deem themselves to be Christian soldiers in the war over the wombs of Middle American and Southern white women.  It’s also no surprise that the Bible Belt, fount of hyper-religious public policy that demonizes sex education and contraception, has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. 

Christian fundamentalist dogma is about keeping ‘em barefoot, knocked up and in obeisance to a God that would rather see an impoverished 12 year-old incest victim carry her rapist father’s baby to term and suffer lifelong psychological trauma than undergo a safe legal abortion and have a reasonable expectation for a future.  And it is immoral, radically anti-woman positions like these which make the “pro-life” misnomer appropriated by the anti-abortion movement so infuriating. 

In the militant anti-choice universe the lives of real babies living in poverty and their real mothers and real families are of no consequence next to protection of the religiously decreed “rights” of the unborn.  White male anti-abortion terrorists can’t get similarly exorcised about cuts to women’s health care benefits and pre- and post-natal care to mothers in real time because it would mean ceding control to flesh and blood women.

Tiller’s assassination also dovetails with a dangerous shift in public opinion regarding the future of choice for American women imperiled by unwanted pregnancies.  Influenced by a decade of unrelenting right wing propaganda that equates abortion with murder and abortion providers with Nazi eugenicists, polls indicate that a growing majority of the American public has adopted a “pro-life” stance and is willfully ignorant about the life-giving and life-saving potential of legal abortion.  Dispatching shooters from “God,” the anti-abortion movement must accept responsibility for the murderous religious rhetoric that led to the assassination of George Tiller and the terrorist assault on the rights and lives of American women. 


Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and a commentator for KPFK 90.7FM.

“God Sent the Shooter”: White Christian terrorism and the assassination of Dr. George Tiller

By Sikivu Hutchinson
Guest Contributor

“God sent the shooter,” the signs wielded by anti-abortion protestors at the funeral of slain doctor George Tiller proclaimed.  Last week’s assassination of abortion provider and feminist George Tiller in a Kansas church on the so-called holy seventh day was not only a barbaric act of religious cowardice but a terrorist assault on the rights of women.  Tragically similar to the 1998 murder of New York doctor Bernard Slepian, Tiller’s murder was the culmination of years of attempted murders, death threats, bombings and arson attacks waged against abortion providers by white Christian terrorists.

Despite the scope of this orchestrated campaign mainstream media rarely identify these acts or those who commit them as “terrorist.”  Those who invoke Christian fundamentalism as justification for their barbaric incursions against women and their allies are dismissed as aberrations, even though the profiles of the killers are always the same, the suspects—generally disaffected white middle aged males, aligned with a crackpot anti-government militia and/or fundamentalist ethos steeped in the bloody retribution of the Old Testament—virtually plucked from central casting.

These spasms of Christian fundamentalist violence are largely peculiar to the United States.  Anti-abortion activism in Western European countries such as Great Britain, France and Italy doesn’t inspire anywhere near the level of militant resistance seen here.  This virulent strain of fundamentalism was nourished by three theocratic Republican administrations that dismembered the Constitution and effectively sanctioned criminal campaigns against abortion providers.  So while the U.S. condemns Muslim religious fundamentalism and trumpets itself as a beacon for individual and civil liberties unbridled by theocratic intolerance it has become a breeding ground for the most dangerous Christian fundamentalist terrorist movement in the world.

Christian fundamentalism has always objectified women’s bodies as patriarchal property and territory for reproductive control.  It’s no surprise then that white men deem themselves to be Christian soldiers in the war over the wombs of Middle American and Southern white women.  It’s also no surprise that the Bible Belt, fount of hyper-religious public policy that demonizes sex education and contraception, has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. 

Christian fundamentalist dogma is about keeping ‘em barefoot, knocked up and in obeisance to a God that would rather see an impoverished 12 year-old incest victim carry her rapist father’s baby to term and suffer lifelong psychological trauma than undergo a safe legal abortion and have a reasonable expectation for a future.  And it is immoral, radically anti-woman positions like these which make the “pro-life” misnomer appropriated by the anti-abortion movement so infuriating. 

In the militant anti-choice universe the lives of real babies living in poverty and their real mothers and real families are of no consequence next to protection of the religiously decreed “rights” of the unborn.  White male anti-abortion terrorists can’t get similarly exorcised about cuts to women’s health care benefits and pre- and post-natal care to mothers in real time because it would mean ceding control to flesh and blood women.

Tiller’s assassination also dovetails with a dangerous shift in public opinion regarding the future of choice for American women imperiled by unwanted pregnancies.  Influenced by a decade of unrelenting right wing propaganda that equates abortion with murder and abortion providers with Nazi eugenicists, polls indicate that a growing majority of the American public has adopted a “pro-life” stance and is willfully ignorant about the life-giving and life-saving potential of legal abortion.  Dispatching shooters from “God,” the anti-abortion movement must accept responsibility for the murderous religious rhetoric that led to the assassination of George Tiller and the terrorist assault on the rights and lives of American women. 


Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and a commentator for KPFK 90.7FM.

Friday, June 05, 2009

Jump Starting Racial Justice

By Terry Keleher
Republished courtesy of Yes! Magazine

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has stirred up another round of debate about race in America. Clearly we have not yet achieved a post-racial society. But we could take some steps in that direction by acknowledging historic wrong-doings and making sure future policy making promotes racial equity.

President Barack Obama meets with Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and Vice President Joseph Biden prior to an announcement in the East Room, May 26, 2009. Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Latino Supreme Court justice.
Official White House photo.

In his historic Philadelphia speech on race, then candidate Barack Obama genuinely tried to unify us in facing our failures. Many people hoped that President Obama would be our racial savior, single-handedly bringing an end to centuries of struggle against discrimination. Some were quick to declare that racism, as we knew it, is over.

Yet familiar patterns and headlines persist: A spike in racial hate crimes and hate groups. More police killings of people of color. Skyrocketing unemployment rates among Blacks and Latinos. Crackdowns on immigrants. An historic loss of wealth for people of color forced into foreclosure. And racist speech all over the Internet.

Although the delusion of “post-racialism” was clearly preposterous, since President Obama took office, we’ve heard hardly a mention of the structural racism that permeates our economic, political, and cultural institutions.

The good news is that sensible solutions exist. Two especially promising solutions are public reconciliation processes, like the one made famous in South Africa, and proactive racial impact planning and analysis now being employed widely in the United Kingdom.

Truth and Reconciliation—Then and Now

South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission; provided a forum for constructive and candid conversation about historic racial inequalities. The court-like commission, chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, held hearings around the country to investigate human rights abuses, restore victims’ dignity, formulate rehabilitation proposals, and consider individuals’ applications for amnesty. The public airing of the ongoing harm caused by abuses of justice and human rights transformed the country. And the commission sparked nationwide discussion of appropriate responses, ranging from amnesty to reparations.

South African emphasized a restorative, rather than retributive system of justice, where individual offenders and society as a whole were obligated to officially acknowledge and take responsibility for the harms done to victims and communities. “Revealing is healing” was not simply a slogan, but a cornerstone for conciliatory power.

Archbishop Tutu wrote in the commission’s final report: “There were others who urged that the past should be forgotten—glibly declaring that we should 'let bygones be bygones'. This option was rightly rejected because such amnesia would have resulted in further victimisation of victims by denying their awful experiences… The other reason amnesia simply will not do is that the past refuses to lie down quietly. It has an uncanny habit of returning to haunt one."

Amnesty International, which advocates for effective truth commissions, reported in 2007 that truth commissions had been established in 28 countries and others were being considered, with more than half of them created in the previous ten years. Functions may include investigating past abuses, holding perpetrators accountable, fostering reconciliation, developing a historical record, memorializing past events, recommending reparations, and proposing institutional reforms to prevent future problems.

Surfacing the truth, of course, does not by itself remedy past injustices or change unfair institutions and policies. But it’s a necessary first step.

If the U.S were to follow suit by establishing an officially sanctioned process for acknowledging our racialized history, it could help build deep understanding across communities and reveal new transformative possibilities. The scope of a truth commission here would certainly have to be negotiated since the legacy of racial inequality in our country has both longstanding roots and current manifestations.

Even a scope limited to racially inequitable policies and institutional practices that have occurred in our lifetime could offer many lessons for today. For example, a thorough airing of practices ranging from redlining and blockbusting to exclusionary covenants and public contracting would shed light on our enduring racial wealth divide. Such an examination could also help us understand how the prevalence of predatory lending in communities of color has resulted in a multi-billion dollar loss of wealth for people of color who are forced into foreclosure.

Indeed, some individual states and locales have adopted or are promoting variations on the truth commission model. The Oklahoma Legislature created the Tulsa Race Riot Commission to investigate a 1921 incident where a white lynch mob went on a two-day rampage where they killed as many as 300 African Americans, burned homes and churches and destroyed the “Black Wall Street” business district. In its final report issued in 2001, the Commission recommended direct payments to survivors and descendants, a memorial to the dead, and scholarships and economic development funding for the affected community. Later that year, the state legislature passed a Race Riot Reconciliation Act, approving some, but not all of the commission’s recommendations.

Other cities have created race riot commissions to examine particular historical events such as Greensboro, North Carolina, and Wilmington, North Carolina. And there’s a grassroots effort underway towards establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the state of Mississippi.

Preventing Future Discrimination

While truth commissions have a largely retrospective focus, another model for addressing structural racism from a more prospective standpoint is one that has been adopted in the United Kingdom, known as the “Race Equality Duty.” This is a far-reaching government commitment and legal responsibility to eliminate discrimination, promote racial equality and foster good race relations.

