This month, NCRCR spoke with Jenny Yang, Partner at Cohen Milstein and counsel for plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the largest civil rights class action lawsuit in U.S. history. Listen in as they discuss the potential impact of this much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling on gender and employment discrimination.
Listen to the full interview series here.
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights (NCRCR) has announced the winners of its 2010 Written Essay and Visual Image Contest. The contest entitled “What Does Equality Mean to You?” asked youth ages 14-18 across the United States to define equality from their unique perspectives by submitting either a written entry or a visual image such as a drawing, cartoon or photograph. Winners were selected by a panel of high-profile judges, including singer and songwriter Alicia Keys, comedian Margaret Cho, Congressman Keith Ellison (MN), Congressman Gregory Meeks (NY) and NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous.
Naomi Lattanzi, 16, of Los Altos, California won for her courageous personal essay entitled “Are You?” in which she discusses how she feels when a schoolmate asks whether she is a lesbian. As the nation continues to struggle with issues affecting the rights and everyday lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (“LGBTQQ”) communities such as marriage equality, bias attacks and bullying, Naomi’s answer seems fitting: “I don’t know, but you can’t take away what sense of self I have. As long as I have people who accept me you can’t make me feel inferior. You’ll eventually have to accept the truth: We are equals.”
18-year-old Misra Walker from the Bronx, New York is the winner in the visual image category. Misra’s powerful image of a Latino man standing in front of an American flag with his arms crossed over his chest and eyes downcast evokes the conflicting feelings of frustration and hope experienced by many immigrants across this country as they seek to realize the “American Dream.” This image seems particularly appropriate given the debates about immigration and citizenship happening across the country.
Finally, 18-year-old Abisola Barbara Williams from Brooklyn, New York was the first runner-up in the visual entry category. Abisola’s piece, a collage of three images featuring a young woman wearing a Muslim headscarf, another without head covering, and someone wearing a bracelet with the word “peace,” spoke to her sense of how the various aspects of race, gender and religion interact to form a complex pattern of discrimination that has resulted in her Muslim peers experiencing violence and harassment on the streets of New York. Again, this image addressed a timely and important topic given the recent rise in anti-Islamic sentiment across the country.
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights invited winners and finalists to New York City this week in order to recognize their leadership efforts. Naomi and Abisola participated in a training session on how to speak about civil rights issues and met with a variety of civil rights advocates.
Young people have always played an important role in the struggle for civil rights and social justice. Despite the accusations of laziness and indifference leveled at them, youth political involvement over the past few years has broken every stereotype about the apathy of young people in America. During the 2008 presidential campaign we saw first-hand that this ‘Millennial Generation’ is thinking about and playing an active role in civil rights, politics and social issues. Naomi, Misra and Abisola represent a new generation of leaders whose activism and innovation will continue to shape the landscape of civil rights and social justice in the 21st century.
If you’ll permit us a brief detour from pop culture into a more scholarly, Supreme Court-loving culture (although the Supreme Court probably does constitute pop culture for many people) we thought it worth highlighting the biography of former Justice William J. Brennan published late last year. While NCRCR Director Juanne Renee Harris has acknowledged that Brennan was ‘no Jimmy Smits,’ there was still a good deal of intrigue to be found in this book...mixed in with a few hundred pages of dense but interesting case history. For those not yet born during the early days of the civil rights movement, the book provides a lot of context for what was going on in the judiciary and around the country during one of the most profound eras of social change in our country and in the decades that followed. So, if you are a Supreme Court watcher, find case law interesting, think Supreme Court justices are pop culture icons, or would just like to try something that looks at the civil rights movement from a different perspective, this book may be for you.
For a more detailed review of the book, see Dahlia Lithwick's piece in the New York Times.
The Culture Corner is a series of blog posts intended to be a forum for discussion of how pop culture treats issues of civil rights, social justice and the courts. Television, movie, theater and musical portrayals inform our understanding of these issues on a daily basis. Are these depictions accurate? Fair? Misleading? We welcome your thoughts. Please join in the discussion.
