Our Rights, Our Future

NCRCR Recognizes the Next Generation of Civil Rights Leaders

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.

Guest Blogger: Fighting For and With Our LGBTQ Young People

By Richael Faithful

I “came out” when I was 14, about eleven years ago, as a teenager living in Northern Virginia. For the most part I was left alone by classmates, rarely at the other end of taunting or verbal abuse, and never at the other end of targeted violence. I had, and continue to have, very proud parents and friends—proud of whom I am, not necessarily of my “queer” identity. But I am aware that my affirmative experience as a LGBTQ person is relatively uncommon.

America has been recently awakened to this reality. Though minimized by stories of extreme gay and lesbian persecution overseas, the truth is that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer-identified or perceived young people in the U.S. face tremendous harassment, bigotry, and discrimination. And despite recent attention to this issue, there is another sad reality, particularly for young people: there is no federal law against bullying or harassment, even though the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 provided support for school safety, generally. In other words, LGBTQ identified or perceived students currently have no real protection against bullying under federal law.

Federal or state laws are not triggered until bullying or harassment leads to a criminal act, such as battery, assault, or stalking. Bullying may also rise to the level of racial, sexual, or disability harassment prohibited by civil rights laws that can be enforced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.  However, bullying in general, especially LGBTQ bullying, has traditionally been treated as a school administrative matter, in which too many administrators were either indifferent or ill-equipped to address mistreatment. A variety of national and local LGBTQ organizations have long-focused on this issue by offering supportive resources and fighting for protective legislation. At the forefront is Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) which has been working with federal agencies and Congress for over a year, prior to recent tragedies, to pass two pieces of legislation: the Safe Schools Improvement Act and Student Non-Discrimination Act. Both bills are designed to require school districts receiving federal funds to prohibit LGBTQ bullying, and adopt LGBTQ non-discrimination policies.  Although such laws cannot dictate progressive thinking about LGBTQ people, they can bring federal power to bear to create safe, even affirming school environments for young LGBTQ people.

The law’s power cannot be under-estimated. During my senior year in high school, I and several friends founded a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), with the help of a regional safe schools organization. GSAs are student organizations intended to create comfortable LGBTQ spaces and build positive relationships among students along the sexuality and gender continuum. GLSEN provided important resources for us to organize the organization against strong parental opposition, including our legal rights under the Equal Access Act, which guarantees free speech and non-discrimination rights in public school extra-curricular activities. Protective laws can translate into meaningful quality-of-life changes for LGBTQ young people. That is why young LGBTQ people and their supporters are working toward this goal.

Any person who has been shocked and heartbroken about the recent, high-profile cases of LGBTQ suicides and violence against young people should share these resources in your communities. As one of my favorite LGBTQ organizations, Southerners on New Ground, pointed out, all young people, especially marginalized LGBTQ young people, need us to fight for them, and fight with them.  Equally important, we need to help them make things better by creating a culture of acceptance, honesty, and integrity.

Please share these resources today.

•    GLSEN, What Can You Do To Make a Positive Difference

•    The Trevor Project, Suicide Prevention Resources

•    Parents, Families, and Friends for Gays and Lesbians (PFLAG), Open letter to Youth

•    Safe Schools Coalition, Resources for LGBTQ Youth of Color

 

Richael Faithful is a third-year student at American University Washington College of Law. She is Editor-In-Chief of The Modern American, a legal publication dedicated to diversity and the law. She is also a former community organizer with the Virginia Organizing Project. As a law student she continues organize and advocate for radical, transformative change.

(Photo by quixoticlife.)

Court to Indiana: You Cannot Balance Your Budget by Ignoring Foster Kids’ Rights To Food, Shelter & Clothing

By Paula Z. Segal

Last year, the state of Indiana proposed to balance its budget by cutting funding to foster children and adoptive services. To save $10 million, the Indiana Department of Social Services decided to cut the amount it pays for the support of children in foster care and special needs adoption assistance. The Department based its decision on abstract calculations about how much it costs to care for a child in America. It did not consider the expenses specific to caring for foster children; most tellingly, it did not consider travel costs for visiting the child’s biological family. It never asked for comments from foster families or the agencies that support them in Indiana.