Public agencies from federal authorities to local police departments and schools are required to create strategic plans to advance racial equality. And major policy proposals must undergo Race Equality Impact Assessments, a systematic review aimed at anticipating and preventing adverse impacts for any racial group.

Since 2001, when the law was adopted, public entities across the U.K. have developed racial equality plans. At their best, they attract public engagement and vigorous debate, which informs and improves collective decisions. But, like any government task, if political leadership is lacking, the plans can also become bureaucratic paperwork with minimal public input or impact.

The U.K. is refining its process to make it more effective and better aligned with other interests, including human rights, gender equity, and disability rights. The government is now developing a new Equality Bill to clarify and unify its framework, with enforcement to be largely overseen by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The U.K. model places government at the forefront of not only eliminating racial discrimination, but of actually promoting equality, opportunity, and inclusion across society. Instead of waiting for discrimination to occur before taking action, government authorities are charged with the duty of preventing potential adverse impacts.

In Northern Ireland, the Department of Transport and Industry introduced a national minimum wage. The Department’s racial equality impact assessment found that the minimum wage would benefit 130,000 ethnic minority workers in the U.K. The government conducted public awareness campaigns in multiple languages, resulting in a significant increase in complaints of underpayment. Through proactive research and action, the government was able to address racial disparities in wages and income.

There’s no magic bullet for eliminating structural racism, and each country has its unique racial history and dynamics. The United States does not, yet, have this sort of national legislation, but a handful of states, cities, and counties are moving ahead with their own forms of racial impact assessments:

Last year, Iowa—which ranked worst in the nation in its ratio of incarceration rates between African Americans and whites—enacted the nation’s first law requiring policymakers to prepare racial impact statements for proposals affecting sentencing and probation. Iowa Governor Chet Culver, upon signing the bill, said “I am committed to making sure state government at all levels reflects our shared values of fairness and justice.”

Connecticut has since passed a similar law. Illinois, Oregon, and Wisconsin are also considering adopting racial impact statements for criminal justice policies, much like environmental impact statements are used to minimize adverse impacts.

The city of Seattle directs all its departments to use a Racial Equity Analysis to guide policy development and budget making. This is helping the city make improvements in areas such as hiring and promotions, public contracts, and immigrant and refugee access to city services.

King County, Washington, uses an Equity Impact Review Tool to assess key policies, programs and funding decisions. This new tool is part of a broader county-wide Equity and Social Justice Initiative, which has resulted in culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach materials for early childhood intervention services for Somali-, Vietnamese-, and Spanish-speaking families.

A coalition of community groups in St. Paul, Minnesota is proposing a new policy requiring city staff and developers to compile a Racial Equity Impact Report for all development projects that receive a public subsidy of $100,000 or more.

These initiatives recognize that racism is far more than personal prejudice—it’s a historically rooted system of bias that continues to manifest itself in our laws and institutions. Conscious consideration of racial equity is one of the best ways to prevent the unconscious replication of systemic racism.

Jump Start Racial Justice

Instead of embracing the empty rhetoric of “post-racialism” and “color-blindness” where systemic problems are ignored, we can build a modern racial justice movement. There’s no lack of solutions. We just need leadership and action from the grassroots up, and the political will to think bigger and act boldly.

We can’t pin all our hopes on President Obama, but there’s certainly no need to remain in our racial rut. Instead, we can jump start racial justice. There’s a path forward. Let's take it. Together. Today.


Terry Keleher wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Terry is the Midwest Director of the Applied Research Center and a contributing writer to RaceWire, the blog of ColorLines, the national newsmagazine on race and politics (Racewire.org).

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Identity Days: Sonia Sotomayor, Proposition 8 and being American

By Imani Perry
Guest Contributor

Today is a day of contrasts. President Obama nominated 2nd circuit appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. If Sotomayor is confirmed she will be the first Latina/o on the nations highest court. This is unquestionably a sign of progress for our nation. A Nuyorican product of the Bronx who was raised in public housing she is a noteworthy representative of the brilliance and potential that exists in the most neglected sectors of our society.

Also today, the state of California upheld Proposition 8, a ballot measure that changed the California state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thereby withdrawing the right of same sex couples to marry, a right the court had affirmed just last year. This is obviously a step backward in the march towards inclusion and equality that Obama’s election symbolized for millions of people here and abroad.

One thing is clear: the culture wars that marked American political and social life in the 1990s are not dead. But something about them has changed. In the 90s, it was the political left who were identified as those who had identity politics, who talked about race, class, gender, and sexual orientation as framing their experiences and perspectives. This attention to identity was useful for expanding our ideas about everything from housing and education to reproductive rights and criminal law.

