Monday, April 24, 2017
ClassCrits at Ten: Mobilizing for Resistance, Solidarity, and Justice
Call For Papers and Participation
Sponsored by the Tulane University School of Law
New Orleans, LA * * * November 10 & 11, 2017
Ten years ago, a group of scholar-activists organized a series of conversations about law and economic class. Building on “outsider” jurisprudence that has moved inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality from the margins to the center of law, the group proposed a jurisprudence of economic inequality. To foreground economic justice, the group sought to critique mainstream law and economics and to focus on the lives of poor and working class people.
Rejecting the neoliberal ideology of scarcity, and reclaiming the possibilities presented by the commons and by collective action, ClassCrits was born. Our name, “ClassCrits,” reflects our ties to critical legal analysis and our goal of addressing economic class in the multiple intersecting forms of subordination. We confront the roots of economic inequality in divisions such as race and gender and in legal and economic systems destructive to the well-being of humanity and the planet.
Alternative visions and solutions have become even more essential in the contemporary moment. In the United States, 2017 has begun with historic dangers, global protests, and major constitutional litigation against the new federal administration. The 2016 presidential election has exposed deep rifts in the foundations of law, economy, and society, reflecting a broad and deep discontent with neoliberal globalization. Decades of bipartisan policies have focused on privatization and de-regulation of economic power. Perceptions that established systems of law and economy are “rigged” against ordinary people have led to demands for change. Some blame liberal “identity” politics for giving short shrift to those harmed by economic disruption. Others rationalize increased inequality and insecurity as the inevitable results of innovation and potential growth that necessarily skews rewards to a privileged few.
What we cannot deny is the reality we are facing: A counter-democratic revolution. In response to this discontent, the prevailing response has been to take the neoliberal vision further. In place of principles and practices of law, democracy, and public service, this vision idealizes unaccountable authority aimed at unequal private gain. Policy proposals include selling off public lands, privatizing the already fragile public education system with vouchers, and permitting private interests to foul the air and water held in common as fundamental to health and life on earth. Promises to “Make America Great Again” seem to entail a rollback of civil rights protections for people of color, women, immigrants, religious minorities, and LGBTQ persons, along with an increase in militarization and an expanding carceral state, in the name of never ending foreign threats and geared toward hands of private profiteers.
The new dangers of oligarchy and authoritarianism risk fostering hopelessness and cynicism. Many of us grope around silences to find reasoned words of persuasion. Many struggle to find strategies for scholarship, teaching and advocacy sufficient to address emerging threats.
At the same time, this moment has sparked new voices and energy. Whether it is attending town hall meetings, calling or writing democratically elected representatives, engaging in numerous strikes and protests, or filing lawsuits, a resurgence of public dissent and collective action suggests the possibility of alternative solutions. Protests by indigenous persons at Standing Rock, by diverse groups of women marching in cities all over the world, by workers of color in the “Fight for Fifteen,” and by immigrants speaking out against the rising xenophobia and racism have inspired support and action challenging established boundaries of identity, interest, and policy.
During this exciting moment of possibility and struggle, we invite participants to submit applications to present at the 10th Annual ClassCrits conference, held at Tulane University Law School. We invite panel proposals, roundtable discussion proposals, paper presentations, poetry and fiction reading, and art that speak to this year’s theme, as well as to general ClassCrits themes. We are also interested in receiving proposals from law clinicians who engage in activist lawyering as a core part of their curriculum design. See the following page for details.
Finally, we extend a special invitation to junior scholars (i.e., graduate students and non-tenured faculty members) to submit proposals for works in progress. At least one senior scholar, as well as other ClassCrits scholars, will provide feedback and detailed commentary upon each work in progress in a small, supportive working session at this year’s workshop
The general themes of ClassCrits, include:
- The legal and cultural project of constructing inequalities of all kinds as natural, normal, and necessary.
- The relationships among economic, racial, and gender inequality.
- The development of new methods (including the interdisciplinary study and development of such methods) with which to analyze and criticize economics and law (beyond traditional “law and economics”).
- The relationship between material systems and institutions and cultural systems and institutions.
- The concept and reality of class within the international legal community, within international development studies and welfare strategies, and within a “flattening” world of globalized economics and geopolitical relations.
Proposal Submission Procedure and Deadline
Please submit your proposal by email to firstname.lastname@example.org by June 1, 2017. Proposals should include the author’s name, institutional affiliation and contact information, the title of the paper to be presented, and an abstract of the paper to be presented of no more than 750 words. Junior scholar submissions for works in progress should be clearly marked as “JUNIOR SCHOLAR WORK IN PROGRESS PROPOSAL.”
The venue for the gathering is Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans, LA. The workshop will begin with continental breakfast on Friday, November 10 and continue through the afternoon of Saturday, November 11. Arrangements are being made for conference hotels. The registration fee is $210.00 for all conference attendees who are full-time faculty members from the Global North. Registration is free for students and activists. Participants who do not fit into these categories, and/or who for individual reasons cannot afford the registration fee, should contact us at email@example.com. Workshop attendees are responsible for their own travel and lodging expenses.
Conference Organizing Committee:
Chair and Host, Saru Matambanadzo, Tulane University Law School, firstname.lastname@example.org
Tonya Brito, University of Wisconsin Law School, email@example.com
Kim Clark, Pacific School of Religion and Graduate Theological Union, firstname.lastname@example.org
Angela Harris, U.C. Davis School of Law, email@example.com
Danielle Hart, Southwestern Law School, firstname.lastname@example.org
Lucy Jewel, University of Tennessee College of Law, email@example.com
Martha McCluskey, University of Buffalo School of Law, firstname.lastname@example.org
Athena Mutua, University of Buffalo School of Law, email@example.com
René Reich-Graefe, Western New England Law School, firstname.lastname@example.org
Matthew Titolo, University of West Virginia School of Law, email@example.com
ClassCrits is a network of scholars and activists interested in the critical, interdisciplinary and international analysis of law and economic relations. Please visit our website at www.classcrits.org for more about ClassCrits.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Professor Llezlie Green Coleman offers an insightful thesis in her article Rendered Invisible: African American Low-Wage Workers and the Workplace Exploitation Paradigm published in the Howard Law Journal. She states:
"The narrative of low-wage worker exploitation has increasingly narrowed in focus to reflect the experiences of undocumented immigrant workers whose immigration status makes them particularly vulnerable to wage theft and other denials of their substantive workplace rights. Indeed, much of the scholarship in this area rests solidly at the intersection of immigrant justice and employment law.
This article disrupts this paradigm by arguing that this limited narrative has rendered African American low-wage workers invisible. It also draws from the voices of low-wage worker advocates who have borrowed from current activism to announce that #BlackWorkersMatter. Given the role of paradigms in defining which issues merit our attention, analysis, and assessment, this article argues for a shift in the scholarly conversation to consider not only the historical reasons for the distancing of African Americans from worker advocacy, but also the current dynamics that have facilitated this phenomenon.
