BMW M135i Sports Hatch Sport Auto

Price: £31,595
0-62mph: 4.9sec
Top speed: 155mph (limited)
Economy: 37.7mpg combined
CO2: 175g/km
Kerbweight: 1500kg
Engine: 6-cyls, in-line, 2979cc, petrol turbo
Installation: Longitudinal
Power: 316bhp at 5800rpm
Torque: 332lb ft at 1300-4500rpm (with overboost)
Gearbox: 8-spd automatic

A mix of dry and damp, tight bends and a narrow road should be challenge enough for a hot hatch with 316bhp to spill from its rear wheels. And if that sounds like a temptingly reckless number then you'd be right it's only 19bhp down on the output of the lately departed 1M Coupe, and the M135i's 320lb ft of torque is identical.

If it comes with the optional eight-speed paddle shifter of our test car, the 135i will zoom-flick, zoom-flick, zoom-flick through the gears to 62mph in just 4.9sec. Go for the six-speed manual and the time actually rises to 5.1sec because its wider spread of ratios are less speedily swapped.

Either way, this new three-door 1-series is eagerly, muscularly and excitingly quick with the potential, you may think, to become a flailing handful if you dare to meddle with the ESP button. But the first bold dive into a rain-sheened bend uncovers grip reserves far deeper than expected deep enough that when that DSC button is prodded for partial disengagement, it takes some lead-foot ambition to get the rear axle's wider 245/35 R18s to get a skate on, the slide part-managed by a brake-deploying virtual limited slip diff.

So it's pretty neat, controllable and reassuring, the more so because this rear-driver is quite a finely balanced tool, as proved by a too-fast arrival into a tight, low speed turn that fails to bring on any plough-on understeer. That said, you can expect to see plenty of the orange light that confirms an active ESP system, which is no surprise given all this energy and rear-wheel drive.

Perversely, it's best to experience all this in the Comfort setting of the £515 Adaptive M Sport suspension, an essential option. It softens off the electronic dampers and lightens the steering effort to produce a satisfyingly communicative, more absorbent chassis and best of all, usefully more feelsome steering. Of course, tripping the Comfort mode slows the shift times and the gearbox's willingness to hold a gear, but that's easily undone by sliding the gearlever to leftwards to Sport, which gets you a more eager gearbox.

The result is a an excitingly rapid drive that sits just the right side of hectic, the excitement of the six's keen blare built on by the 'box's light thumps in sport, the ra-ta-tat of the exhaust's over-run, the lightly clasping support of the seats and an excellent driving position. While some may desire the more uncompromising character of the 1M Coupe, the fact is that this M135i's ride is less maskingly firm, its steering more delicate and its character easier to live with. And it's also a whole lot cheaper, being almost £10k less.

Of course, you do without the some of the 1M's alloy suspension hardware and massive brake rotors although the 135i's enlarged blue-calipered discs are entirely effective but remember that the M135i rides on the latest 1-series platform besides benefiting from bespoke suspension geometry and its own springs, dampers, anti-roll bars and bushes.

More immediately noticeable M135i identifiers include a new front bumper unit with larger air intakes, a rear bumper with twin exhausts and 18in alloys, and tyres, that are wider at the rear. Inside you get leather sports seats (the UK won't be getting the appealing Alcantara/hexagon cloth mix of the test car, which seems a pity), a black headlining, an M footrest, blue accent stitching to the seats, patterned aluminium trim inserts and modified instrument faces. Not a huge amount of differentiation then, but enough to mark this 1 out as something sportier. The cabin is robustly constructed too, although it's not as finely, designed, finished or textured as the cabin of the latest Audi A3.

Much of the M135is's considerable entertainment repertoire is provided by the straight six. This Twinpower motor features a twin scroll variable geometry turbocharger, variable timing of both inlet and exhaust cams, variable valve lift and direct injection, these features managing to almost eliminate turbo lag. Indeed, you must actively search it out to find any, by shifting manually and having the revs build from 1000rpm to the 7500rom limit in second, say. Then you'll uncover a slower-moving tacho needle to 1300rpm. From this point the six has already reached its 320lb ft torque peak, this figure impressively maintained through to 4500rpm, although the revs don't rush at you until this peak has passed, the tacho needle performing a lightning flit to the limiter.

Throttle response is not as instant as you'll find in a normally aspirated M3, but it's sharp enough for most circumstances. Couple the six's breadth of urge to that eight-speeder, and you have a car that powers near seamlessly from a dawdle to its easily struck and restricted - 155mph maximum.

M division has tuned the 135i's exhaust to provide a smoothly busy soundtrack that makes paddling your way through eight ratios an absorbing business, even if the noise can turn slightly wearing. Happily it quietens off at a motorway cruise. And we suspect the same may be true of the ride, which showed signs of choppiness on Germany's mostly smooth roads.

by Richard Bremner

The Ginned Up Race War Of 2012

By Sally Kohn, cross-posted from Colorlines

“The secret of Republican political success since the rise of the right is not, as many liberals believe, that they play no-rules hardball. Instead, it’s their skill at projection—at accusing Democrats of doing what they are doing themselves, or are planning to do, or have done.”
—Michael Tomasky, Daily Beast

Nothing stirs up white racial anxiety in an election year like a black-against-white race war. Never mind the fact that there isn’t one. When has that ever stopped the inventive right wing?

Those of us living in the world of objective facts and reality might be mistaken for thinking that the United States remains an at best well-intentioned, but nonetheless deeply hostile nation toward its communities of color. In New York City, reports have shown that in 2011, police conducted 685,724 street stop and frisks (up from 97,000 in 2002). Young black and Latino men between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 41.6 percent of those stopped—although they are only 4.7 percent of the city’s population. In Missouri, a black man named George Allen has been in prison for almost 30 years for allegedly murdering a white woman, a crime that mounting evidence suggests Allen did not commit. Last month, a black woman named Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a single warning shot into the kitchen ceiling of her home to warn off her abusive husband and protect her three children.

But according to conservative media, exactly the opposite is occurring. Conservatives allege there is a growing but underreported black-versus-white race war in America.

There’s no data, of course, just some strung together anecdotes—namely, one about two white newspaper reporters who, while driving through Norfolk, Va., were attacked by a group of young black kids. The media didn’t pounce on the story—even the reporters’ own newspaper, the Virginian-Pilot, only mentioned the incident in an opinion piece two weeks later. Conservatives, who actually love to talk about race and racism when they can do so with their fingers pointing at people of color and liberals, pounced on the story as evidence of media bias. The lamestream media was all over the Travyon Martin story but ignored the beating of whites by black kids. That, conservatives screamed, is racial bias.

Mind you, the two reporters in the Virginia incident weren’t hospitalized for their injuries, let alone killed. Local police moved quickly to investigate and three days after the incident was first reported by the paper, police arrested one teen, charging him with throwing a rock at the reporters’ car (a felony) as well as related misdemeanors. By comparison, George Zimmerman wasn’t arrested until almost two months after he shot Trayvon Martin, and only then as a result of community pressure. Only those desperate to distract from productive conversations about racial bias and injustice and return American attention to reinforcing racial stereotypes and hierarchies could manage to find anything comparable between the Trayvon Martin case and the Virginia incident.