(Photo by Chattanooga Endeavors Inc.)
A decision to slash funding for Medicaid has real and tangible effects on people’s lives, such as those of Lillie Brantley, Allie Jo Woodward and Gilda Garcia. Lillie Brantley is 84 years old and severely impaired by Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Allie Jo Woodward, 79 years old, has bipolar affective disorder, depression and a host of physical ailments including diabetes, glaucoma and hypertension. Gilda Garcia is 77 years old and has had unstable diabetes since 1995. Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia all receive services benefits from Medi-Cal Adult Day Health Care (ADHC), a community-based program for low-income seniors and younger adults with disabilities in the state of California. ADHC provides an organized day care program that includes therapeutic, social and skilled nursing health activities enabling participants to restore or maintain their capacity for self care. These crucial services, including daily professional nursing services to monitor their health; daily personal care services to assist with day-to-day living tasks; social services to improve their mental and emotional well-being; and physical and occupational therapy to increase their physical strength and functionality, have enabled Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia to live independently with the assistance of family members, who provide part-time care when not working. Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia cannot afford private care and their family members cannot afford to quit their jobs to provide full-time care (nor are they qualified to provide all of the care needed). As a result, cuts to the ADHC program will deprive these women (and many others) of the care and company they depend on, and most certainly place them at risk of hospitalization and/or institutionalization.
Despite the fact that programs like ADHC and other Medicaid services are notoriously underfunded, the California state legislature passed a law cutting ‘Medi-Cal’ payments (Medicaid reimbursements) to medical providers by ten percent in 2008. The state legislature voted for an additional five percent payment reduction in early 2009. In making these cuts the state failed to take into account the effect that they would have on the already scarce services to low-income people living in medically underserved areas and for people with disabilities. The state also disregarded federal law requiring them to consider, among other things, whether payment rates are consistent with the ability of health care providers to offer quality care and sufficient to recruit enough providers to ensure that care and services are available. As a result of these cuts, low-income enrollees across the state have suddenly found themselves unable to fill and pay for their prescriptions, and hospitals and other care facilities have been unable to provide adequate treatment to their Medicaid patients as required by law.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on a trio of lawsuits regarding California’s cuts. The three cases, known collectively as Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, California Pharmacists Assn, and Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, were filed on behalf of Brantley, Woodward and Garcia (and others like them) and yet again raise the issue of access to the courts for individuals and groups to enforce laws meant to protect their rights. In all three ‘Maxwell-Jolly’ cases, the federal district and appeals courts ruled that, despite the budget climate, California could not cut Medicaid spending so drastically without taking into account federal requirements that the program ensure affordable, quality health care for low-income individuals and families, and for people with disabilities. At the Supreme Court level, the issue up for consideration is whether or not the federal Medicaid law meant to safeguard access to healthcare for those in need can take priority over the California state law cutting the Medicaid budget. The Court will also decide whether Brantley, Woodward, Garcia and others who are affected by the cuts have the right to go to court to enforce federal Medicaid rules. This case is yet another example of a court case involving below-the-radar-screen procedural issues that have real-life, serious and potentially life-threatening ramifications for thousands of people across the country. We can only hope that, when making its decision, the Court chooses to keep Ms. Brantley, Ms. Woodward and Ms. Garcia in mind.
(Photo by LOLren.)
Muneer Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations spoke with Tricia Perry about the recent ballot initiative in Oklahama, where voters approved a measure prohibiting state courts from considering international and Islamic ("Sharia") law. Listen as they discuss the potential impact of the law and pending legal challenges.
Listen to the full interview series here.
Tricia Perry of the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights spoke with Suzette Malveaux of Catholic University of America about the AT&T Mobility v. Concepción case on class action arbitration in California. Listen in as they discuss the significant impact this ruling may have on our access to justice, civil rights and consumer protections.