Despite the reality that low-wage workers in this country are predominantly white, images and narratives of African Americans historically dominated the images and narratives of low-wage work, particularly where that work involved the labor of farm workers (sharecroppers) and domestic workers. In recent years, however, the focus on low-wage workers has shifted toward Latino workers: often recent immigrants and sometimes undocumented. This shift in our attention, however, is not based upon a mass departure of African Americans from the low-wage workforce. While the number of African Americans engaged in low-wage work has decreased as a result of immigration patterns, African Americans continue to occupy a significant number of low-wage jobs.1
Nevertheless, the standard narrative of low-wage work has shifted to one that is inextricably linked to the exploitation of immigrants. Given the particular vulnerability of our immigrant population and the resulting high levels of wage theft and other workplace exploitation in the immigrant community, targeted efforts to address the intersections of these issues is both important and necessary. In the midst of this change, however, the experiences of African American workers have received very limited attention in the media, and even less attention in the academy. Indeed, the more common narrative of the African American work experience has become one of unemployment, rather than low-wage employment.
This article draws from critical race theorists’ black/white binary analysis to consider whether there exists an immigrant/non-immigrant binary paradigm in the analyses of low-wage worker exploitation. Finally, it considers the particular vulnerabilities and disadvantages this paradigm creates for African American workers."
A copy of the full article is available here.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
With the troubling rise in hate groups in America, Professor Vinay Harpalani's article "Safe Spaces" and the Educational Benefits of Diversity offers a timely defense of campus safe spaces in the broader framework of diversity programming in higher education. The following is an abstract of his article, forthcoming in the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy.
"This Article analyzes and defends “safe spaces” on university campuses. Safe spaces are campus programs and organizations that are devoted to the needs and experiences of marginalized groups — especially students of color. The Article argues that safe spaces are vital to the educational benefits of diversity — the compelling interest upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II (2016) to justify universities’ use of race-conscious admissions policies. Safe spaces provide valuable support mechanisms for students of color at predominantly White universities.
The Supreme Court has recognized that these students can often feel “isolated or like spokespersons for their race,” and safe spaces can help them with social and cultural adjustment. Additionally, safe spaces also provide unique educational benefits for both students of color and for White students. Contrary to popular discourse, safe spaces do not promote balkanization or racial separatism on campuses. Even safe spaces that focus on one group, such as residential programs devoted to Black heritage and experiences, are open to students of all backgrounds. Some of these spaces have very diverse student participation. Safe spaces illustrate that immersion within one group’s experience is compatible with cross-racial understanding, not antithetical to it. These spaces provide valuable opportunities for students of color to engage issues of salience within their own groups, and for White students to learn about issues that would not come up in predominantly White settings. The conversations and debates that occur between students turn safe spaces into miniature “marketplaces of ideas,” where unique cross-racial exchanges can occur. Such exchanges epitomize the educational benefits of diversity upheld in Grutter and Fisher II."
To download Professor Harpalani's article, click here.
Monday, April 3, 2017
The Boston Review featured a series of articles by legal scholars and lawyers on the legal, social, and political implications of the rise in Islamophobia in the United States. Over the next few weeks, we will highlight the essays within this thought provoking and timely series.
Professor Sudha Setty exmaines how bipartisan consensus about the government's powers in matters of national security bolsters surveillance of Muslims, as well as other groups deemed suspect by the state. She writes:
"Even if President Trump’s January 27 executive order barring or delaying immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries is deemed unconstitutional, the administration will continue implementing its plan to target Muslims. Trump has promised to ramp up the “respectful” surveillance of mosques and, if history serves as a guide, we should not expect popular, political, and judicial resistance to such measures to match recent furor. Since September 11, 2001, Muslim life in the United States has entailed burdens that the majority of U.S. citizens simply ignore because they do not affect us and, unlike the recent executive order, we are not privy to seeing them in action. Moreover, a high percentage of Americans are indifferent to or even supportive of Muslim citizens being watched closely by the government in the name of national security—despite the fact that at least some of the surveillance is legally indefensible and there is no evidence that it significantly improves national security.
Long before the Trump presidency, government surveillance targeted U.S. Muslims at their colleges, mosques, charities, and community centers. These shadowy practices are carried out under the umbrella of national security and exist largely beyond the reach of legal accountability. In late 2005 the New York Times disclosed the existence of a secret surveillance program against U.S. Muslims, put in place by the Bush administration in 2001. This led to public anger and accusations that the program undermined the constitutional rights of Muslims. However, rather than backing down, the Bush administration lobbied Congress to grant the legal authority to continue the program, and Congress obliged by voting overwhelmingly to enact the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008. The act retroactively authorized broad surveillance and immunized telecommunications companies and the government from lawsuits or future government investigations. Lest we forget, both chambers were controlled by Democrats, and then–Senator Obama voted for the bill."
To read Professor Setty's article in full, click here.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
The Boston Review featured a series of articles by legal scholars and lawyers on the legal, social, and political implications of the rise in Islamophobia in the United States. Over the next few weeks, we will highlight the essays within this thought provoking and timely series.
Professor Wadie Said addressed the reality that nearly all terrorism prosecutions since 9/11 have involved individuals who do not represent a genuine threat of violence.
"In May 2016 Sajmir Alimehmeti was arrested in the Bronx and charged with providing material support to the Islamic State, along with one count of passport fraud. The authorities began their investigation of him shortly after he was denied entry to Britain on two occasions in 2014. On the second trip, British authorities searched his phone and computer to discover multiple images of the Islamic State and various attacks it had carried out. Once back in the United States, three undercover agents approached Alimehmeti, soliciting his help in leaving the United States to join the Islamic State in Syria. In the roughly nine-month period between his being approached by the agents and his arrest, Alimehmeti made numerous statements indicating his support for the terrorist group. But where does the U.S. government draw the line drawn between espousing hateful, yet legal, views and actually acting on them? And, subsequently, how do they establish legal culpability before an act of terror has been committed?
Shortly after 9/11, then–Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a new plan for investigating and prosecuting suspected terrorists. The Department of Justice would focus on stopping terror plots before they came to fruition, instead of merely prosecuting individuals for acts of violence already committed. This shift seemed both logical and necessary. And the fear and confusion associated with acts of terror offered a compelling incentive for the government to seek to prevent them, not just punish their perpetrators after the fact.”
To read the full article, click here.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
The Presumed Innocence of Racial Vigilantes
Jamie Longazel, Nikita Srivastava, and Ruth Thompson-Miller
The incident that recently sparked protests in Anaheim, California allegedly began when Kevin Ferguson, an off-duty Los Angeles police officer, confronted a young girl about cutting through his lawn on her way home from school. According to a witness, a 13-year-old Chicano boy stood up for his friend, telling the man “I’m going to sue you.” The man apparently misheard him, thinking he said, “I’m going to shoot you.”
Onlookers filmed the entire encounter, which appears to show the man grabbing the young boy by his sweatshirt and dragging him across a lawn. The boy remained in the man’s grasp for several minutes. On a few occasions, the boy’s friends attempted to free him by shoving the man. One such shove propelled him, with the boy still firmly in his grasp, over a shrub. When he got back on his feet, it appears as though Ferguson pulled a handgun from his waistband and fired a shot. This sent the relatively large group of youth who had gathered fleeing in fright.