Even most white conservatives know better than to use the term “race war” to describe this concocted, black-against-white threat. Fortunately, conservatives have Thomas Sowell. In a widely circulated, syndicated column for the National Review entitled “The Censored Race War,” the black conservative wrote:

What the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places. If there is anything worse than a one-sided race war, it is a two-sided race war, especially when one of the races outnumbers the other several times over.

Sowell is either intentionally feeding the idea that blacks like himself are more dangerous and violent than whites or unwittingly providing cover for those who seek to do so.

The root of inequality is the simple but sinister idea that some people are inherently inferior to others. I’ll give Sowell and other conservative media figureheads the benefit of the doubt that they do not personally believe young black men are inherently more dangerous and violent, but that’s all the more reason not to play into such biases and fan the flames of white racial anxiety. Sowell and others should understand that, in America today, this is how racism operates—not primarily through explicit epithets and force but through subtle winks and nods to the prejudices on which our society remains built.

The Virginia case specifically and the manufactured race war in general conveniently feed a larger conservative narrative this election year—reminding white America of how dangerous and scary black men are and how white people, especially white men, are the victims. Despite the fact that, yes, a lot of white folks voted for President Obama in 2008, most didn’t and according to a post-election study by a researcher at Harvard, racial animus cost Obama anywhere from three to five percentage points in the 2008 popular vote. In what is shaping up to a be a tight re-election battle, a few percentage points can really matter.

In addition, the 2012 election will likely be less about independent voters (who polls indicate may split fairly evenly between Romney and Obama) than about voter turnout in each party’s base. Republicans know they have an enthusiasm gap—even now that the primaries are over, Republicans say the main reason they support Romney simply because he’s “not Obama.” Yet in 2008 exit polling, 24 percent of American voters said they were “scared” by the prospect of Barack Obama being elected president. Of those, 95 percent voted Republican. Gin up fear, win the election.

I’m not saying racial animus is the only way to stoke white conservative fear in an election. But it’s sure a popular choice, one we have already seen that Republican Super PACs are pursuing. And we can see this at play in other campaigns too, including the fact that Scott Brown has tried far harder to portray Elizabeth Warren as a person of color than she ever did herself, desperately hoping to increase his own margin of the racial animus vote.

Things really are bad for most white men in America today, just like they are for the rest of us. Jobs are disappearing and so are the public benefits that have traditionally supported them in times of need. And if the present seems bad, the future seems even worse, as public schools implode and college tuition gets further out of reach. Anger is a powerful motivator.

Republicans can’t risk white voters realizing that conservative policies have caused their suffering. And though President Obama’s own record isn’t strong, for the majority of voters middle class tax cuts, affordable health care and fairly centrist policies from education reform to the military aren’t exactly the stuff of fire and brimstone. But the president is black. I’m not arguing that conservatives are attacking the president only because of his race, but they are certainly guilty of tapping into and fanning racial resentment to ignite their critiques. In that sense, sadly, by inventing a fake black-versus-white race war, conservatives are reinforcing and exploiting the divisive white-versus-black racial dynamics in America that they should be instead helping to fix.

 Sally Kohn is a progressive activist, writer, Fox News contributor, and a regular contributor to Colorlines.com.

Racial Justice In North Carolina

Judge Finds Racial Bias In Death Penalty Sentencing

By Keith Kamisugi, cross-posted from Equal Justice Society

Just days before the 25th anniversary of McCleskey v. Kemp, a North Carolina judge today ruled that racial bias impacted the death penalty conviction of Marcus Robinson and re-sentenced him to to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

This was the first case applying the historic and ground-breaking Racial Justice Act, enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly and Governor Bev Perdue to reject the influence of race discrimination in the administration of the death penalty. The RJA represents a landmark reform in North Carolina, a state which has long been a leader in forward-thinking criminal justice policies.

As reported by The New York Times, Judge Gregory A. Weeks of Cumberland County Superior Court said that “race was a materially, practically and statistically significant factor in the decision to exercise peremptory challenges during jury selection by prosecutors” at the time of the trial of the inmate, Marcus Reymond Robinson. The disparity was strong enough, the judge said, “as to support an inference of intentional discrimination.”

Judge Weeks found that prosecutors deliberately excluded qualified black jurors from jury service in Robinson’s case, in Cumberland County, and throughout the state.

Rob Thompson, one of the prosecutors in Cumberland County, said in his closing arguments: “They do not have evidence of purposeful discrimination. They do not have some secret society of prosecutors maniacally plotting to remove people from juries. They do not have any of that because there is no such evidence. It doesn’t exist. They have numbers.”

This prosecutor’s argument demonstrates the importance of EJS’s goal to replace the intent standard of the Fourteenth Amendment with a disparate impact standard. Instead of having to prove intent, criminal defendants could use statistical evidence of racial bias – the “numbers” referred to by the Thompson.

From the ACLU Blog of Rights: “The Robinson decision is really the first significant win since the Supreme Court dealt a blow to fairness in the death penalty 25 years ago this Sunday, ruling in McCleskey v. Kemp that statistical evidence of systemic racial disparities could not be used to overturn death sentences because such disparities were ‘inevitable.’ Today’s decision, and the RJA itself, stand as a powerful rebuke to the Supreme Court’s defeatist view of discrimination.”

To observe this tragic anniversary of McCleskey on Sunday, April 22, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) and the Equal Justice Society (EJS) joined with organizations across the country – including the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, the Capital Litigation Communications Project, the Center for Death Penalty Litigation Inc., the Death Penalty Information Center, Equal Justice USA, the Innocence Project, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and the Proteus Fund – to raise awareness of how this landmark decision fundamentally threatens equality and opportunity in this country.

Together, we launched mccleskeyvkemp.com, a website that provides information about the ongoing crisis of race in criminal justice and offers information about specific activities that individuals and organizations can take to repeal the death penalty and ameliorate the racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

The site includes publications and reports, media articles, links to take action, as well as information about the LDF/Columbia Law School Symposium, “Pursuing Racial Fairness in Criminal Justice: Twenty Years After McCleskey v. Kemp,” which was held in March of 2007 to mark the 20th anniversary of the McCleskey decision.

Join us in the effort to raise awareness of this landmark decision that every day threatens the ideals of equality and opportunity in this country. Visit mccleskeyvkemp.com to learn more.

Photo Of The Day

President Obama seated in the bus in which Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.

25 Years After McCleskey, Racial Bias Remains "An Inevitable Part Of Our Criminal Justice System"

Twenty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued McCleskey v. Kemp, one of its more shameful decisions.  Despite overwhelming statistical evidence of systemic racial bias in Georgia's imposition of capital punishment, the Court upheld Warren McCleskey's death sentence.  It held that statistics proving a discriminatory effect were insufficient and that a showing of deliberate, purposeful discrimination -- a nearly impossible burden -- was required to establish a constitutional violation on equal protection grounds.  The majority 5-4 opinion, authored by Justice Powell, acknowledged that racial bias was "an inevitable part of our criminal justice system," but cynically concluded that if sentences stemming from such bias were tossed out it would call the entire system into question. 