As the Senate prepares to vote on the DREAM Act, there's rarely a day that those of us here at NCRCR don't find ourselves thinking about the intersections between race, class, nationality and legal status and how these issues are addressed in the courts. As such, the issues faced by undocumented students trying to get an education are of particular interest. Through no act of their own (and more often than not an act of economic desperation on the part of their parents), thousands of smart and talented young people graduate high school in the U.S. each year and, because of their immigration status, find themselves ineligible for the federal loans that “finance” the college educations of their documented peers. To make matters worse, several states have passed laws making these undocumented students ineligible for the “in-state” reduced tuition rate at public universities and colleges available to legal residents of the state. Because these undocumented students’ families usually do not have the means to throw down $20-40,000 per year on tuition, the students hit a dead-end, ostensibly ensuring their inability to enter an increasingly competitive job market in what is, in some cases, the only country they have ever known.
There are laws that make this situation questionable: Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution promises the equal protection of a state's laws to any person within that state’s jurisdiction and allows the courts to enforce the principle that “all men are created equal.” In support of this constitutional right, the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe that undocumented immigrants were entitled to a free and equal K-12 public education. This key ruling was based on the premise that everyone, regardless of immigration status, has the right to an education. With this decision states could no longer withhold a state-funded, public primary and secondary education to undocumented children. When it comes to college, however, no effort has been made to address this issue on a federal level, and the battle over access to an affordable college education for undocumented students is being fought in the courts. In a recent victory for these students, the California state Supreme Court ruled that undocumented students who attended at least three years of high school in California must be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities. This can amount to a difference of up to $12,000 per year, which certainly makes trying to get a college education less daunting. Nine other states have similar legislation, though lawsuits are pending in two states in order to challenge these laws -- but each ruling in favor of such laws adds legitimacy to the right of all young people in the U.S. to get a quality and affordable education.
If the DREAM Act passes, undocumented students will also have a pathway to pursue U.S. citizenship after graduating from college or a trade school. As ever, progress is gradual and the courts continue to play an important role in ensuring that progress is made.
(Photo by Gord McKenna.)
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights is launching the Culture Corner, a series of blog posts that, together, are intended as a forum for discussion of how pop culture treats issues of civil rights, social justice and the courts. Television, movie, theater and musical portrayals inform our understanding of these issues on a daily basis. Are these depictions accurate? Fair? Misleading? We welcome your thoughts. Please join in the discussion on the NCRCR blog.
Howl in the Movie Theater...and the Courtroom?
by Marianne Engelman Lado
I sat down last Friday night to watch Howl, the new movie starring James Franco (written and directed by Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman). It's about the poet Allen Ginsberg, his poem Howl, the essence of poetry and rhythm, and the emergence of a cultural divide in the country, a schism that continues to have consequences for us today. Ginsberg's words speak volumes about finding ways to be true to ourselves, as well as his own struggle to allow himself the space to express who he was in a world that degraded being gay. It's also about the courts and the way in which some of the most controversial issues in American society wind up in court.
The film follows a number of parallel tracks. The first is a nightclub scene in which Ginsberg recites the poem Howl before a rapt audience. As he speaks, the visuals move from the nightclub to artistic and hallucinatory images. These scenes are interspersed with taped interviews with Ginsberg, during which he shares thoughts about his life and his perspectives on the Beat Generation and his poetry. And finally, there is the coutroom drama, based on a real-life obscenity trial before Judge Clayton Horn, in which experts testified about whether the poem had literary merit. (There's also a book on the case called Howl on Trial: The Battle for Free Expression.)
It's striking, though, how many movies use the courtroom as a plot device, a means to play out drama. A good number of movies use court cases as a central organizing principle for the plot: there's a case investigation, the gathering of evidence, the two sides clashing, and a decision by a judge or jury. A few come to mind: Erin Brockovich with Julia Roberts, The Verdict with Paul Newman, A Few Good Men with Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Demi Moore, and there are scores of others. No doubt, litigation provides drama. There are adversaries, the buildup of evidence, and then resolution, when the judge or jury hands down a decision. (Never mind, though, that the vast majority of cases are settled before there's ever a trial.)