While we can certainly categorize this case as yet another instance of police violence captured on video, the details evoke memories of one incident in particular: the murder of Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman killed the seventeen-year-old Martin, who was Black, almost exactly five years prior, setting off protests and a national conversation about race and police / vigilante violence that remains robust. Thankfully, the 13-year-old boy in Anaheim escaped unharmed. Yet, like Martin, he found himself accosted by a grown man with a quasi-judicial, vigilante orientation after engaging in the otherwise routine act of walking home from school.
We have been analyzing the closing argument that George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, delivered to the jury leading up to his acquittal, and our findings shed light on the racist ideology underlying cases like this.
Attention to deeply-rooted racism, we contend, helps explain both why this happens and why convictions are so elusive when it does. (Although Ferguson’s actions are currently under investigation, it is notable that police took only the boy and one of his peers into custody following the incident; and as of this writing, Ferguson still has his job and is not facing charges).
Sociologist Joe Feagin’s concept of the white racial frame captures what we mean by deeply-rooted racism. Rather than surface-level discussions of things like prejudice, bias, or stereotyping, Feagin suggests that in order to understand the constant recurrence of racist events, we must view racism as a systemic problem.
One component of the white racial frame is its depiction of people of color as subhuman and dangerously animalistic. According to Feagin, “among the outrageous stereotypes and images common in the white racial frame today is the old view of black Americans as being linked to apes and monkeys… black Americans are still often unconsciously or half-consciously, [viewed] by whites as animal-like and not fully human” (pg. 102).
He references numerous examples throughout U.S. history where whites frame people of color as “savages” and “treacherous.” “[In the] eighteenth century,” Feagin writes, “colonists framed Indians as animals—’beasts of prey’... or as ‘animals vulgarly called Indians’” (p. 61).
Applied here, the white racial frame depicts the very existence of young bodies of color as threatening. When addressing the jury in Florida v. George Zimmerman, O’Mara linked Martin to the wider pattern of black criminality that the white racial frame assumes is ever-present, pointing out that Martin “just so happened to match the description of the most wanted criminals” in an area where people convicted of burglary “happened to be black.”
Elsewhere in his closing statement, O’Mara uses animalistic imagery to describe Martin, making Zimmerman, by contrast, appear desperate for safety, and, indeed, heroic given that he managed to prevail. He described Martin’s activity the evening of his death using phrases like “lurking” and “lying.” His argument concludes even more callously, with a rejection of the notion that Martin was an innocent youth and an insistence on his savage dangerousness. “How many times was it said Trayvon Martin was not armed,” O’Mara rhetorically asked, as he picked up a block of cement and carried it in front of the jury...
That’s cement. That is sidewalk, and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but Skittles trying to get home… [Martin] used the availability of dangerous items from his fists to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. Not just there for self-defense, but there to cause great bodily injury to George Zimmerman… Any suggestion by the state... that [cement] cannot cause great bodily injury is disgusting.
In contrast, this framing depicts whites as the potential victims of such perceived threats, and, importantly, as not as liable for any subsequent violence they inflict when they “fend them off.”
O’Mara described Zimmerman as a noble man who simply wanted to do good for his community. Zimmerman, he said, “did want to be a cop. He also wanted to be a prosecutor. He wanted to be a lawyer. And he wanted to continue his education and he wanted to help his community… yes, he wanted to be involved.”
Notice how this frame makes Zimmerman’s use of a firearm to kill Trayvon Martin appear justified, in sharp contrast to the savagery of the teenager’s reliance on “dangerous items… to cause great bodily injury.” “In fact, George Zimmerman was armed with a firearm,” O’Mara admitted, “We know he had the right to have it.” In this telling, Zimmerman was not an adult who murdered a child, he seems to imply, but rather someone bravely protecting his neighborhood from predators.
Part of what makes this frame so powerful is that it is so entrenched in our culture, representing far more than an instance of bias mistakenly rising to the surface. The white racial frame is a “vantage point,” with its assumptions widely accepted as “common sense.” Accordingly, it would not be a stretch to assume that O’Mara’s presentation influenced the jury – comprised of all white women – who found Zimmerman not guilty.
We still do not know all the details surrounding the Anaheim case, but from the video that has been circulating, there appear to be several graphic and disturbing similarities. Like Zimmerman, the unnamed cop was extra-judicially protecting “white space” – his neighborhood / property.
Both perpetrators seemingly viewed the boys as predators with little, if any, evidence to validate their fears. Granted, we don’t know what the LAPD officer actually heard and there is no use speculating on his motives, but we can nevertheless ask whether he would have so easily mistaken “sue” for “shoot” had the “intruder” not been a young person of color.
Ferguson’s particular actions are also telling: He, in effect, traps the boy as if he were an unwanted rodent and then, in an apparent display of dominance, fires his gun to scare off the boy’s peers. (“My son shot his gun because they’ve got about 15 people,” the officer’s father, who arrived on the scene and called 911, can be heard saying on the video).
These cases are even more egregious when we consider that these are grown men involved in physical altercations with children. (Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice, who police shot and killed in Cleveland, also comes to mind here.) “I’m only like 13,” the Anaheim boy says at one point in the video, pleading for mercy. The bag of Skittles Martin was carrying at the time of his death likewise became a powerful reminder that he was just a kid.
Yet with racism so deeply rooted, their youth offers no protection from racialized vigilantism. And the legal system fails to hold such men accountable again and again. (Absent charge, the LA Times reports that the boy’s family has filed a civil suit, alleging “that Officer Kevin Ferguson violated the boy’s civil rights and caused the plaintiff emotional distress. It also claims that Ferguson assaulted and falsely imprisoned the boy.”)
Cases such as these demonstrate that policy proposals like increased training for police officers or requirements that officers wear body cameras are insufficient solutions. What we really need is the courage to admit that the problem runs far deeper than that. There are, and long have been, entitled white men all over the country – police officers and otherwise – who see it as within their purview, if not as their obligation, to “protect” themselves and their communities from threats that exist only in their minds. Meanwhile, boys of color struggle to get home from school or to go out for a snack without putting their lives on the line.
Jamie Longazel is an Assistant Professor of Sociology and a Human Rights Center Research Associate at the University of Dayton and the author of Undocumented Fears: Immigration and the Politics of Divide and Conquer in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
Nikita Srivastava is a law student at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. She has Bachelor’s Degrees in Criminal Justice Studies and Political Science from the University of Dayton, and is currently a Fellow at the Ohio Innocence Project.
Ruth Thompson-Miller is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Dayton and the co-author (with Joe Feagin and Leslie Picca) of Jim Crow’s Legacy: The Lasting Impact of Segregation.
Friday, March 10, 2017
President Donald Trump and senior members of the Trump administration have recently mischaracterized basic points of American racial history. While Trump supporters defend these remarks as innocent, these “missteps” show a willful ignorance about American white supremacy aimed at generating a post-racial ideology of success and a complacency about our challenges connected to the legacy of slavery.
In comments to his department, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson compared the experience of slaves in the Transatlantic Slave Trade with the experience of willing migrants to to the United States. According to the Washington Post, Carson said:
"That's what America is about. A land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less,” said Carson, speaking extemporaneously as he paced the room with a microphone. “But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."