Nowadays, the right wing has become experts at identity politics too. They talk about their religion and regional cultures, and how those things shape their values. Think, for example, about how much more you know about the ethnicity, culture and religion of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court as compared to their liberal counterparts. Moreover, the conservative justices identities clearly frame how they interpret the Constitution. And more broadly, for the right wing, religious beliefs and cultural practices have become central to their political and legal ideals.

The difference between the left and right on this score, however, is whereas identity politics on the left has been used to argue for an expansion of rights and opportunities, on the right they are used to narrow the scope of rights and opportunities, and exclude citizens and residents of our nation from many of its benefits.

The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a fundamental right. It is a right, therefore, that all citizens theoretically possess. In constitutional law, when a state denies a fundamental right, and that denial comes before the Supreme Court, it is automatically subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny the court applies to state action. In order for the state’s action to be considered constitutional, and therefore upheld, it must be “narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.”

As someone who has spent the better part of my adult life studying the Constitution and issues of inequality, among other things, I cannot understand how in good conscience anyone could argue that denying same sex couples to marry is a compelling STATE interest. It may be an expression of a particular religious or cultural perspective, and a given denomination or congregation has the First Amendment right to express their disapproval of same sex marriage now just as they did (and some still do) of interracial marriage. But denying one group of citizens access to their fundamental rights and justifying it by citing the religious and cultural beliefs of another group of citizens is plainly unconstitutional.

If we want to successfully work together while embracing our diverse cultures, religions, politics, and many other identity markers, it has to be done with a respect for some basics of human and constitutional rights.  Our Constitution at best operates as a common ground for citizens, cutting across difference to clearly define what it means to belong to a nation. We share rights and responsibilities.

Culture and ideology, whether it be the tyranny of the majority or the power plays of elites, should not ever be used to desecrate that common ground. When guaranteed rights are denied it is the hallmark of such desecration.

Eventually the Supreme Court will find itself addressing the issue of same sex marriage, likely over the issue of whether one state, which denies same sex marriage, must recognize the same sex marriage of another state. At this point, it is worth noting that the parallels to the history of interracial marriage are significant. During Reconstruction, several southern states allowed interracial marriage for a few years only to withdraw that right when southern white majorities recovered power during an era they called Redemption. “Redemption” was dedicated to reestablishing white supremacy through law, policy, violence, and social norms.  The California Supreme Court’s decision to snatch away a right so recently granted and so hard fought for is eerily similar. It is to our national disgrace that we are allowing the kind of practice that marked one of our darkest historical moments to be repeated just as we began to hope.

I believe that if Sotomayor joins the Court, a woman who not only benefited from the expansion of opportunity created by social justice movements, but who used that opportunity to build a remarkable career as a jurist, she will aid us in turning the tide away from contraction and exclusion, and towards expansion and inclusion in American law.

Pray that we’ll find ourselves with such a smart and accomplished judge to tend to our precious common ground.

Imani Perry is a professor at the Center of African American Studies at Princeton University.

President Obama selects Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina nominee to the Supreme Court

JudgeSotomayor1 Below is the full transcript of President Obama's speech announcing his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor followed by Judge Sotomayor's moving remarks.

Afro-Netizen congratulates both Judge Sotomayor on becoming the first Latina to be select as a Supreme Court nominee and President Obama for his sage decision to nominate her. This pick speaks highly of our President and of our nation. It also should be one more shining example of the positive impact of the imperfect, highly controversial, but still necessary set of policies collectively known as Affirmative Action.

Had Judge Sotomayor had the same character, experiences, intellect and academic credentials, but was born a generation earlier, odds are she would not have been accepted to Princeton University or Yale Law School. The same is true of our President and Secretary of State Clinton (to name just a few highly competent public servants without this policy would most certainly have had far less opportunity than they had which in no small part facilitated their historic rise to prominence.)

The following transcript is republished here courtesy of CQ Transcriptswire:

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE

[*] OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

Please, everybody, have a seat.

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, I’m excited too.

(LAUGHTER)

Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.

So I don’t take this decision lightly. I’ve made it only after deep reflection and careful deliberation.

And while there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are a few that stand out that I just want to mention.

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation’s highest court. And yet these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more.

For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience; experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.

OBAMA: And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.

Now, the process of reviewing and selecting a successor to Justice Souter has been rigorous and comprehensive, not least because of the standard that Justice Souter himself has set with his informidable (ph) intellect and fairmindedness and decency.

I’ve sought the advice of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My team has reached out to constitutional scholars, advocacy organizations and bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions.

And I want to thank members of my staff and the administration who have worked so hard and given so much of their time as part of this effort.

After completing this exhaustive process, I’ve decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the great state of New York.

(APPLAUSE)

Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice.

It’s a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton.

OBAMA: Walking in the door, she would bring more experience on the bench and more varied experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed.