The truth is, though, that lots of important issues do get decided in court. Courts provide a non-violent way of resolving controversial questions. If we're fighting over a contract and we can't resolve the issue, we can go to court. Or if some people in society don't like poetry they think is obscene, they hopefully won't be as tempted to lash out at the author or publisher. They can go to court.
The movie reminded me of how many tough issues do wind up playing out in the courthouse: whether towns, cities and states can pass gun control laws, the future of the recent health care law, and the legality of rendition, to name a few. In turn, maybe because the courts play such a key role in resolving disputes in our society, the courts wind up in our movies.
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights invites you to share your thoughts about how the legal system is portrayed in the movies. Send us your movie review. This space will be used to start a conversation about how the movies shape ideas about the courts and, ultimately, about our rights.
Outlaw
by Juanne Renee Harris
Let me start by saying that I really wanted to like the new NBC legal drama Outlaw starring Jimmy Smits. I wanted to like it because Jimmy Smits is a fine actor and one my personal favorites. More importantly, however, I wanted to like Outlaw because of the potential I saw for this drama to provide useful commentary and educate TV viewers about some of the important issues being played out in the federal courts that affect our daily lives.
I was willing to overlook the arguably improbable opening premise that someone would step down from a job that probably represents the ultimate brass ring in a legal career. Really, when was the last time you heard of a Supreme Court Justice resigning? I guess, though, if Chief Justice Roberts had amassed over $200,000 in gambling debts he might be tempted to trade in his yearly salary of $213,900 for a more lucrative career as a private defense attorney. And, I already know better than to get upset about the myriad of totally unrealistic depictions of how attorneys prepare for cases and conduct themselves in courtrooms. I’ve grown used to this from the endless other legal dramas on TV and long ago decided to chalk my impatience with these small technicalities up to the fact that, as a practicing attorney, I’m a stickler for detail. And besides, all that “legal stuff” would never make for good TV.
But I digress. For those of you who have not seen the show here’s a short description: Jimmy Smits plays Supreme Court Justice Cyrus Garza, a Bush appointee who is arguably the most conservative judge on the United States Supreme Court. After his father dies in a car crash, which he survives, Justice Garza undergoes a crisis of conscience and decides that he has been following the wrong path and can do more good as an everyday lawyer than he can as part of the most powerful legal institution in our democracy. Or maybe it’s because he’s a womanizer with a gambling habit that has landed him over $200,000 in debt? I’m still not sure. Anyway, Garza resigns from the Court in dramatic fashion and coerces an ex-lover into bringing him on as a partner in her law firm. After gathering a team consisting of his two law clerks (an idealistic young woman he hired because of her looks – his words – who also happens to be in love with him and an ambitious conservative Harvard Law graduate who seems to be hanging around because he can’t get a job anywhere else. – Really, an unemployable Supreme Court clerk?), a sexy, intelligent and very sarcastic private investigator who constantly baits the two clerks, and his childhood best friend (an African-American attorney who is as liberal as they come), Garza hits the road as a renegade defense attorney fighting the good fight for the little guy.
So – this is where I was hoping that the show’s writers would take the opportunity to use the show as a teaching moment and this is where my disappointment began. The first episode suggests that Garza’s crisis of conscience will lead him to embrace his father’s liberal legacy when he decides to defend a death row inmate he believes to be innocent. Of course he wins, but, the episode is a rehash of other similar plot lines I’ve seen in previous legal dramas and there’s nothing new to learn here. It seems that the only thing this episode actually did accomplish was to inflame conservatives who view the show as a medium for liberals to push their progressive agenda while making conservatives look bad.