In comparing slaves to immigrants, Carson equated the two as dreamers, but conveniently ignored the Transatlantic Slave Trade’s subordination of the enslaved. Yet, as the Post reported, attendees to Secretary Carson’s remarks did not believe he was making any untoward comments. Carson himself denied any intention of denying the realities of slavery. And in defense of the comparison between slavery and immigration, Eugene Volokh went so far as to quote a number of legal scholars as having compared chattel slavery and voluntary immigration. Conservative critics have even called those objecting to Carson’s comments “hypocritical” and argued that President Obama made a similar comparison.
But this mischaracterizing doesn’t stop with Secretary Carson. Earlier this year, President Trump commented that Frederick Douglass was someone “who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more,” implying that he wasn’t acquainted with the nineteenth century anti-slavery icon. And Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos called Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) “pioneers” of “school choice” while ignoring the fact that HBCUs were created because segregation forbad black students from attending white colleges and universities. Like Carson, DeVos’s comments have been pilloried and defended as innocent misstatements.
The defenses of “lack of evil intent” and “hey look, liberals (or academics) do it too” completely miss the point. These comments by Trump, DeVos, and Carson, read against the rhetoric and agenda of the administration, come off as tone-deaf about the history of the striving for racial equality and equal opportunity in the United States.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Last week, the Boston Review featured a series of articles by legal scholars and lawyers on the legal, social, and political implications of the rise in Islamophobia in the United States. Over the next few weeks, we will highlight the essays within this thought provoking and timely series.
"In his inaugural address, Donald Trump vowed to eradicate “radical Islamic terrorism . . . completely from the face of the earth.” This pledge—not the first of its kind from an American president—is not as anodyne as it may first seem. It mobilizes a longstanding dichotomy between acceptable and radical Islam, between good and bad Muslims. For too long we have accepted our government’s ability to discern the difference. We have acquiesced to a wide-ranging set of government policies toward Muslims in the United States and around the world to root out the “dangerous ones.” And we have trusted that all of this is necessary for our collective good.
Meanwhile the government has enacted an interlocking system of domestic and foreign policies that reflect, codify, and reenact suspicion of Muslims globally: wars and targeted assassinations named and unnamed; deportations, prosecutions, and policing; a regime of surveillance that goes from sea to shining sea and then wraps around the rest of the world; Countering Violent Extremism programs aimed at shaping the very ideas that Muslim communities discuss and debate, effectively marking certain forms of religious practice or critique of U.S. policies as criminally dissident. The cost of silence—of our failure to scrutinize, question, or resist—is now clear. It is not too late to wake up, but it will take far more than resisting Trump’s Muslim ban."
To read the full article, click here.
Monday, February 13, 2017
For all of his anti-establishment rhetoric, President Trump’s stance toward immigrants and Muslims is more of the same. Orientalism and Manifest Destiny have long animated American foreign policy and domestic treatment of its racial and religious minorities.
Trump’s executive orders on Friday, effectively barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries, harks back to an era when holy wars were the currency for mass mobilization by the ruler.
In the eleventh century, for example, Pope Urban II called on his people to defend the Byzantine Empire from encroaching Muslim armies. What became known as the First Crusade in European history books solidified the image of Muslims as fanatical followers of a false religion and a threat to Christendom. Medieval romances and legends of battles between Christian and Muslim warriors nurtured the perception of a dangerous and violent Islam.
Over time, the stereotype of the Muslim savage animated the West’s domination, restructuring, and deculturalization of the Middle East.
British colonists brought with them Orientalism, which coupled with the ideology of Manifest Destiny, was used to justify the conversion or termination of Native Americans, enslavement of Africans, and exploitation of the Chinese. As nonwhite and non-Christian, these groups were deemed biologically inferior. As such, it was the white man’s burden to teach, civilize, and save them from their savage nature.
-- This is an excerpt of an op-ed I published on FoxNews available here
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Below is a non-exhaustive list of links to formal statements by various American universities pertaining to Trump's Executive Order (also known as "the Muslim Ban") targeting immigrants and nonimmigrants from 7 Muslim-majority countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen).
Association of American Universities - http://www.aau.edu/news/article.aspx?id=18366
Association of Public and Land Grant Universities - http://www.aplu.org/members/councils/strategic-communications/immigration-actions/
Brown (Provost) - https://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/01/immigrationorder
California State University (Chancellor)) - http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/message-from-jane-gatewood-vice-provost-for-global-engagement-on-recent-immigration-news-213242/
Catholic University (President) - http://www.cua.edu/news/2017/executive-order-statement.html
Columbia (President) - http://news.columbia.edu/content/1559
Cornell (President) - http://statements.cornell.edu/2017/20170129-immigration-exec-order.cfm
Dartmouth (President & Provost) - http://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2017/01/letter-president-hanlon-and-provost-dever-executive-order-immigration?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=institutional
Duke (President & Provost) - https://today.duke.edu/2017/01/message-president-and-provost-federal-immigration-restrictions-updated
Georgetown (President) - https://president.georgetown.edu/message-immigration-jan-2017
Harvard (President) - http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2017/we-are-all-harvard
Michigan (President) - http://www.wmich.edu/president/statement-immigration-executive-order
Pittsburgh (Chancellor) - http://chancellor.pitt.edu/news-story/chancellor-gallaghers-message-us-immigration-decisions
Princeton (President) - http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S48/57/21I82/?section=topstories
Texas A&M University (President) - http://president.tamu.edu/messages/response-to-white-house-executive-order-travel-ban.html
University of Texas (President) - http://president.utexas.edu/messages/recent-executive-order?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=UTAustinSocial
University of Pennsylvania (Provost, Vice President, and Vice Presidents) - https://news.upenn.edu/news/messages-about-executive-order-immigration
University of Massachusetts (Chancellor) - https://www.umass.edu/gateway/federal-actions
University of Virginia (Faculty Senate) - http://facultysenate.virginia.edu/faculty-senate-general-faculty-council-statement-immigration-executive-order
University of California (President and Chancellors) - https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/statement-uc-president-janet-napolitano-and-chancellors-about-recent-executive-order
University of Houston (President) - http://www.uh.edu/president/communications/communicae/houston-community/013017travel-ban/index
University of Arkansas (President) - http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/fox-24/university-of-arkansas-releases-statement-on-trumps-executive-order/647303966
University of Connecticut (President & Provost) -
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
The next week will be momentous for our country as we recognize a monumental public figure who challenged the U.S. government and society to create the more perfect union that the Constitution demands. On Monday, January 16, the nation remembered Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the official holiday that commemorates his legacy. Notably, too, on Friday, January 20, we will mark the end the President Barack Obama’s two-terms as the first African American president, and begin the presidency of Donald Trump.
Many citizens find this transition in U.S. presidential leadership more portentous than promising and have mobilized multiple demonstrations, not in celebration, but in protest and anxiety that the incoming administration portends to undo the measured progress has been made to realize the constitutional promise. These bookended events should give us great pause to think deeply about what – and perhaps even more important, who – is America, and the continuing relevance of Dr. King’s vision in answering these questions.