Judge Sotomayor is a distinguished graduate of two of America’s leading universities. She’s been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. She spend six years as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and would replace Justice Souter as the only justice with experience as a trial judge -- a perspective that would enrich the judgments of the court.

For the past 11 years, she has been a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York, one of the most demanding circuits in the country. There, she has handed down decisions on a range of constitutional and legal questions that are notable for their careful reasoning, earning the respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court, and the adoration of her clerks, who look to her as a mentor.

During her tenure on the district court, she presided over roughly 450 cases. One case in particular involved a matter of enormous concern to many Americans, including me: the baseball strike of 1994 and ‘95.

(LAUGHTER)

In a decision that reportedly took her just 15 minutes to announce -- a swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere...

(LAUGHTER)

... she issued an injunction that helped end the strike. Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Justice Sotomayor came to the district court from a law firm where she was a partner focused on complex commercial litigation, gaining insight in the workings of a global economy.

Before that, she was a prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.’s office, serving under the legendary Robert Morgenthau, an early mentor of Sonia’s who still sings her praises today. There, Sonia learned what crime can do to a family and a community, and what it takes to fight it.

It’s a career that has given her not only a sweeping overview of the American judicial system, but a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.

But as impressive and meaningful as Judge Sotomayor’s sterling credentials in the law is her own extraordinary journey. Born in the South Bronx, she was raised in a housing project not far from Yankee Stadium, making her a lifelong Yankee’s fan. I hope this will not disqualify her...

(LAUGHTER)

... in the eyes of the New Englanders in the Senate.

(LAUGHTER)

Sonia’s parents came to New York from Puerto Rico during Second World War. Her mother is part of the Women’s Army Corps. And, in fact, her mother’s here today, and I’d like us all to acknowledge Sonia’s mom.

(APPLAUSE)

Sonia’s mom has been a little choked up.

(LAUGHTER)

But she -- Sonia’s mother began a family tradition of giving back to this country.

Sonia’s father was a factory worker with a third-grade education who didn’t speak English.

OBAMA: But like Sonia’s mother, he had a willingness to work hard, a strong sense of family, and a belief in the American dream.

When Sonia was 9, her father passed away, and her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother -- who’s also here today, is a doctor, and a terrific success in his own right -- but Sonia’s mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood, sent her children to a Catholic school called Cardinal Spellman, out of the belief that with a good education here in America all things are possible.

With the support of family, friends and teachers, Sonia earned scholarships to Princeton, where she graduated at the top of her class, and Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, stepping onto the path that led her here today.

Along the way, she’s faced down barriers, overcome the odds, and lived out the American dream that brought her parents here so long ago. And even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her.

What Sonia will bring to the court, then, is not only the knowledge and experience acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.

It’s my understanding that Judge Sotomayor’s interest in the law was sparked as a young girl by reading the Nancy Drew series.

(LAUGHTER)

And that when she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8, she was informed that people with diabetes can’t grow up to be police officers or private investigators like Nancy Drew. In essence she was told she’d have to scale back her dreams.

Well, Sonia, what you’ve shown in your life is that it doesn’t matter where you come from, what you look like or what challenges life throws your way, no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.

OBAMA: And when Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court in the land, America will have taken another important step toward realizing the ideal that is etched about its entrance: Equal justice under the law.

I hope the Senate acts in a bipartisan fashion, as it has in confirming Judge Sotomayor twice before, and as swiftly as possible, so that she can take her seat on the court in September and participate in deliberations as the court chooses which cases it will hear this coming year.

And with that, I’d like all of you to give a warm greeting, as I invite Judge Sotomayor to say a few words.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I think they like you.

(APPLAUSE)

SOTOMAYOR: I was just counseled not to be nervous.

(LAUGHTER)

That’s almost impossible.

Thank you, Mr. President, for the most humbling honor of my life. You have nominated me to serve on the country’s highest court, and I am deeply moved.

I could not, in the few minutes I have today, mention the names of the many friends and family who have guided and supported me throughout my life, and who have been instrumental in helping me realize my dreams.

I see many of those faces in this room. Each of you, whom I love deeply, will know that my heart today is bursting with gratitude for all you have done for me.

SOTOMAYOR: The president has said to you that I bring my family. In the audience is my brother Juan Sotomayor -- he’s a physician in Syracuse, New York; my sister-in-law, Tracy (ph); my niece Kiley -- she looks like me.

(LAUGHTER)

My twin nephews, Conner and Corey.

I stand on the shoulders of countless people, yet there is one extraordinary person who is my life aspiration. That person is my mother, Celina Sotomayor.

(APPLAUSE)

My mother has devoted her life to my brother and me. And as the president mentioned, she worked often two jobs to help support us after dad died. I have often said that I am all I am because of her, and I am only half the woman she is.