I had higher hopes for the second episode which touched on the controversy surrounding Arizona’s anti-immigrant law. The episode involves a white police officer accused of assault and racial-profiling after the officer, in accordance with a local anti-immigration law, confronts a Latino man he believes to be undocumented and winds up shooting the “suspect.” In an unexpected move, given his newfound liberal ideals, Garza returns to his conservative roots and chooses to defend the police officer because he’s “spent [his] whole career defending states’ rights.” As it turns out, the man is not undocumented, but, instead of using this episode as a way to illustrate the potential dangers and injustices that can result from these types of laws, the producers decide to unmask the Latino man as a criminal who the police officer was justified in shooting. So, not only was this a missed teaching moment, but, the ultimate message reinforces the conservative agenda that Latino, specifically Mexican, immigrants are typically undocumented individuals or criminals (usually both) who have no place in our society. Not what I was hoping for from this show.
Outlaw’s executive producer David Kissinger said Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor inspired him: “People were writing about her life and the dues she had to pay to get to that point, so it struck me that someone who worked that hard and achieved that incredible position, what would it take for that person to give it all up and what would they give it all up for?” Well, I’m not sure what might inspire Justice Sotomayor to step down from the bench, but, I’m certain it’s not this.
Over the next weeks the show has the opportunity to look at other civil rights and social justice issues being examined by the federal courts. Hopefully, the writers will consider using these opportunities to highlight how these issues can affect the lives of everyday citizens and how what happens in the courts can impact our daily lives.
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights focuses on the impact of court rulings on our communities, our opportunities and our rights and we would love to hear your thoughts about how the legal system is portrayed on Outlaw and other television shows.
I still think this show has the potential to be used for the greater good without sacrificing its entertainment value. But, they better do it soon. Rumor has it that production on Outlaw has been stopped and producers are waiting to see if rating increase before they film any additional episodes.
Civil Rights and Music
by Tricia Perry
"Jazz speaks for life," Martin Luther King Jr. said. "The blues tell the story of life's difficulties — and, if you think for a moment, you realize that they take the hardest realities of life and put them into music, only to come out with some new hope or sense of triumph. This is triumphant music." Whether linked to jazz, soul or funk, sung by Nina Simone or Sam Cooke, the Civil Rights movement has a rich history of associations with music. And there was a purpose in this connection to culture: It has been said that, “Music is often a unifying element in a political movement, succinctly and emphatically reminding people of what they are fighting for, while providing inspiration and hope.”
Decades later, it isn’t clear that there is any particular genre or artist that we can label as “civil rights music.” In 2010 the very notion of civil rights is a much broader concept, almost an umbrella term for contemporary issues such as the rights of immigrants and LGBT people. From a classic racial justice perspective, there are certainly ties to be drawn between civil rights and the hip hop genre; some claim hip hop has replaced the civil rights movement itself while others characterize the two movements as separate and conflicting.
In any event, the election and inauguration of our nation’s first black president led to a renaissance in music geared toward a common progressive vision. The Yes We Can video is a great example of how music and other media can be harnessed for purposes of political change. Once in office, the Obamas even hosted a concert in celebration of music from the civil rights movement.
What are your thoughts on the civil rights music of 2010?
(Photo by Dyroza.)
The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights previously wrote about how one ruling that is bad news for civil rights can start a domino effect and impact other cases, even in seemingly unrelated areas of law. The good news is that sometimes not all of the dominoes fall. Courts are supposed to evaluate each case on its own merits, applying past decisions in a thoughtful way to promote fairness and justice -- and sometimes the outcome of a case reflects this thoughtfulness.
Some of you may recall the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in Horne v. Flores. The Horne case began in the 1990s when parents sued the state of Arizona for underfunding its educational programming for English Language Learners (ELL), which deprived non-English speaking students of educational opportunities. After several rulings the parents and the state reached an agreement and the lower court issued an injunction ordering the state to provide adequate funding for the ELL program. Seventeen years and countless students later, the state still had not fixed the problem, and the parents returned to court to ask that the state finally be required to provide proper funding. Instead of being held responsible for living up to its obligations, however, political leaders who asked to join the case somehow managed to convince the Supreme Court that new educational policies and program changes that supposedly improved English-learner and K-12 education overall made it detrimental to the public interest to keep the injunction in place and do right by children who needed language services -- all this well before the recent trend in anti-immigrant laws like Arizona’s.