In my work as co-director of the Cold Case Justice Initiative at Syracuse University College of Law, I am intimately involved in the racial and social dynamics of the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, in which the U.S. was steeped in discord and violence, as Black people sought full civil rights and were frequently met with hostility and death. Many victims of the violence of this era remain unidentified, cases remain unsolved, and perpetrators remain unpunished. For these reasons, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act was passed by the last Congress and signed by President Obama to continue to seek justice in these cases. These earlier cases continue to resonate in the present as the calls for justice bellow in the spate of racially motivated killings by law enforcement and private actors of mostly unarmed Black and Brown people.
The demand for justice in these circumstances – then and now – is reflected in Dr. King’s critical statement, “Why We Can’t Wait,” and his critical question, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” During his own time, Dr. King understood that the burgeoning Black Power Movement and impatience and dissatisfaction with non-violent practice was in response to societal intransigence and impunity of state and private violations of Black people’s rights and safety. He knew that Black lives mattered and that Black rage was justified. ”It cannot be taken for granted that Negroes will adhere to nonviolence under any and all conditions,” he stated. As Dr. King further recognized, “Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention. There is no other answer.” In other words, Dr. King, admonished American society, “No justice. No peace.” While he was implacably committed to nonviolent resistance, he found, “It is purposeless to tell Negroes they should not be enraged when they should be…Mass civil disobedience can use rage as a constructive and creative force.”
The U.S. Department of Justice just released a damning report of longstanding institutional racial violence by the Chicago Police Department against mostly Black persons in that city – often lethal. The City of Baltimore recently entered a consent decree with DOJ regarding systemic police violence and abuses along the same lines. Dr. King would have recognized these psychic, physical, and legal harms at the hand of the state and the uprisings they generated.
When King was asked about the 1967 riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Memphis, he responded, “In the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And America has failed to hear that the promises of justice and equality have not been met.” In today’s environment, Ferguson, Dallas, Baltimore, Chicago…all would be known to Dr. King.
The President-elect campaigned on a platform that was divisive; one that ridiculed and vilified society’s most vulnerable people. Women were singled out for gross debasement in public discourse and behavior that the candidate sought to minimize. Immigrants and undocumented workers were singled out as criminals and leeches.
LGBTQ communities, Muslims, disabled people and other marginalized populations question whether the destructive tenor and actions of the incoming administration augur greater discrimination and violation of rights. Thus far, the President-Elect has evinced a remarkable lack of conciliation overtures to bring the nation together and reassure that the American ideals of equal rights, equal justice, and equal value of all persons will be observed. As we pause to remember Dr. King, these contrasting visions of America and American values could not be starker.
Dr. King also exhorted the country to “make America great.” This was the meaning of the “Dream” speech, given on the one-hundredth anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Dr. King urged the country to end the crippling inequality that affected people across racial, geographical, and economic divides. He sought unity, commonality, and appreciation of each other’s unique struggles for justice and inclusion.
Dr. King accepted the Nobel Peace Award in 1964 “with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind.” He found justice wounded and wanting, but declared, “I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.” For King, it was an unshakable faith that gave him courage to go on “to face the uncertainties of the future.” Dr. King was motivated by faith, conscience, selflessness and humility. He believed that we could be better, individually and collectively as a nation. His as yet unfulfilled vision of a just and equal society is one in which greatness is measured by what we give, not by what we take. By serving, not by being served. And by love, for all people.
Dr. King’s vision was uplifting and he believed in protest as ennobling. As we enter into this uncertain future, we should remember that we are stronger when we are together. So, as we look toward a future that seems fraught with divisiveness and shameful behavior, we must ask what and who is America? We must maintain the audacity of hope.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
For readers following the charter school movement and consequent debates, you may find of interest a new article by Heather Bennett and Steven Nelson entitled Are Black Parents Locked out of Challenging Disproportionately Low Charter School Board Representation? Assessing the Role of the Federal Courts in Building a House of Card.
Here is the abstract for the paper:
This paper discusses the role of Shelby County v. Holder in removing protections for minority influence(s) in the school board selection process. The paper cites and analyzes federal case law to support the theory that the Court’s limitations on Section 2 and rollback of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as well as the Court’s illusory promise to regulate appointed boards via the Equal Protection Clause allows for the limitation of minority participation and influence in the political process, specifically the selection of school boards members. Specifically, this paper argues that charter school movement results in decreased minority political voice and participation in education policy decisions. Moreover, this paper finds that traditional civil rights laws fail to protect the right of Black parents to participate in education policy processes and the politics of education. New Orleans – the epicenter of the charter school movement – is a ripe case study for this investigation. With nearly every public school student in New Orleans enrolled in a charter school, it is important to analyze the policy impact(s) of the displacement of predominately Black policymakers with predominately White policymakers.
The article is published in the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy (2016) and available for download here.
Monday, January 16, 2017
On December 22, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark civil rights ruling. In People v. Bridgeforth, the Court of Appeals held that skin color discrimination is cognizable for Batson challenges to juror exclusion. Defendant Bridgeforth, who is a dark-skinned African American, was convicted of robbery at trial. The prosecutor had employed peremptory strikes to exclude a number of dark-skinned women from his jury pool. One of these prospective jurors was South Asian American, and the prosecutor did not offer any explanation for striking her.
It was the exclusion of this juror that was the basis of the appeal in Bridgeforth. What made the case unique was that Bridgeforth did not argue that the South Asian American woman was stricken because of her race. Rather, he contended that she was excluded as part of a group of dark-skinned jurors. Thus, while race and color are usually considered together, with race taking the primary role, Bridgeforth’s theory of discrimination separated the two and focused directly on skin color.
Mr. Bridgeforth was represented by Tammy Linn of Appellate Advocates Inc. The Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Bridgeforth, assisted by pro bono counsel from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Thirty-two individual law professors joined the brief, as did the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT). Additionally, 20 civil rights organizations joined, including NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. and Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Among these organizations were many Asian and South Asian American bar associations—who recognized that Bridgeforth was important not only for addressing skin color discrimination broadly, but also for confronting discrimination against South Asian Americans.
The trial and intermediate appeals courts in New York both upheld the prosecutor’s peremptory strike. However, the Court of Appeals reversed unanimously and ordered a new trial for Mr. Bridgeforth. Six of the seven judges held that skin color is a cognizable category under Batson v. Kentucky (1986). The majority opinion cited various social science studies and law review articles to show that skin color discrimination is a prominent phenomenon in the U.S. Moreover, the majority noted that New York’s Constitution and civil rights laws cover discrimination based on color. Many sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 contain language about color, with most actual cases brought under Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination in employment. Skin color discrimination has also been recognized under the Fair Housing Act.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution provides grounds for addressing discrimination based on color. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly states that the right “to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866, upon which the Fourteenth Amendment was based, included language precluding color discrimination. In the late 19th century, several U.S. Supreme Court opinions involving the Fourteenth Amendment noted that African Americans faced discrimination based on “race” and “color”—sometimes demarcating them separately. During the 20th century, however, Supreme Court opinions in major cases began using only the language of “race”—and the Court has never held that “race” and “color” are separate for equal protection purposes.
Nevertheless, in Bridgeforth, for the first time, a court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause applies specifically to color discrimination—at least in the context of Batson challenges. The case is binding only in New York, but it does open the door for wider acknowledgment of skin color biases. The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that while colorism is often subsumed under racism, it can also be an independent phenomenon that the law should address directly.