Sitting next to her is Omar Lopez (ph), my mom’s husband and a man whom I have grown to adore. I thank you for all that you have given me and continue to give me. I love you.

(APPLAUSE)

I chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.

SOTOMAYOR: For as long as I can remember, I have been inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers. They set forth principles that have endured for than more two centuries. Those principles are as meaningful and relevant in each generation as the generation before.

It would be a profound privilege for me to play a role in applying those principles to the questions and controversies we face today.

Although I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my life to be immeasurably rich. I was raised in a Bronx public housing project, but studied at two of the nation’s finest universities.

I did work as an assistant district attorney, prosecuting violent crimes that devastate our communities. But then I joined a private law firm and worked with international corporations doing business in the United States.

I have had the privilege of serving as a federal district court trial judge, and am now serving as a federal appellate circuit court judge.

This wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench.

I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government.

SOTOMAYOR: It is a daunting feeling to be here. Eleven years ago, during my confirmation process for appointment to the Second Circuit, I was given a private tour of the White House. It was an overwhelming experience for a kid from the South Bronx.

Yet, never in my wildest childhood imaginings did I ever envision that moment, let alone did I ever dream that I would live this moment.

Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the honor you are giving me, and I look forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process. I hope that as the Senate and American people learn more about me, they will see that I am an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences. Today is one of those experiences.

Thank you again, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Before King, Obama's base was laid

By Jamal Simmons
Guest Contributor
(Originally published by Politico
)

Throughout Barack Obama’s campaign and swearing-in as president of the United States, the shadow of Martin Luther King Jr. loomed large. But the foundation of Obama’s success was laid 20 years before King told the nation about his “dream.”

APhilipRandolph1 In the 1940s, A. Philip Randolph led the charge of activists pushing the government to give opportunity to all of its citizens, regardless of race. And it is worth noting around the 120th anniversary of Randolph’s birth on April 15, 1889, how his contributions planted the seeds of Obama’s election.

Most Americans are very familiar with the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech to pressure President John F. Kennedy. But in 1943, Randolph organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters as the first African-American labor union and threatened an earlier president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with another march.

Instead of allowing the 1943 march to go forward, FDR agreed to sign Executive Order 8802, or the Fair Employment Practices Act, to desegregate war industries, allowing African-Americans to partake in the economic benefits of the buildup in manufacturing industries supplying material for World War II.

After World War II ended, Randolph kept up the pressure on President Harry S. Truman, who in 1948 agreed to desegregate the armed forces with Executive Order 9980 and the federal civil service with Executive Order 9981.

It is this trio of executive orders that laid the economic foundation for black participation in American life that King and his band of activists built upon with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial and gender segregation, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which gave black Americans full voting rights.

By desegregating the Arsenal of Democracy in American factories, Randolph and Roosevelt expanded the economic benefits of the manufacturing boom to African-Americans. As Center for Economic and Policy Research senior economist John Schmitt said in 2008, “manufacturing jobs, particularly unionized jobs in the auto industry, were an important part of what built the black middle class after World War II.”


Meanwhile, many African-Americans also had successful careers as government workers. At 12.6 percent of the population of the United States, blacks make up 17.9 percent of the federal work force and only 10 percent of the civilian workers, according to the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Fiscal Year 2008 annual report.

These civil service and manufacturing jobs helped generations of African-Americans take part in the American dream by buying homes and sending their children to college. Undoubtedly, these doctors, lawyers, newscasters, business consultants and other professionals who have moved into every aspect of American life have helped make white Americans more comfortable with people of color in positions of responsibility over the past 40 years.

Take the case of former Sen. Larry Craig, who was arrested in a Minneapolis airport for disorderly conduct. Craig, a white Republican from Idaho, chose as his lawyer Billy Martin, an African-American from Washington, D.C. There surely was no concern about the racial makeup of a Minneapolis jury to explain this choice, as the city is more than 65 percent white. It appears he chose Martin, who had represented him in an earlier harassment case, because he was the best lawyer for the case.

Cases like this are apparent all over America because of the educational and social advancements made possible by the actions of Randolph, Roosevelt and Truman, followed by King, Kennedy and Johnson.

Finally, the appointment of Colin Powell as national security adviser by President Ronald Reagan and his success during the first Persian Gulf War as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush established that a Black man could be trusted with America’s security, erasing the last barrier to Black leadership of the nation.

Certainly, there is not one individual or singular action that led to Obama’s election. Instead, it was the cumulative effect of generations of Americans, Black and White, to erase the barriers to the American dream for every citizen. We rightly recognize Martin Luther King Jr. and his contemporaries for the work they did in the 1950s and 60s, but we should not let the light from those stars blind us to the contributions of those like A. Philip Randolph who came before them.