I am not a fan of analogies to Nazi Germany, which in many ways was an incomparable horror.  But in the piece written below by my dear friend, the remarkable Denny LeBoeuf, the thought experiment she proposes is quite apt.  -- Lovechilde

If Germany Had The Death Penalty:  A Thought Experiment

By Denny LeBoeuf, cross-posted from the ACLU Blog of Rights

Imagine it's 1976. A high crime rate afflicts German cities, and the government reinstates the death penalty. "We'll have the strongest possible protections for people accused of capital crimes, providing them with free lawyers, right to experts, investigators, appeals to higher courts, and trial by a jury of their peers. This is not the Germany of the Nazi Party. We will never repeat those terrible errors."

Now imagine that 30 years later, statistical evidence shows that Jewish citizens disproportionately get the death penalty; crimes by Jews against Christians are more likely to be selected for a capital prosecution; Jews are routinely excluded from jury service. Further imagine that prosecutors defend all this by saying that Jews shouldn't sit on capital juries because they are mistrustful of German authorities, and that the German high court has ruled that statistical evidence of discrimination against Jews is inadmissible in a death penalty case.

You see where we're headed. My guess is that most people can't get past the second sentence of this thought experiment, let alone past the discrimination against Jews.

Bryan Stevenson, whose idea this is, asks this of America: "Do we deserve to have a death penalty?" If Germany does not — and they emphatically believe they do not — then why do we? Think the parallels are forced? Not accurate? Really?

Consider this: before the Civil War, crimes against Black people in the South were considered only as property crimes against their owners. The Supreme Court issued its Dred Scott decision in 1857, finding that Blacks have "no rights which the white man is bound to respect." Within a few years after the Civil War, the criminal justice system became an engine to produce bodies — Black bodies — to work in the same agricultural fields they had tended as slaves, and in the burgeoning industries of the post-Reconstruction South.



Doug Blackmon's Pulitzer-winning book, Slavery by Another Name, carefully documents the re-enslavement of Black Americans after the Civil War — by a re-tooled criminal justice system that charged, convicted and sentenced freed slaves and their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren based on the need for free convict labor — not on guilt, innocence, culpability or fair procedures.

Meanwhile, as Black people were being targeted by the criminal justice system for undeserved punishment, the very same system was protecting the vigilante members of white supremacist domestic terrorist groups like the KKK and the Knights of the White Camellia, who were allowed to commit murder, arson and property theft in the open, without fear of arrest or prosecution.

So if a criminal justice system functions to protect white criminals (the Klan) and convict Black workers (for convict labor) with little or no regard for innocence or guilt, what is the one thing that system cannot accommodate? The equal participation in the system of Black people. That means no Black people on juries — by law for many years and by unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination after that. It also means shutting out statistical evidence of discrimination, no matter how explosive, careful and well-documented, that would prove the system — up to and including the sentencing of a person to death — is tainted by race discrimination. That's according to McCleskey, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 25 years ago.

As a part of a coalition of capital defense attorneys, earlier this year ACLU Capital Punishment Project attorney Cassandra Stubbs participated in the first-ever hearing under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act, which aims to reverse the harm of McCleskey by allowing capital defendants to introduce statistical evidence showing race is a factor in the administration of the death penalty.
The lawyers are challenging the death sentence of Marcus Robinson, a Black defendant convicted for the death of a white person, who was sentenced to death by a jury tainted by a racially biased jury selection process.

Faced with overwhelming proof that Black people are continually excluded from death penalty juries in North Carolina, the prosecutors in Robinson's case argued, essentially, that Black people tend not to trust the criminal justice system, and don't believe in the death penalty as much.

Now back to the thought experiment. Prosecutors in North Carolina argue that Black people, who have been deliberately excluded from and discriminated against by America's criminal justice system since the Civil War, are less likely to trust that system, and therefore it's okay to continue to exclude them from participating in it. Now let's answer Bryan Stevenson's question: Does the United States deserve to have the death penalty?

The 65th Anniversary Of Jackie Robinson's Debut

By John Schachter, cross-posted from American Constitution Society

To many wise people, baseball possesses an importance beyond the comprehension of non-fans. Emotions and moods ebb and flow with the fate of our favorite teams. Baseball lingo fills our conversations, as we talk about a ballpark figure, a whole new ballgame, playing hardball, covering all the bases, stepping up to the plate and hitting it out of the ballpark. Or someone batting a thousand or being off base, something being bush-league or inside baseball. And, of course, people invoking the infield fly rule because of a routine and playable, if fair, pop-up in the infield with less than two outs and the bases loaded or runners on second and third. (OK, maybe that’s not as common.)

But baseball as hobby, diversion and pastime is merely one aspect of the game. The sport is sometimes so much more, a reflection of our times and our society, for better and for worse. This Sunday, April 15, will be a reminder of one of those “for better” examples. That day will mark the 65th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the so-called color barrier and making his major league baseball debut. Teams and fans across America will celebrate Jackie Robinson Day to pay tribute to the son of Georgia sharecroppers who grew up to become an incomparable leader and symbol of civil rights challenges and advancement.

Humorist Dave Berry once pinpointed what he saw as a critical difference between the sexes. “If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life,” Barry remarked, “she will choose to save the infant's life – without even considering if there are men on base.” While men and women may quibble over various aspect of the sport, there is virtual unanimity when it comes to recognizing the magnitude of Jackie Robinson’s role.

The Major League Baseball tribute to Robinson on his day includes all players wearing his uniform number 42, which has otherwise been retired by all teams. The league website devotes a page to Robinson’s story and his “immeasurable impact” on the game and beyond. The page salutes Robinson’s courage, commitment, determination, teamwork, persistence, integrity, citizenship, excellence, and quest for justice. Countless other adjectives could further describe Robinson.

Robinson’s career numbers are impressive enough. A .311 batting average, an on-base average of .409, nearly 200 stolen bases, a Rookie of the year Award in 1947 and a Most Valuable Player Award two years later when he hit a career-high .342 to go with 203 hits, including 38 doubles, 12 triples, 16 home runs, plus 124 runs batted in. But, of course, Jackie Robinson is so much more than his stellar statistics.

“If Jim Crow seems distant today, it is because of men like Robinson,” wrote Chris Lamb, a professor of communication at the College of Charleston. “We need to remember him for what he accomplished inside the white lines of baseball, but we also need to remember him for what he accomplished outside. His life teaches us that progress often depends on individuals willing to sacrifice themselves for something bigger.”

Few people can imagine the contemptible abuse Robinson faced when he joined the Dodgers, from fans, opponents, and even some teammates. Aside from the on-the-field challenges of beanballs and high-flying spikes aimed his way, Robinson had to deal with a steady flow of death threats in nearly every city to which the team traveled. But Robinson rose above the hatred and proved his critics and detractors wrong. His success made him an All-Star player and civil rights leader.