Vinay Harpalani is Associate Professor of Law at Savannah Law School, where he teaches constitutional law, civil procedure, and employment discrimination. He served as of counsel on the Korematsu Center’s amicus brief.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Thursday, December 29, 2016
After a divisive presidential election year with the purported threat of terrorism from the Middle East dominating the news cycle, spending Christmas in Egypt was refreshing. Completely contradicting the xenophobic stereotypes of Arabs as violent and religiously intolerant, I leisurely walked with Egyptians along the boardwalk of the tranquil Red Sea decorated with Christmas trees and holiday lights. Meanwhile, in the hotels and open-air cafes, middle and upper class Egyptian Christians and Muslims friends dined and socialized together during the holiday weekend. It was a refreshing reality, far removed from the vitriol of Islamophobia, racism, and xenophobia that infects American post-election discourse.
My Christmas visit to Egypt brings to light the reality that what we read in the media about the Middle East is so narrowly focused on violence – real, exaggerated, or imagined – that it is no surprise that Americans are easily manipulated by the politics of fear. We expect all Middle Eastern countries to look like ISIS-controlled territory. We are indoctrinated to believe that we must fight “them” because they want to kill “us.” We are tricked into consenting to spending billions of dollars on military endeavors that have little to do with our public safety and a lot to do with propping up dictators; we do not question our politicians’ false claims of a clash of civilizations between East and West, between Muslim and Christian.
Yes, there is real violence in Syria, Yemen, and part of Iraq where proxy wars are destroying societies. But the day-to-day activities of the other hundreds of millions of people who live in the Middle East does not consist of actively resisting Western democracy or sympathizing with terrorist organizations on social media sites. Most people spend their time thinking about how to make ends meet in stalled economies. As inflation slices salaries in half, more than sixty percent of their income is spent on buying food. They fret over how they will pay the private school fees for their children because the public school system is reputed to graduate students who can barely read. They worry for their sons who cannot get married because they cannot afford to move out of the family home. For the lucky few who can afford a holiday at Egypt’s beautiful Red Sea, they spend quality time with their families away from the stress of urban life in Cairo and Alexandria.
What Middle Easterners are not doing is conspiring to kill Americans or plotting how to join terrorist groups. The over 90 million people in Egypt have other more important things to think about than appeasing Americans and Europeans’ Orientalist racial tropes of the Muslim terrorist. They are looking to work, expand their businesses, and improve their family’s lot in society. And when their authoritarian regimes (most of whom are supported by Western governments) attempt to distract them with conspiracy theories of American plots to destroy the economy – they are not taking the bait. Having suffered from decades of poor governance, they know all too well that these are common ploys deployed to shirk responsibility.
So as our leaders distract us with foreign boogeymen to blame for American politicians’ failures in governance and economic policies, we should learn from our counterparts in the Middle East. Like us, Muslim and Christian Arabs want jobs, decent wages, good infrastructure, and government accountability. Sharing our contempt for terrorism, they view the tiny minority of terrorists in the Middle East as obstacles to their aspirations for personal and societal prosperity.
As global citizens with the same fundamental human aspirations, I hope we in the West will recognize the recent anti-Muslim and xenophobic discourse for what it is – a tool of political manipulation used to persuade Americans to be complicit in the same policies and violence that led us all to this point.
As I write this postcard during Christmas in Egypt, I am inspired by Egyptians’ resilience and tenacity despite challenging economic times and a failed revolution. I will follow their example to remain optimistic for 2017 as I return to a polarized America split apart by a historically divisive presidential election.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Call for Papers Innocence Network Conference:
The Innocence Scholarship Committee of the Innocence Network is seeking high quality social science and legal scholarship for presentation at the 2017 Innocence Network Conference in San Diego, California on March 24-25 (http://www.innocencenetwork.org/conference).
Areas of research are open but should touch upon the multifaceted causes, implications, and/or remedies of wrongful conviction. International papers are welcome but must be submitted in English. Please submit a title and paper proposal to the Innocence Scholarship Committee at this Gmail account: firstname.lastname@example.org by February 1, 2017. Paper proposals must be no more than 200 words. Completed drafts must be submitted to the Committee by March 17, 2017.
The Innocence Scholarship Committee is actively seeking publication for those papers accepted for Conference presentations in a law review symposium edition. More information about that is forthcoming.
The Innocence Scholarship Committee is composed of the following Members: Professor Aliza Kaplan, Oregon Innocence Project, Lewis & Clark School of Law, Portland, Oregon; Professor Valena Beety, West Virginia Innocence Project, West Virginia College of Law; Professor Keith Findley, Wisconsin Innocence Project, University of Wisconsin Law School; Professor Stephanie Roberts Hartung, New England Innocence Project, Northeastern Law School; and Associate Clinical Professor Paige Kaneb, Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara Law.
After reading all of the post-presidential election excuses concerning the reasons for the failure of Hillary Clinton to win the White House which virtually all seem to center on the failure of democrats, , to find solutions to the White working class in so many rejoins in the country, see for example https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/16/economic-marginalization-reality-check/ , I remain disappointed with a reality many people of color were reminded of on November 8th. Donald Trump ran and won because of the power of hate, bigotry, and White Supremacy.
As a reasonable thinking person of color that was mortified by the weekly disqualifying statements by Trump, aimed at virtually every vulnerable minority group in this country: i.e., the physically disabled, Arabs, Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, and women, just to name a few, I sincerely believed reasonably-thinking people would come out in huge numbers to reject bias. I thus volunteered hundreds of hours on the Clinton Campaign, doing everything from poll watching, to phone banks to writing op-eds both in English and Spanish. My sense was that Democrats, and People of Color in particular were motivated to reject the hateful rhetoric stemming from the other side. Indeed, I perhaps foolishly, like so many other pundits, predicted in both English and Spanish the Latino electorate would come out in massive numbers to reject bias and bigotry. See for example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ediberto-roman/our-moment-nuestro-moment_b_12769670.html and http://www.univision.com/noticias/opinion/ahora-es-nuestro-momento-latino-para-proclamar-en-voz-alta-con-nuestros-votos-ya-basta
Like millions of others, and virtually every news account and prognosticator in the country, I was dead wrong on the election results and what actually was reasonable thinking in our times. What the days since have reminded me was the place, People of Color in general and Latinas and Latinos specifically, we currently hold in this society. Many of us were lulled into thinking our world had changed, perhaps in part due to the two-term election of Barak Obama as our President. We believed our world and country had progressed and would act rationally to reject the cornerstone of the Trump campaign—rhetoric centered on White Nationalism. What our collective Psyche failed to appreciate was that the White majority in fact acted rationally—they came out like locust to reject the inclusiveness of the progressive agenda of Obama, the Democrats, and other left of center groups throughout the land. Through the annals of time, leaders from Gloria Steinem, Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez to Harriet Tubman have noted that both freedom and power is not given up freely, it has to be fought for and taken.