Jamal Simmons was a Clinton administration political appointee and an adviser to the Democratic National Committee and the Obama-Biden campaign in 2008.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Remembering Jack Johnson: Republican lawmakers seek to gain posthumous pardon for boxing great

 

"Boxing has fallen into disfavor. . . The reason is clear: Jack Johnson . . . has out-sparred an Irishman. He did it with little brutality, the utmost fairness and great good nature. He did not "knock" his opponent senseless. . . Neither he nor his race invented prize fighting or particularly like it. Why then this thrill of national disgust? Because Johnson is black. Of course some pretend to object to Johnson's character. But we have yet to hear, in the case of White America, that marital troubles have disqualified prize fighters or ball players or even statesmen. It comes down, then, after all to this unforgivable blackness."

--W.E.B. DuBois, The Crisis (1914)


By David Whettstone

For the Afro-Netizen Newswire

JackJohnsonBicepFlexMarch 31st was John Arthur Johnson's birthday. 

Jack Johnson, the first African American to become Heavyweight Champion of the World, was born in Galveston, Texas in 1878.   He held his title from 1908 to 1915.  His ascendancy put an indelible mark on the landscape of American history and sport.  It came with the great price of persecution, adversity, and violence -- some of it federally sanctioned.

Some skeptics would not initially assume that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Peter King (R-NY) would be part of the cause to right the wrongs the barrier-breaking boxer endured.  However, they have together (as in previous sessions of Congress since 2004) introduced a resolution calling for the posthumous presidential pardon of the racially motivated conviction of Johnson in 1913 under the Mann Act.

They are both motivated to repair national reputation and by their life-long love for boxing.  Representative King still works out in the ring.

KenBurnsJackJohnson1 They join the call of Mr. Johnson's family (grandneice Dorothy Cross, great grandniece Linda Haywood, and others) and filmmaker Ken Burns, director of the PBS documentary, Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson for justice.  Burns has in the past petition Congress for such a resolution.

At the April 1, 2009 press conference, Ms. Haywood said, "For years our family was deeply shamed."  She continues, "He simply wanted to live his life."



(Photo credit: David Whettstone. Pictured from l to r: Linda Haywood, Ken Burns, Dorothy Cross, Johnson's grand niece, seated)

In its early American history, boxing was established as the exclusive domain of White men.  Black men were considered unworthy of competition.  They were not permitted to vie for the title.  In 1903, Johnson had defeated "Denver" Ed Martin to win the "Colored Heavyweight Championship". He then secured his world crown in 1908 by defeating Tommy Burns in Sydney, Australia and capturing an unmatched purse of $30,000 for the 14-round fight.  The previous heavyweight champion, Jim Jeffries, had retired rather than fight Johnson.

With Johnson's new reign, and shock to the psyche of most White U.S. men, came the counter-punch of deeply embedded racism.  Calls went out from media -- especially from writer Jack London -- and many sectors of society for a "Great White Hope."  Jeffries was eventually coaxed to engage Johnson in "The Fight of the Century" in Reno, Nevada on July 4, 1910.

Before a crowd of 12,000 mostly White men, Jeffries met defeat in 15 rounds of brutal physical punishment.  Johnson won a hefty record-breaking sum of $101,000.  Race riots ensued, and numerous  African Americans met with harm and death. And Congress acted.

It banned the interstate distribution of fight films which would not be lifted until 1940.  "The Fight of the Century" became part of the National Film Registry in 2005.

Johnson's romantic engagement of White women and subsequent controversial marriages met with the consternation and alarm of many.

Earlier in June 1910, President Taft had signed into law the White Slave Traffic Act, also known as the Mann Act. The legislation was a result of the wave of social concern and hysteria.  It prohibited the interstate transportation of women "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose."  The U.S. Department of Justice soon sought to apply the law to Johnson though no viable case was developed until 1912.  By 1913 a conviction was gained.

Also in 1912, Georgia Congressman Seaborn A. Roddenberry introduced a constitutional amendment that would ban marriage between whites and "any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African blood." The bill failed.

After being sentenced, Johnson fled the country, but voluntarily returned in 1920 to serve a year in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. 

Forces of the established order were clearly against him. However, he continued to have an active life: he received a patent for an invention while incarcerated; established a nightclub in Chicago and sold another in Harlem which evolved into The Cotton Club; raced cars; and continued fighting into the 1930s.  He met with a tragic auto accident near Raleigh, North Carolina in 1946.

Representative Peter King believes a pardon of Jack Johnson is long overdue and is part of fully restoring his reputation.  "Despite the accusations, he became a heavyweight legend who inspired and paved the way for future African American athletes."  He rightly understands the champion as a trailblazer. 

"The resolution to pardon Jack Johnson would not right this injustice, but would recognize it, and shed light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice, " said Sen. McCain.  "Taking such actions would allow future generations to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished against great odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of his criminal conviction."