“There's not an American in this country free until every one of us is free,” Robinson said. He knew his success was but a small step toward a much grander goal. “The right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time.” Some 65 years after Robinson set foot upon his first major league field, the fight for freedom for all people continues. But thanks to his efforts along the way, we all have that much less to travel to see our ultimate goals achieved.

Robinson died far too early, at the age of 53 in 1972. He’s buried in Brooklyn next to his son and mother-in-law. His gravestone reads, “A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.”

John Schachter is the Vice President of Public Education and Outreach for American Constitution Society 

Demand "Justice" But Beware The Rush To Judgment In The Trayvon Martin Case

There are many disturbing questions surrounding the shooting of Trayvon Martin, many of them outlined here.  A rigorous independent investigation geared towards answering these questions and determining the extent to which George Zimmerman committed criminal acts is essential.  But as rallies today by civil rights groups and others "demand justice" and call for Zimmerman's "immediate arrest," I want to urge caution.

The disparity in treatment between young African Americans suspected of criminal conduct and George Zimmerman, who we know shot and killed Trayvon Martin, is stark and I share the frustration and the outrage of the protesters.  But, I remain very uncomfortable with the demands and petition drives calling for Zimmerman's arrest and prosecution (not to mention the vigilante response) based only on the selected facts to which we, the public, have become privy. 

There are very good reasons to doubt the good faith of local law enforcement and the prosecuting agencies in this case, and we should certainly be demanding justice.  But we can't know yet what a just response is.  We should await the findings of the special prosecutor -- which may very well spur more legitimate questions and demands -- rather than rush to judgment now based on the limited information filtered down to us from the media.

Far more often than not, in the wake of a tragic death it is the suspicious-looking African American in the hoodie for whom there is this kind of clamor for "swift justice."  

[Stop Racism, Not Hoodies;  The Right Continues To Play To Stereotype]

Do We Deserve To Kill?

Bryan Stevenson

I consider myself very fortunate to have met Bryan Stevenson up close and personal.  I have heard him speak countless times, and he never fails to inspire and educate.  No one speaks with more power, eloquence and compassion on the death penalty, on criminal justice, on race, and on how these issues intersect.

The Founder and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Institute in Alabama, Bryan is a brilliant lawyer who recently argued in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of two defendants who were sentenced to life without parole for murders committed when they were fourteen.  He was a guest on Rachel Maddow's show last night, where he discussed the cases, which he described as "death in prison" for juveniles, and how the death penalty frequently "obscures such other issues of severe and excessive punishment."

Bryan explained how our political discourse around crime and punishment "has been corrupted by decades of politics of fear and anger" so that people believe that the fact that a terrible crime has been committed is the "end of the conversation."  But, he maintained, while the criminal justice system is designed to punish and protect public safety, "it also has to be just, to have integrity and to have credibility."

Finally, he talked about the death penalty:

Increasingly we have to confront the fact that the death penalty in this country isn't a question that has to be answered by simply asking, "do people deserve to die for the crimes they committed?"  I think we have to ask, "do we deserve to kill?"  And if our system is flawed, if our system is discriminatory, if our system is unequal as to class and economic status, if our system permits innocent people to be wrongfully convicted and condemned, then I think we will get to a different answer then we might otherwise get. 

Bryan Stevenson is a national treasure.  Here's the entire segment:.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Right Continues To Play To Stereotype

The Republicans are on a roll.

They continue to vilify Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, displaying not just their mean-spiritedness, but their remarkable misunderstanding of how birth control works and how health care operates.

They continue to blame and smear Trayvon Martin, showing their cold-heartedness while avoiding serious debate about gun control, misguided stand-your-ground laws and racism.

They tout the new budget unveiled by Congressman Paul Ryan which will not only increase the deficit, cut taxes for the wealthy, gut the social safety net, and end Medicare as we know it but, as E.J. Dionne notes, would "produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent time."

I hate to perpetuate a stereotype but this sure seems ignorant, misogynistic, racist and greedy to me.

Stop Racism, Not Hoodies -- A Message To Geraldo Rivera

By Bilen Mesfin, originally published at Dominion of New York

The Real Trouble with Black Boys

Amid the furor surrounding the tragic death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin at the hands of self-styled neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, we find this slice of dubious wisdom from Geraldo Rivera: “I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”

 
“When you see a black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street,” Mr. Rivera goes on to say, “You try to avoid that confrontation. … I’ll bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that — that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.”

Mr. Rivera, before you decide to launch a misguided #stophoodie2012 campaign a la Kony, let me posit a different theory. Could it be that the problem wasn’t Trayvon or his hoodie? Could it be that part of the problem is you? Because by making such ridiculous, tone-deaf statements, you’re simply exacerbating the bias that’s at the heart of this issue. You see, what you say and do matters, Mr. Rivera — not because you are Geraldo Rivera, the individual, but because you are Geraldo Rivera, a member of the media establishment, and media is one of the most powerful ways that such stereotypes and biases get spread and reinforced in the first place.

Consider a recently released research report titled “Opportunity for Black Men and Boys:  Public Opinion, Media Depictions and Media Consumption.” The report highlights some troubling points, which those of us who are concerned about equality, fairness and justice in this country intrinsically know: “Among the many factors that influence the opportunities and achievements of black men and boys are public perceptions and attitudes toward them as a group, and their own self-perception. Research and experience show that expectations and biases on the part of potential employers, teachers, health care providers, police officers, and other stakeholders influence the life outcomes of millions of black males, just as their own self-esteem, identity, and sense of empowerment affect their ability to achieve under difficult circumstances. In turn, one of the most important avenues for maintaining (or changing) these perceptions is the mass media, with its significant power to shape popular ideas and attitudes.”

When it come to mass media, the report details, black men and boys are:

- Vastly underrepresented: They are all too rarely visible across multiple mediums, whether as characters in TV shows, in advertisements,  or – as my partner often points out – in video games. They are also underrepresented as “talking heads” or experts on the news.

 - Negatively depicted: When they do appear in media, they are depicted in a negative light.  Rather than as “relatable characters with well-developed personal lives (i.e. fathers)…black males are overrepresented when the media touch on certain negative topics, such as criminality, unemployment, and poverty,” the report says.

- Narrowly portrayed: Any “positive images and attributes with which black males are associated tend to be constrained to a small, stereotypic set which includes sports, physical achievement in general, aggressiveness, and musicality, to the exclusion of other everyday virtues.

Simply put: the media to a large extent ignores the fullness, richness and complexity of black men and boys’ lives.

The result? According to the report: “Distorted media representations can be expected to create attitudinal effects ranging from general antagonism toward black men and boys, to higher tolerance for race-based socio-economic disparities, reduced attention to structural and other big-picture factors, and public support for punitive approaches to problems.”

In turn — and pay extra close attention to this part Mr. RIvera — these perceptions could mean trouble “any time a black man or boy is in a position where his fate depends on how he is perceived by others.” The impact can range from less attention from doctors, and harsher sentencing by judges to lower likelihood of being hired or admitted to school.  The impact can also include a beautiful young boy being shot for no discernible reason and the institutions sworn to protect and serve him failing to even detain his killer a month after his death.