On November 7, 2016, the vestiges of self-interest, hegemony (perhaps explaining why so many White women were okay with such an embarrassing misogynist candidate, and how 18% of Latinas and Latinos were okay with the unprecedented hateful and demeaning words directed at them and their brothers and sisters) showed its strength to reclaim “their America.”
For the rest of us, I have a response, perhaps to give us a moment of optimism as we prepare to face challenging days ahead: to use the vernacular of my old inner city New York neighborhood: “no worries, I got you.” You see, I, along with all reasonably thinking progressive people, know the era of successful institutional bias is in the midst of ladder chapters of the annals of U.S. history. You see, the demographics of our populous and in fact the power of education is not with them. We know an ill-equipped egomaniac unqualified candidate running on his nauseating ego and the interim power of hate will not succeed. Yes, he will be the president, but his self-interest, vanity, and shameful arrogance will hurt millions. We, however, will still be present ready to stand up for the voiceless and be “presente,” using that old Caribbean sentiment to be counted upon to ensure our narrative of inclusion, love, and reasonable thinking will be this country’s lasting legacy after the failure of hate.
by Ediberto Roman, Professor of Law, Florida International University School of Law
-- This is the final blog in the online symposium hosted by the Race and the Law Profs Blog examining the implications of a Trump administration on women, racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ communities, disabled persons, and other historically subordinated groups. Other blogs can be viewed here
Thank you to our contributors and readers.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
The presidential election that was too vulgar for us to write about, with accusations too inarticulate to describe policies, and an intimidating atmosphere of racist, nativist and sexist extremism inflaming every imaginable social division, finally received the emotional outcome it created. Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in a historic upset destined to be known as the ultimate political demand for change. For those dedicated to working against structural inequality, this may be the transformative change we never imagined. The U.S. will now be run by a Republican president, Congress and a conservative Supreme Court majority.
Cut through the sum of post-mortem line drawing—the country’s coasts, the educational attainment of its voters, where they fit on the metropolitan grid, their race, gender and citizenship status—and we see the power of inequality, upside down.
The angriest, most betrayed and forgotten constituency was not comprised of the African American, Latino and immigrant communities targeted by institutional discrimination and the continuing effects of the Great Recession, but working-class and blue-collar whites whose position has slipped under the rapid constraints of globalization. We have always known the economic instability was blind to color in the United States, especially in the last fifteen years. However, we had not anticipated the strength of its frustration—both its politically fed up and its racially weaponized forms. Trump’s policies are not clear. His symbolism, however, is getting clearer. The tone—which is what we will all live with until the policies kick in—is zero sum. This suggests a steep climb, if not a repudiation, of some of the core beliefs underlying CLiME’s work—mutuality, the progressive power of changing demographics and the persuasive weight of factual evidence. We have some reckoning to do.
Before we do, consider this much that we know objectively about the vote for change from various news sources. Working-class whites from Rust Belt states overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump, especially men. Hillary Clinton barely won the woman’s vote; 53% of white women voted for Trump. In battleground states, many white Democrats also voted for Trump, a lot of whom had voted for Obama. The expected Latino voter surge occurred, but exit polls showed 29% voted for Trump (the same percentage as Asian voters). African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, but failed to vote at 2008 and 2012 levels in key electoral states. Non-college educated whites, especially older voters, remain a significant voting bloc, and they are either angry at or dissatisfied with Washington and desperate for an outsider who will hear their calls for change. They did not trust Clinton to deliver that.
There’s a lot of uncertainty about the president-elect’s actual policies, but we can begin to make objective sense of the implications this election will have on how and whether we can effectively reduce structural inequality. Obviously, if Trump’s tax and trade policies can remake the terms of a labor economy restructured over the last forty years or more—that is, if his administration can increase the manufacturing sector everywhere it’s contracted and drive up wages in the service sector—that might stabilize household income and community wealth for a broad, multiracial swath of working-class and lower middle-class people, reducing inequality. But overturning such tides of globalization may take much more than Republicans will deliver. And it will not reach the structures of inequality rooted in discrimination.
This much seems clear about inequality and the election:
- It was a repudiation of President Obama. Some of this was intended by Trump supporters, some a result of disaffection with Hillary among Democratic voters. Neither campaign emphasized the growth of the economy or job creation under Obama, nor the first increase in middle-class wages and reduction in poverty rates. The objective gains of the Obama administration were at risk, and the result will mean many will be dismantled or transformed beyond recognition—Obamacare, executive orders on immigration and climate change and, most critically for CLiME’s work, the federal courts and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In an interview, Trump was quoted pledging to rescind the HUD rule on affirmatively furthering fair housing.
- Civil rights advocacy will assume a defensive stance again, and strategies for progressive change will probably avoid federal arenas in favor of local ones. Donald Trump has already signaled his contempt for many federal agencies, and his intention to nominate conservative judges from the Supreme Court on down. Those facts alone counsel against federal strategies to reduce structural inequality. The risks of bad precedents are already great. A refocus to states will also be challenging, given conservative control of many statehouses, declining budgets and—as this election reinforced—profoundly stratified state electorates. Thus, we will be forced to smaller regionalism and larger localism as the footprint for reforming the institutional arrangements that reproduce structural inequalities. The electorate’s mood—which was roundly misread—may augur little hope for integration strategies. Remember, widespread economic inequality was expressed in terms more hostile than unified.
- Colorblindness, that myth, has been eviscerated again by the reprise of white identity politics. Pundits and journalists roundly admonished the nation for forgetting about the pains and needs of disaffected white people. The explosion of explicit racism that became the undercurrent of Trump’s campaign to these voters fueled and legitimated not just their status as economically struggling people, but their entitlement to feel angry about it and to project that anger onto others. Whatever form of white nationalism this took—I hate that you forgot about me or I hate because you forgot about me, the lesson is clear: white votes matter. This explicit racialization, routinely fanned by conservative media, makes it hard to argue post-racialism with a straight face.
- Misogyny is a force. “On paper” the canyonesque disparities in presidential qualifications between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have long been acknowledged by people of good will. But in context, the Trump campaign’s rhetoric fanned a different fire we were making progress on dousing, which amounts to this: Lots of people, including many, many women, will hold a woman candidate for president to an almost impossible standard of ethical rectitude and trustworthy leadership than a man—even a vulgar, politically non-experienced, intemperate and truth-challenged man like Donald Trump. Whatever her flaws, the hatred of Hillary Clinton transcended Hilary Clinton.
- The post-modern death of shared facts imperils evidence-based change. This election showed the extreme relativism in much of the public’s reading of evidence as fact. A Fox news “fact” is not an MSNBC “fact.” An NPR “fact” is the inaudible and irrelevant whisper of elites. Throw in Facebook, Twitter rants and all of our selective blogs, and “the public” has lost more than a common basis for truth. We don’t even share the same standards for determining what’s true. It’s not at all clear how we will soon coalesce behind a common faith in fact-telling. If you cannot count on people’s rational capacity to hear your evidence fairly, the ground beneath your arguments is quick sand.
If those are fair observations of what the 2016 election means to ending structural inequality, let me end with some more interpretive thoughts about race, class, gender and the prospects for mutuality. Mutuality, CLiME friends may recall, is that progressive notion of interdependency first asserted nationally by Dr. Martin Luther King, who proclaimed “We are tied in an inescapable network of mutuality.” Despite our spatial, racial and economic balkanization, we are wrapped in a common destiny of cause and effect. What happens to some of us, affects all of us in important ways. Yet it is the recognition of these social physics that promises a beloved community.