The senator believes that President Obama has the greatest respect and admiration for Jack Johnson and plans to talk to him.  He was fully confident that the President would sign the resolution into law.

When he released his documentary, Ken Burns said:

"Johnson in many ways is an embodiment of the African-American struggle to be truly free in this country — economically, socially and politically. He absolutely refused to play by the rules set by the white establishment, or even those of the black community. In that sense, he fought for freedom not just as a black man, but as an individual."

Often Johnson has been quoted as stating he simply wanted to be respected as a man.

The embrace of Mr. Johnson in the heart and minds of many African Americans -- whether athlete or not -- is already well established.  Undoubtedly, he foreshadowed Muhammad Ali.  Both he and Joe Frazier have talked and agreed that Johnson was one of the greatest of all time.  For folks like them, oppression and injustice have not marred Johnson's reputation.   His representation and legacy are nothing short of iconic -- a mystical conveyance of unrelenting determination, unremitting power, and triumphant agency.

"He made us very proud," said Linda Haywood. "Out of all the people on the face of the earth, God gave him to us, our family."


David M. Whettstone is a Washington, DC-based public policy advocate and writer, who works on national and local issues (including civil rights and criminal justice) and with religious and community-based organizations. 

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Writing the Next Chapter on Race

By Judith Browne-Dianis
Guest Contributor

(Also published by the Applied Research Center's blog: Racewire.org here.)

For several months, the media has been pushing the fairy tale that the United States moved beyond racism with the election of President Obama. As untrue as that is, there are people who started acting on their post-racial fantasies years ago, eight years in fact, as the Bush Administration used that excuse to essentially stop enforcing the civil rights laws we already have. President Obama and his administration have the opportunity to take dramatic steps towards dismantling institutional racism and inequality by simply enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Rather than blindness or silence, taking this action requires us to live in reality so that we can change that reality.

On November 5th, 2008, we woke up in a nation where people of color are nearly twice as likely as Whites to live near toxic waste dumps. We woke up in a nation where healthcare inequities mean that a Black child is more than twice as likely as a White child to die before age one. We woke up in a nation where Black and Latino students are more than 20 percent less likely to graduate from school than their White classmates and more than twice as likely to be arrested when they are at school. All of these disparities exist with government support or permission.

Despite these glaring inequalities, for the past eight years the federal government did nothing, living in the comfort of the post-racial fairytale. Thus, our government largely pursued a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach to structural racism and injustice. The Supreme Court has refused to “hear” the evil of discrimination through decades of narrowing discrimination protections and taking away citizens’ rights to bring their complaints to the ears of the courts. In complicity with the Court, the Bush Administration willfully refused to “see” the discrimination around the country. Although the executive branch has broad power to intervene against structural racism and injustice, it turned a blind eye and stood idly as though nothing were wrong.

There is hope, however. As the Obama Administration opens its eyes and ears, we have a chance to reverse some of these terrible trends by enforcing laws we already have on the books. Let’s start with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes federal agencies to prevent discrimination by recipients of federal funding. That discrimination can be proven either by pointing to bad intentions or by revealing disparate outcomes.

This potent statute laid dormant for eight long years during which the Environmental Protection Agency could have stopped the disproportionate placement of toxic waste dumps in communities of color or construction of major highways through these communities. The Department of Education could have ended the school-to-prison pipeline that disproportionately affects children of color through racially discriminatory school discipline policies or discredited the academic tracking that puts youth of color on the road to dropping out rather than to college. The Department of Health and Human Services could have done its part to end health disparities by halting the closure of hospitals that serve communities of color. The list could go on for pages.

We didn’t achieve this new direction in the last decade for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court stripped citizens of the right to enforce this law, leaving it to the federal government to do the job. In turn, the Bush Administration shirked the federal government’s obligation to weed out such discrimination. Thus, significant structural racism did not stand a chance of being eradicated. President Obama has a chance to restore public faith in the government, and he can take no stronger step in that direction than by eliminating racial inequities and barriers to opportunity through enforcement of existing civil rights laws and regulations.

Simply enforcing the law will no more end racism than the election did. However, it can put us on a path toward eliminating structures that perpetuate mass inequities that contradict America’s promise. Just as Title VI would have prohibited funding of racially segregated schools and public swimming pools with our tax dollars decades ago, it should be used to weed out today’s federally-funded injustices. In 1970, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote that the enforcement of “Title VI had failed to match the law’s promise.” The time has come to write a new script. President Obama can initiate another chapter of history by vigorously enforcing Title VI and ensuring that government is no longer part of the disease but rather part of the cure. We have come too far to stop our progress toward equality for all.


Judith Browne-Dianis is Co-Director of Advancement Project, a policy, communications and legal action group founded by a team of veteran civil rights lawyers in 1998 that is committed to racial justice.

Site Search

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    aN blogroll

    Thanx for stopping by!