In a sense you are right, Mr. Rivera. Bias against black men and boys does lead to negative and sad outcomes. It can make us, as you say, walk to the other side of the street when we see them coming our way. It can make us see a weapon when there is only candy. It can make police officers see dangerous thugs rather than fathers, brothers or sons. It can make  teachers and school administrators see future criminals that deserve harsh  punishment rather than scared or troubled little boys needing help and comfort.

But, if you really care for our youth, Mr. Rivera, why don’t you use your considerable platform to change the way black men and boys are depicted and represented in your  chosen career field — news, specifically, or mass media, broadly? Instead of asking parents not to let their kids wear hoodies, why don’t you push  for diversity in TV, print or online news, at all levels, as subjects, reporters and executives? Or advocate for more training so reporters don’t reinforce problematic frames when they cover communities of color? Or call for multi-dimensional representations of black men and boys in books, on reality TV, on talk shows, in sitcoms and in movies? Maybe then you can help us begin to change how we as a society perceive black and brown men and boys. Maybe then, Mr. Rivera, you can actually help save people’s lives, rather than simply perpetuating stereotypes.

Bilen Mesfin is a former journalist and a strategic communications consultant for social change leaders and organizations.

Civil Rights Groups Urge Supreme Court To Prohibit Housing Policies That Have Discriminatory Impact

By Keith Kamisugi, cross-posted from Equal Justice Society's website

Several of the nation’s leading civil rights organizations filed amicus briefs this week urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in Magner v. Gallagher that the federal Fair Housing Act can be enforced when a seemingly neutral housing policy results in discrimination.

The Opportunity Agenda joined AARP, ACLU, The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law and the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in filing briefs with the court. (The Equal Justice Society signed on to the Opportunity Agenda brief.) Twelve state attorneys general also filed briefs in favor of fair housing law enforcement.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case on February 29.

What’s at stake in Magner is the obligation of cities and towns to protect equal opportunity in housing. That responsibility includes avoiding unnecessary policies that discriminate in practice, as well as those that are intentionally discriminatory.

For more than 40 years, our courts have said that the Fair Housing Act prohibits both old school bigotry in housing, and policies that have the unnecessary effect of excluding qualified people based on their race, disability, or other factors. In Magner, the Supreme Court will be deciding whether that longstanding, commonsense interpretation will continue, or whether only intentional discrimination can ever violate the Fair Housing Act.

The plaintiffs in the case are building owners in St. Paul, Minn., who rent their properties to working class people, including many African Americans. They say that the city is trying to push them and other rental owners out of town, in favor of owner-occupied housing, with the practical effect of excluding many African Americans from any housing in the city. According to the property owners, the city is using excessive and often false code enforcement against these owners, but leaving alone owners who live in their homes.

The plaintiffs challenged the City of St. Paul’s policy in federal court under the Fair Housing Act. The Act, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability.

Passage of the Fair Housing Act was not easy. From 1966 to 1967, Congress was unable to garner a strong enough majority for its passage. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was closely associated with the fair housing legislation since the 1966 open housing marches in Chicago. When Dr. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, President Johnson urged Congress to pass the fair housing act as a tribute to Dr. King.

During this same time period, the deaths of our soldiers in Vietnam fell heaviest upon young, poor African Americans and Hispanics. The families of these soldiers could not purchase or rent homes in certain residential developments on account of their race or national origin. Senators Edward Brooke and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts argued strongly for the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator Brooke, the first African American ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, spoke personally of his return from World War II and his inability to provide a home of his choice for his new family because of his race.

Despite the progress we’ve made as a nation more than four decades after passage of the Fair Housing Act, significant obstacles to equal opportunity still exist, particularly when it comes to housing and homeownership. There are still some real estate agents, landlords, and others who practice intentional discrimination against people of color, families with children, people with disabilities, and other Americans.

But more often these days, local governments and real estate corporations engage in unjustified and unnecessary practices with the practical effect of discriminating against well-qualified Americans. Some cities and towns, for example, prohibit the building of smaller homes or apartments that working people could afford, which in many places excludes most people of color. That means certain Americans are unfairly and unnecessarily cut off from opportunities like quality schools, jobs, and business possibilities.

That’s bad for all of us, and the Supreme Court should reaffirm that the law forbids it by ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in Magner.

Civil Rights Groups Urge The Sixth Circuit To Strike Down Michigan's Anti-Equality Law

 Equal Justice Society, headed by my dear friend and mentor, Eva Paterson, is a national strategy group heightening consciousness on race in the law and popular discourse.  EJS seeks to restore race equity issues to the national consciousness, build effective progressive alliances, and advance the discourse on the positive role of government.  Not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of a key battle in Michigan.  -- Lovechilde

By Keith Kamisugi, cross-posted from Equal Justice Society

The Equal Justice Society and more than a dozen other civil rights organizations this week filed an amicus brief (PDF) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, urging the court to strike down Michigan’s anti-equality Proposal 2 as unconstitutional.

In its brief, EJS argues that Proposal 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by creating procedural barriers for people of color.

“Since its founding, certain interests in America have tried to restrict access to the political process,” said Eva Paterson, President of the Equal Justice Society. “First only white male landowners could vote. The franchise was expanded after the Civil War but women could not participate. Now we see many states erecting barriers to voting that may appear harmless, but are designed to keep voters of color from helping shape their political destinies. The national civil rights community speaks in one strong voice in opposing these measures, including Michigan’s Proposal 2.”

Several organizations joined EJS in signing the brief: the California Voting Rights Institute, Public Advocates, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Women’s Law Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Worksafe, South Asian Network, the Association of Asian American Attorney and CPA Firms, the Council of Asian American Business Associations, Equal Rights Advocates, and the Asian American Justice Center and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the latter two both members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

Michigan voters passed Proposal 2 in 2006, amending the state’s constitution to prevent the state government from advancing equal opportunity by considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. In March 2008, a federal district court judge upheld the law, but the decision was reversed this July by an appeals court panel. The case is now under consideration by the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We stand with our civil rights allies in opposing Proposal 2 and other similar laws that exclude racial minorities and women from the political process,” said Allison Elgart, Supervising Attorney at the Equal Justice Society. “When people of color have to amend the state constitution just to have their interests represented, the law is not protecting their right to equal protection under the law, and the court should step in.”

“Proposal 2 is the most recent example of a voter initiative that restructures the political process in a non-neutral way and places special burdens on racial minorities who want to lobby for race-conscious admissions processes,” reads the brief. “Voting changes and requirements that disproportionately impact racial minorities and provide them less opportunity than others to participate in the political process and effectuate their choices are violations of the Equal Protection Clause.”


The brief cites several reasons why Proposal 2 violates the Constitution:

The law impedes participation in the political process by people of color. After Proposal 2 passed, advocates of race-conscious admissions policies can no longer lobby admissions committees or university administrators. Their only recourse is to launch another statewide initiative, a costly process that could take years to see through to its conclusion. Advocates for other considerations in the admissions process do not face the same burden and are free to continue lobbying admissions committees without structural limitations.