That promise suffered mortal blows last Tuesday. What we saw was a prime example of worried and wounded Americans expressing their economic alienation in accusatory and divisive ways rather than seeing the commonality of their misfortunes. The working class, after all, is disproportionately people of color. Their economic status has been marginal for generations, and they have benefited very little from anything an Obama Administration targeted at them alone. As CLiME’s work and that of countless researchers have shown, the struggles of people of color to attain stable middle class status have been confounded mainly by two factors: powerful institutional racial and economic discrimination and structural changes in the post-industrial economy, like globalization. Working-class blacks and Latinos die sooner, make less money, have less wealth, suffer more poverty and unemployment, fear more crime and violence, attend weaker schools and enjoy fewer resources of an abundant nation’s bounty—even in the same places where whites have struggled. The white working class, on the other hand, has suffered mainly at the hands of only one of these factors—structural changes that lowered wages, displaced manufacturing and favored capital investors.
What might have been a moment of broad voter recognition of mutual interests in policies that stabilize all families instead devolved quickly, loudly and sometimes violently into an us-versus-them game of non-evidence-based blame. I am not suggesting that all Trump voters express the invective aimed at Mexican and Muslim immigrants, the demeaning of blacks, the tacit KKK support and the open “Trump that Bitch” misogyny. I am saying that they accepted it as part of their vote and have now frustrated the chance to stop it. It is an indelible part of who and what won last Tuesday, separating us farther from each other than actual facts about social standing and economic vulnerability would indicate. This is the toxic palliative of inequality, an addictive opioid of fleeting pleasure that separates the desperate interests of people with common concerns, a fix with no easy cure.
This blow to mutuality relied on a powerfully familiar and divisive trope: a hierarchy of vulnerability, entitled on the one hand and discredited on the other, “givers and takers.” In this frame, white economic alienation is the entitled kind, something we had all better fear and placate, to “take back” from the outsiders inflicting that vulnerability as of right. That view of vulnerability risks, like the Southern Strategy of Nixon’s era or the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, being racialized, privileged and institutionalized by the new president, Republican Congress and the federal judiciary. The minority objects of conservative scorn—whose statistical deficits, rather than supposed gains, remain the canary in the country’s coalmine—are discredited (again), their shared pain and unstable futures deemed something Other, stuck in stereoptyped incompetence and self-victimhood that is not in the national interest to solve right now. They voted for Hillary. They had their chance under Obama.
This is fundamentally the wrong premise for a nation tired of inequality. More than ever, we still need each other’s success. We still pay the costs of each other’s failures. The hope had been that we would continue to find new ways not only to show this in our research and advocacy, but to demonstrate effective ways to use policies of mutuality in our common interest.
Everyone should have the resources to reach their potential. Everyone should be able to live in decency and with respect. Everyone of us should have a life and a voice that matters to those who govern and distribute our nation’s immense wealth. Continue to hope. It is still in us to change for the better. But we will have work even harder. There is no other way. Keep hope alive.
(this article was originally published with the Center for Law in Metropolitan Equality (CLiME))
by David D. Troutt, Professor and Justice John J. Francis Scholar, Rutgers School of Law
-- --This blog is part of an online symposium hosted by the Race and the Law Profs Blog examining the implications of a Trump administration on women, racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ communities, disabled persons, and other historically subordinated groups.
Friday, December 2, 2016
Donald Trump’s reality TV-style campaign ushered in permission to “see” and confront race again. As bad as the “post-race” claims were with the election of Obama, the new era of confrontational identity politics will be far worse—and particularly for women of color. Women of color face an ever-increasing threat of overt racism in their daily lives with the onset of a Klu Klux Klan endorsed president-elect and the cultural shift his campaign laid bare. But the ramifications of the policies he promises to enact will create far-reaching damage to the health and safety of women of color. Indeed, the fear Trump created for women of color is evident in the way that they voted. Only 6% for him.
Trump’s cultural revolution dismantled the last shreds of civil discourse to be sure. It has also emboldened a certain segment of the population. It is the segment that never engaged in subconscious or implicit bias, but rather sequestered its overt racism to the back rooms where like-minded individuals gathered. Now, Trump’s rhetoric creates a license to bring this racism to the forefront of American life. Reports of hate crimes increased significantly after the election, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
But what about sexual assault? Where is the data tracking the increases in sexual assault? You will not see it. You will not see this data because when the president-elect openly brags about assaulting women, and in turn, others normalize his speech as “locker room talk,” it has a chilling effect. Reporting a sexual assault of one’s body has always been fraught. The cost of reporting such crimes includes the currency of blame and judgment. And this currency gets traded generously on the stereotypes of women of color. Women of color are much more likely to internalize these stereotypes of promiscuity and blame themselves. Whites, too, are much more likely to blame the victim when the victim is a minority woman. Never mind that minority women are already disproportionately attacked and experience police reporting differently from Whites.
By: Deirdre M. Bowen, J.D., Ph. D. (Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law) and Dylan Johnson
--This blog is part of an online symposium hosted by the Race and the Law Profs Blog examining the implications of a Trump administration on women, racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ communities, disabled persons, and other historically subordinated groups.
The chilling effect, however, becomes an all out freeze effect when one considers the policy message Trump sent with the nomination of Jeff Sessions to head the Department of Justice. Senator Sessions’ remarks could hardly be shrugged off as locker room talk. When asked if the grabbing of women’s genitalia constituted sexual assault, Sessions observed that it was not clear how it could be. Thus, when the nation’s potential lead prosecutor does not view such action as assault, it is difficult to imagine how women, but particularly women of color, would calculate a cost-benefit analysis in which reporting sexual assault would inure a single advantage. It sends an advantageous message to the perpetrator, however. He is likely to get a free pass under this administration. In fact, Fox news reports that college campus groups representing men accused of sexual assault are hopeful that a Trump administration will role back the Obama administration policies on sexual assault prevention and response on college campuses.
One need look no further than the effect of a federal loop hole that does not allow native American tribal courts jurisdiction over non-native criminals. Native American women who live on reservations are two and half times as likely to encounter sexual assault particularly by white men. Why? Because these perpetrators are never prosecuted. With Trump and Sessions in power, a machismo cultural shift has occurred in which men are free to assert themselves over women with impunity. Trump bragged repeatedly of the ways in which he viewed women as objects to be used. And what has become of these woman who came forward? They arrived in time for guest appearances in the reality TV style campaign season only to disappear when the “show” ended. What message does the media send when no follow up on the consequences of Trump’s actions appear forthcoming.
The dehumanization of women certainly did not begin with Trump, but it has taken on new life with his rhetoric and choice of Attorney General. The cultural backlash against women cannot be dismissed as mere “locker room talk.” The consequences are real for women. And the burden will disproportionately be borne by women of color. The question remains whether this backlash is a last gasp of a cohort of men watching their position of power give way to hierarchy inclusive of women and people of color or a retrenchment that promises to survive for generations?