Horne opened the door for state governments and agencies to unravel agreements they entered into to reform state agencies or institutions -- even though these agreements are court-ordered and were signed to settle lawsuits. States figured that they could now challenge settlement agreements based on a subsequent change in circumstances or law regardless of whether they fulfilled their obligation to fix the problem at issue.
Fast-forward to August 2010 and head over to the state of Tennessee, and you’ll find another lawsuit that has been around since the early 90s. United States v. Tennessee was originally filed to address inhumane conditions, abuse and inadequate medical care in a number of state institutions for people with psychological and developmental disabilities. Following a series of court rulings, a lower federal court found that Tennessee had violated the civil rights of residents of these institutions and ordered the state to remedy the violations.
However, like Arizona in the Horne case, Tennessee repeatedly failed to fix the problem and, following the example set in Horne, Tennessee went to federal court in an attempt to convince the court to allow the state to renege on its agreement. Making the same argument, Tennessee claimed that a “significant change...in law” made enforcement of the agreement “detrimental to the public interest” and that the state should be relieved of its legal obligation to improve conditions for people with disabilities under its care at the Arlington Development Center (ADC). Fortunately for long-neglected ADC residents, the federal appeals court responded with a resounding “No!” and ruled that Tennessee must comply with the previous order aimed toward preserving the dignity and safety of those in state-run institutions.
Whether Tennessee decides to try its luck in the Supreme Court in hopes that its “Horne” argument has better luck there remains to be seen. For now, however, the rights of these residents are still protected by a federal court decision.
(Photo by Bikoy.)
The Supreme Court recently started hearing cases again, after its summer break. Looking at the new cases on its docket, it’s clear that it will continue to address what the Court has staked out as the constitutional rights of corporations, an issue of increased significance since the Citizens United ruling earlier this year. One case in particular stands out. In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, the Supreme Court will again consider whether corporations should be granted the same legal status as you or I on certain issues as it decides whether corporations have a right to personal privacy.
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T began when the FCC started investigating AT&T, the largest U.S. phone company, for overcharging the government during its participation in a program geared to providing services and equipment to schools to increase access to advanced technology. AT&T eventually reached a settlement agreement with the FCC and, although the details of the investigation were not released to the public, AT&T provided various documents to the government during the investigation. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed to gain access to the documents, and AT&T filed suit to prevent the release of the information to the public, claiming that it would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” because “corporations, like individuals, face the prospect of public embarrassment, harassment and stigma based on their involvement in such investigations.” A federal court of appeals agreed with AT&T, rejecting the FCC’s argument that “personal” should be interpreted in its ordinary everyday sense to refer to a human being, and instead interpreted “personal” to include corporations for purposes of the term “personal privacy” under the statute.
Isn’t the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act to provide all of us with access to federal government records about important information? To make the government accountable to “we the people”? The law set a strong mandate for the release of information, with only narrow exceptions. AT&T is claiming protection under the exception that’s supposed to be limited to “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Does that sound like it’s supposed to apply to corporations?
Now the Supreme Court will have the final word as to whether corporations have the same privacy rights as individuals -- and whether they can prevent the release of information in the name of their “personal privacy.” A broadly worded ruling in favor of AT&T could undermine our access to key information. Imagine being unable to access the results of government investigations about environmental problems on offshore oil rigs or unethical policies at financial institutions. A decision in favor of AT&T could protect corporate wrongdoing from scrutiny by placing a corporation’s right to privacy above the public’s right to know -- and would see our nation sliding further down the slippery slope toward prioritizing the idea of corporate “rights” over our rights as people.
Due to her prior involvement with the FCC’s legal efforts as Solicitor General, the newly-appointed Justice Kagan has declined to participate in this case. This leaves eight justices poised to make another key ruling on our ability to protect our basic democratic institutions from the sway of profit-minded corporations.
(Photo by JonathanCohen.)