People of color have historically faced hurdles that hinder participation in the political process. Participation in the political process by people of color in the past has been thwarted by literacy tests applied differently to distinct racial groups, electoral redistricting that disfavored racial minorities, and more recently by states that have established seemingly innocuous voter requirement laws that often result in racial exclusion and vote suppression. Courts have found these seemingly “neutral” laws unconstitutional if their purpose is to impede participation by people of color in the political process. Proposal 2 falls into this category.

Proposal 2 is a modern reincarnation of white primaries, literacy tests, and redistricting. Like voting, lobbying to change the admissions processes in Michigan is a way for people of color to participate in governance. The Equal Protection Clause “guarantees racial minorities the right to full participation in the political life of the community,” and therefore requires that every group has equal opportunities to participate in the decision-making process, particularly in the context of public education. Proposal 2 prevents the full participation by people of color in the decision-making process regarding admissions.

The case should be fully briefed before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by the end of the year and the Sixth Circuit will then set a hearing date.

The Death Penalty And North Carolina's Racial Justice Act

By Abby Bar-Lev, cross-posted from Equal Justice Society

On August 11, 2009, North Carolina Governor Purdue took an affirmative step in providing racial justice advocates a tool to ferret out racial bias in the criminal justice by signing the North Carolina Racial Justice Act.

The Racial Justice Act, the product of a concerted effort by legislators and racial justice advocates, provides defendants in capital cases the opportunity to argue that their death sentence or charge was based on race in court.  In doing so, North Carolina confronts the real and deplorable fact of racial injustice in death penalty process. The RJA leads the way in rooting out race as a basis for the death penalty though it does not necessarily ensure racial justice.  Efforts and legislative actions such as these are deeply needed.

Study after study exposes that racial disparities remain rampant in capital cases, from jury selection through the sentencing phase.  Specifically in North Carolina, a report authored by faculty of the Michigan State University College of Law reveals that those charged with murdering white victims are 2.6% more likely to end up on death row than those charged with murdering a person of color.

North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act allows defendants to present statistical evidence to challenge the prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty or the actual capital punishment sentence.  If the state cannot specifically refute the evidence, the judge must order that the prosecutor not seek the death penalty, or, if the defendant has already been sentenced to death, that sentence must be substituted with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Republicans in North Carolina have been calling for the RJA’s repeal and have challenged it in court. They claim the law is too vague to fit with the North Carolina Constitution, but the RJA survived its first court challenge when a judge rejected that argument.  Republicans have attempted to repeal the RJA in the legislature, but Democrats have managed to table that discussion until May of 2012.

Meanwhile, nearly all of North Carolina’s 158 death row convicts are challenging their death penalties through the RJA.

The first hearing is slated for later this summer when Marcus Robinson, who was sentenced to death for the murder of a white teenager, will allege that his death sentence was based on racial biases.  He will present statistical evidence showing that the race of the victim has been a significant factor in the decision for prosecutors to seek the death penalty in the county where he stood trial, that defendants of color in his county are much more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants, and that significant racial disparities pervade the jury selection process.

In Robinson’s case, the state struck 50% of all qualified jurors of color, compared to only 14.8% of all other qualified jurors.  Robinson’s case is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of jury selection.  In fact, the case of Kenneth Rouse focuses on him being one of thirty-three death row inmates in North Carolina sentenced to death by an all-white jury.

Overt acts by district attorneys are also at issue here.  There is the especially startling case of Guy LeGrande, a black defendant who was sentenced to death by an all-white jury despite being declared mentally incompetent to be executed.  He was prosecuted by a district attorney known for wearing a lapel pin in the shape of a noose to court and who gave similar pins to assistant district attorneys who secured death penalty convictions.  This is the same district attorney who made allusions to a noose by telling jurors that “as the evidence mounted and became overwhelming, those strings were bound into a rope.  A rope.”

As North Carolina paves the way in capital punishment reform, other states are following. Last year, the California legislature failed to pass its own version of the Racial Justice Act.  We cannot afford to let that defeat be the end of the battle for racial justice in capital punishment cases.

In 1987 the United States Supreme Court was presented statistical evidence showing that the race of the victim played a significant role in whether a defendant would receive the death penalty.  The Court ultimately decided that the statistical study did prove that the sentence violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments.  The author of that opinion, Justice Powell, later expressed that he would change his vote if he could.  By 2011, the findings have not changed. It is unacceptable that race discrimination continues to saturate the death penalty process.  Through litigation, advocacy, education, and policy efforts, North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act can become a tool for  racial justice advocates to challenge racial disparities and eventually abolish the death penalty.

Building A Real Progressive Movement For Change

After a completely disheartening few weeks culminating in the complete and utter abdication of liberal principles by the President and the Democratic Party, leave it to my old friend and mentor Eva Paterson  (who is not old at all) to get us re-focused on what we need to do to fight back. 

By Eva Paterson, cross-posted from Huffington Post

Equal Justice Society

A progressive movement across this country is more aspiration than reality when its members work toward many of the same goals, but apart from one another. If we are not arm-in-arm while marching toward our dreams, we may be moving, but we are not a movement. We all suffer when we turn our backs and say, "That's not my issue."

Today, too many progressive groups still remain disconnected from one another. In my view, coalitions are not optional. They are essential. Without joining hands with each other, we cannot achieve ambitious goals such as reclaiming the full protections of the 14th Amendment against institutional discrimination. We cannot ensure that there will be more Black males in colleges than in prisons. We cannot give our LGBT brothers and sisters the same rights and freedoms to marry afforded to the rest of us. We cannot secure full civic and economic integration for immigrants.

At Equal Justice Society, the practice of coalition building was embedded into our organizational DNA from day one, and remains one of our core principles. We learned this crucial lesson from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who, through the urgings of his aide, Bayard Rustin, sought to create the "Grand Coalition," an alliance of groups and individuals who hungered for justice and equality. This meant bringing together women, people of color, union members, peace activists, and environmentalists -- all those who saw the possibility of a better world with equal opportunity for all people. Here are five important lessons we have learned in our efforts to develop coalitions:


Find Common Goals In Seemingly Disparate Issues

When Proposition 8 in California threatened to erode the rights of the LGBT community, many of us recognized that we could not allow others to pigeonhole the move as a "gay" issue. By rolling back the fundamental rights of one group, Proposition 8 cast a threat that loomed over the civil rights of all Californians. Cross-coalition opposition to Proposition 8 took the form of public appearances with LGBT community leaders, media interviews, forums and outreach to communities of color -- all of which contributed to showing the impact of the proposition outside of the LGBT community. Immigration reform, marriage equality and the advancement of equal opportunity may appear to many as issues that have minimal overlap. In reality, success in each of these areas advances fairness, access and equality for all of us.

Learn And Embrace The Culture And Terminology Of Your Allies

Understanding and embracing the culture and languages of our allies demonstrates respect for others and their ideas, and contributes to our collective solidarity. In terms of language, one of the toughest battles today is over the widespread use of the term "illegal immigrant," made popular by conservatives in an attempt to dehumanize undocumented immigrants. Despite the fact that a person cannot be "illegal," the term has been widely adopted in news coverage by the mainstream media and in the lexicon of our courts. By continuing to protest the incorrect use of "illegal" to describe immigrants, we not only embrace the values of our immigrants' rights allies, but we also push back on the efforts of those who seek to use language to frame values in a degrading manner.

Set Aside Differences In Strategy To Achieve Common Goals

In 2003, California's Proposition 54 threatened to amend the state Constitution in a manner that would have prohibited state and local governments from using race, ethnicity, color or national origin to classify students, contractors or employees in public education, contracting, or employment practices. A statewide coalition organized to defeat the measure. Pollsters advised us that success would require employing messages that focused on Proposition 54's negative impact on health care, rather than framing it as an assault against people of color. While voters of color immediately understood the negative impact Proposition 54 would have on efforts to remedy racial discrimination, polling indicated that White voters were by and large not moved by an appeal to racial justice. Although we initially pushed back against the race-neutral focus, the coalition ultimately accepted the polling data and its health-oriented approach. The tactic proved successful. Proposition 54 ultimately was defeated. If we, as racial justice advocates, had not agreed to rely on research-driven messaging, Proposition 54 might have passed.

Practice 'Physical Solidarity'

In the 1940s, Bayard Rustin traveled to California to help protect the property of Japanese Americans who were interned in concentration camps. At that time, the U.S. had forced Japanese American citizens to leave their property unattended or under the watch of others. In a time when Japanese Americans "looked like the enemy" and could count on few supporters, Rustin came to their aid, setting a powerful example for us to follow, especially in today's increasingly virtual world. Today, it is easier for us to avoid physically showing up. We sign online petitions, have Twitter protests and email our elected officials -- all of which are helpful strategies. We must not forget, however, that we can best forge our alliances by being there for others in person, by practicing "physical solidarity." In victory and in the toughest of times, we should be there when our allies call for our presence.

Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You

This last suggestion is the simplest in concept, yet it is often the most difficult to practice: "Play nice." The stakes are so high and the pressure so fierce on many of our issues that the worst of our natures can get the best of us. We become bitter toward an ally over a tactical disagreement; we keep our objections to ourselves and seethe; we cry foul when we think another organization is stepping on our institutional toes. At the end of the day, movement building is all about personal connections. We must learn to be generous, give credit to others even when it doesn't benefit our own organization, and find ways to have open discussions about differences and grievances.

Coalition building is more art than science. It requires flexibility, patience and perseverance. This way of doing business won't come easily. It will require some or more of us taking a step back so that others may step forward. It will also require a collective commitment to staying in the fight over the long haul. Yet, we cannot afford to be poor students at it. Our communities are counting on us.

Connecting The Dots

The current Supreme Court, Andrew Cohen writes in the Atlantic, is "as conservative as it has been in three quarters of a century."  Indeed, I've previously cited empirical studies establishing the unprecedented nature of the Court's pro-business bias.   E.J. Dionne is therefore spot on when he says that "not since the Gilded Age has a Supreme Court been so determined to strengthen the hand of corporations and the wealthy." 

The Equal Justice Society is fighting back against efforts to weaken the 14th Amendment as a tool to fight discrimination that have persisted since its enactment and continue today.  (See Don't Take The 14th Amendment For Granted.)  Below Keith Kamisugi explains how difficult this is when faced with a Supreme Court that refuses to mete out "Equal Justice Under The Law."

Connecting The Dots:  A Supreme Court Broken

by Keith Kamisugi , originally posted on Equal Justice Society's website, June 22, 2011.

The end of the Supreme Court’s 2010-2011 term was marked in part by a series of recent developments and revelations highlighting the dire state of the Supreme Court, an institution that should be a fair and impartial forum for justice.

The Court has instead become increasingly damaged, especially with landmark decisions such as in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, which told women that Wal-Mart is above the law. We only have to look back to Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and numerous other cases to see that our highest court in the land does not mete out “Equal Justice Under Law.”

If the Equal Justice Society and its allies are to accomplish our mission of reclaiming the 14th Amendment and its protections against discrimination, we must be able to argue our cases before impartial justices who do not reflexively rule against the interests of average Americans.

Let’s connect the dots:


“Wal-Mart Gets a Free Pass For Bias From the Supreme Court” — “The Supreme Court issued its decision in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex discrimination case [Monday], a frustrating ruling that doesn’t challenge the existence of bias, but that exempts the company from accountability” wrote Rinku Sen on Colorlines.com. “The case highlights the difficulty of addressing discrimination at a time when intentional bias is both illegal and socially unacceptable, and yet obvious gender and racial gaps remain.”

Our friends at the Impact Fund and Equal Rights Advocates are continuing the fight. But like the Citizens United decision, the Dukes decision demonstrates that the Supreme Court will favor corporations over people and business interests over civil rights.

Eva Paterson ties together the problems with the courts. — EJS President Eva Paterson joined Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Dahlia Lithwick (Slate) and Carl Pope (Sierra Club) on a panel organized by Alliance for Justice at last week’s Netroots Nation to address the growing influence of corporations within the American judicial system, particularly in the Supreme Court. Watch the video.

And on top of the high court’s pattern of decisions, we see growing concern over ethics.

“Clarence Thomas participated in a secret political fundraising event put on by the Koch brothers to fund Tea Party infrastructure groups.” — A June 19 exposé in The New York Times detailed Justice Clarence Thomas’s ties to a conservative donor, his lack of disclosure in receiving gifts, and donations given to the Justice’s wife to fund a Tea Party-related group. From the NYT article: “The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period,” said Arn Pearson, a lawyer with Common Cause. “If any other federal judge was doing it, he could face disciplinary action.”

In April, Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Justice Antonin Scalia’s son was a partner in the firm representing Wal-Mart. Egelko describes the convoluted way in which Justice Scalia was able to escape an obligation to recuse himself from the case, but it demonstrates the need for more attention to the matter of judicial ethics.

It’s time that we work together to restore the Supreme Court to a level playing field with impartial referees so that our efforts to reclaim the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional protections against discrimination can someday be fairly heard.

Lessons Learned From Brown v. Board of Education

The Equal Justice Society is fighting back against efforts to weaken the 14th Amendment as a tool to fight discrimination that have persisted since its enactment and continue today.  (See Don't Take The 14th Amendment For Granted.)  On the anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, EJS explains how to do it.  (Originally posted at  Equal Justice Society.)



Three Lessons We've Learned From Brown v. Board of Education

At the Equal Justice Society, we are working to reclaim the full protections of the 14th Amendment and help those who experience discrimination get their day in court. We know we have a tough and long road ahead in tackling our biggest challenge, namely overturning the "intent doctrine" as established in Washington v. Davis.  

Yet,as we prepare for the next step in this critical work, we are glad to have the shining example that is Brown v. Board of Education - one of the most important decisions ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court - illuminating the way forward.

The Brown case, which ended the tyranny of "separate but equal" policies in America, was the result of a decades-long,multi-pronged, and disciplined strategy. Known as the "Houston Plan," the strategy first took shape at Howard University of Law School in the early 1930s, and combined impact litigation,innovative use of social science, and collaboration with civil rights organizations across the political spectrum. 

Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, Robert Carter, Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, and others litigated all around the country in their efforts to take down Plessy v. Ferguson,the case that enshrined "separate but equal" in the law. These brilliant strategists wove social science into the law to illustrate the corrosive effect segregation had on the psyches of both African Americans and whites, showing how one group internalized a sense of inferiority while the other, a sense of superiority. Their efforts culminated in the landmark decision that overturned Plessy on May 17, 1954.

Today,as we mark the 57th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education,we want to highlight three lessons we have learned from this monumental and hard-fought victory:

• Structural change often takes a long time: There's an adage: if you're working on an issue that will be resolved during your lifetime, you're not working on a big enough issue. In today's fast-paced world, we often are pressured to produce immediate results. Yet, tough social problems can be overcome only through sustained and long-term advocacy. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed the constitutionality of racial segregation in Plessy in 1896, African Americans had suffered the effects of racism for years. This deep-rooted social inequality could not be turned around overnight. We can learn from Brown that even social ills that seem impossible to defeat can be tackled if we are strategic and patient.
  
  
• It takes a coalition to win change: The victory of overturning state-sponsored segregation did not just belong to the lawyers. Civil rights activists were in the streets protesting segregation while the legal strategy proceeded in the courts. For example, in June 1953, Blacks in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, launched a mass boycott against segregated buses. Led by the pastor of one of the Black churches in the city, the boycott resulted in a limited victory: while two side front seats of the bus could be reserved for whites, and the long rear seats for blacks, all other seating could be opened. Two and half years later, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery city bus to a white passenger, sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
  
  
• We must continue the fight: Dr. King once said, "We must face the tragic fact that we are far from the promised land..." Those words still ring true today. More than five decades after Brown v. Board of Education, and 140 years after the enactment of the 14th Amendment, there is no doubt that deep racial disparities still persist. The Supreme Court has been systematically gutting the Brown decision over the past 57 years in ways that would make Thurgood Marshall and Constance Baker Motley weep. Both the Equal Protection and the Citizenship clauses of the 14th Amendment are under attack. In addition, the Right wing has executed an assault on government, taxes, and teachers, undermining our children's ability to get quality education in public schools. Recently, when conservative legislators in California were told that budget cuts would hurt public education, they replied, "We do not care. Our children are in private schools." We have to stay ever vigilant in the work to safeguard our rights.
  

The Equal Justice Society needs our help in their efforts to overturn the Intent Doctrine. One way you can help is to be a part of their social network audience on Facebook and Twitter, and sharing their posts on those services with your networks. 

Don't Take The 14th Amendment For Granted

Originally enacted to protect blacks from inequality and violence after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving persons of "life, liberty, or property" unfairly (i.e., without due process) and from denying any person "equal protection of the laws."  Efforts to weaken the 14th Amendment as a tool to fight discrimination have persisted since its enactment and continue today.  As Eva Paterson, President of the Equal Justice Society, contends in the following piece (originally posted on Huffington Post) we must safeguard the 14th Amendment from both frontal and stealth attacks.

Protecting the 14th Amendment

By Eva Paterson, March 16, 2011

For almost 150 years, the 14th Amendment has been the backbone of civil rights law in America. Its protection of individual rights for all -- from freed slaves to immigrants to workers fighting against race discrimination -- has made this amendment an honorary member of the Bill of Rights.

No wonder it is under attack.

In recent months, Republican Senators and state legislators have sought the public spotlight by calling for an end to the amendment's guarantee of citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. If a child's parents are not documented, they shout, that child should not be allowed to be a citizen. If they had their way, they would roll back a U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, decided more than a century ago.
If this is what the enemies of the 14th Amendment are doing in the spotlight, imagine what they are doing behind the scenes to eviscerate the measure. Those who want to turn the clock back on civil rights also are trying to undo the Amendment's Equal Protection clause, making it virtually impossible for victims of discrimination to find justice in our courts.

First, a short history. The 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, promoted by the Republican Party of the time -- the party of Lincoln -- to protect Blacks from the violence and inequality they faced in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Amendment granted the rights of citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S., including freed slaves. It guaranteed African Americans the right to citizenship, and to the privileges and immunities that go along with citizenship.

Almost immediately after it was enacted, lawmakers began trying to chip away at the Amendment, defining it so narrowly as to make it almost toothless. As Lawrence Goldstone outlines in his powerful new book, Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, one of the first salvos against the 14th Amendment took place in the 1870s, following the "Colfax Massacre." After a disputed gubernatorial race, several hundred white men attacked freed slaves in Colfax, Louisiana. More than 100 Black men are estimated to have been killed. Though a few of the white mob were charged in federal court, only three eventually were convicted. Later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned even those convictions in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, finding that the 14th Amendment did not apply to individuals, only the state.

In another pair of cases just a decade later -- Strauder v. West Virginia and Rives v. Virginia -- the nation's high court would go even further in eroding of the 14th Amendment. In Strauder, an African American man was convicted of murder by an all-white jury, and he appealed. The Supreme Court found that West Virginia's statute explicitly stating that African Americans were not allowed to serve on juries did violate a Black defendant's right to a fair trial and was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. However, in Rives, the Court upheld the convictions of two African Americans by an all-white jury in Virginia. The reason? Virginia did not have an explicit law on its books that barred Blacks from serving on juries, even though it did so in practice. As a result, states could find ways to segregate, discriminate against, and exclude Blacks without being found in violation of federal law and the 14th Amendment.

The political attacks became even stronger after the successes of the civil rights movement. The Amendment's Equal Protection Clause became the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, which ended the doctrine of "separate but equal." It gave new hope and legal strength to millions who challenged legalized segregation and race discrimination. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he was well-aware that the enemies of equal rights would not sit quietly by, noting wryly, "we just gave the south to the Republicans."

The biggest legal blow came in 1976, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Washington v. Davis. Two African-American applicants who failed personnel tests for jobs as police officers in Washington, D.C., alleged that the test was unconstitutional because it disproportionately failed Blacks, excluding them from work at the police department. They were backed by clear scientific evidence showing that the tests did disproportionately impact Blacks. But because the plaintiffs could not show that the racial inequality was intentional, the Court ruled that the Constitution was not violated. The standard the court set in that case is known as the "intent doctrine."

This crowning blow to the gradual erosion of the 14th Amendment's protections currently bars countless victims of discrimination from seeking justice in the courts. Though George Wallace is no longer chanting "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" on the school house steps, race-based disparities still persist in almost every measure of societal well-being -- from employment, health, and education to wealth, housing, and the criminal justice system. When racial bias is implicit or structural, it makes no sense to require proof that these disparities result from "intentional" discrimination.

Our embattled 14th Amendment deserves to be safeguarded both from frontal and stealth attacks. We must first shed sunlight on the insidious efforts to do away with this bedrock principle. Then, we must return to the courts - yes, even the United States Supreme Court - and insist that the full Constitution be upheld, including the 14th Amendment. Civil rights advocates must not cede the ground to those who would deny us equal protection of the law. We're ready to fight; join us.

[Related posts:   Federal Court Can't Remedy Structural Racism; Reclaiming the 14th Amendment]