In the fall of 2009, each foster family was slated for a 10% cut in the money it receives to buy necessities like food and clothing for children. And we’re not talking big money to begin with:  even before the cut, the state provided $25/day, which was theoretically supposed to cover the cost of food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision (such as child care), school supplies, a child’s personal incidentals, reasonable travel, and insurance liability, among other things.  Agencies that help foster children with special needs find permanent adoptive homes were facing a twenty percent reduction in their budgets – despite the need for more effort in this area.  There are currently more than 3,000 children in foster care waiting for adoption in Indiana, and a high number of these children have special needs.

States are scrambling to find money these days, no doubt.  But it’s also relevant here that the federal government reimburses the state of Indiana for more than 70% of the funding for these foster care and adoptive services.

A group of foster parents and children sued the Department in an effort to stop the cuts from eliminating their already limited resources under a federal law, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,  which allows individuals to sue the government or a government employee who has infringed on their rights under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Referred to as “Section 1983,” this law was originally passed after the Civil War to help African-Americans exercise new rights created by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Those amendments prohibited slavery, established the right to due process and equal protection, and guaranteed every male citizen the right to vote. Although these Amendments became part of the Constitution, state courts refused to enforce them, especially when people’s rights were violated by other state or local government officials. The U.S. Congress passed Section 1983 to allow people to sue in federal court when a state or local official violates their federal rights. The statute can be used by anyone who believes their rights under federal law are being denied.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a 2002 case, Gonzaga v. Doe, it has become more difficult to bring a case under Section 1983.  Among other things, to be successful, the person or people suing have to show that they actually have a right on which the government is treading.  That sounds easy, but it depends on how the federal law was written. Some rights are clearly established. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law, says that everyone has a right not be discriminated against at work because of a physical impairment. This is clearly a right that can be enforced by a person who experiences discrimination at work.  Not all laws are written quite this clearly.

The right to funding that foster parents wanted the court to enforce was based on a portion of the federal Social Security Act that says that payments to foster families must cover the cost of food, shelter, clothing and other needs. It also says that families adopting children must get money to assist in the adoption process based on their circumstances and the needs of the child or children they are adopting. The federal court in Indiana decided that the law created an enforceable right for the people in the programs. 

Because the Indiana Southern District Court interpreted the federal statute as creating a right for foster families, it could directly consider the effect of the proposed budget cuts on the children. The court acknowledged “the potential emotional upheaval and deprivation of basic necessities” that the cuts threatened for them and ordered Indiana’s Department of Social Service not to make the cutbacks.

Paula Z. Segal is a second year student at City University of New York School of Law and a Haywood Burns Fellow in Civil and Human Rights. Before law school, she taught English to Speakers of Other Languages and continues to develop materials for ESOL instructors to connect language and life skills. She is also working with the New York Civil Liberties Union to reduce the school to prison pipeline and coordinates the CUNY Street Law Team, which brings the law to New York City high school students and community groups. For more on the school to prison pipeline, go to http://www.nyclu.org/issues/youth-and-student-rights.

(Photo by Department for Children, Schools and Families.)

NCRCR Interview Series: Salazar v. District of Columbia

Tricia Perry of the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights spoke with Jane Perkins, Legal Director at the National Health Law Program (NHeLP), about the Salazar v. District of Columbia case regarding Medicaid provisions. Listen in as Perkins discusses the ongoing legal battle to ensure access to health care for children in low-income communities.

Perkins tied up the interview by reading part of a previous decision in the Salazar case:

This case is about people-children and adults who are sick, poor, and vulnerable-for whom life, in the memorable words of poet Langston Hughes, “ain't been no crystal stair”. It is written in the dry and bloodless language of “the law”-statistics, acronyms of agencies and bureaucratic entities, Supreme Court case names and quotes, official governmental reports, periodicity tables, etc. But let there be no forgetting the real people to whom this dry and bloodless language gives voice: anxious, working parents who are too poor to obtain medications or heart catheter procedures or lead poisoning screens for their children, AIDS patients unable to get treatment, elderly persons suffering from chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease who require constant monitoring and medical attention. Behind every “fact” found herein is a human face and the reality of being poor in the richest nation on earth.

Federal Ruling Allows Agencies to Investigate Child Abuse

Every so often,  we at NCRCR like to take a break from troublesome legal trends to celebrate the ways in which the courts help to protect our rights.  One such victory was recently handed down by an appeals court on the west coast, in Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Anchorage School District.

The case involved an elementary school class of children with intensive special needs in Anchorage, Alaska. According to case attorney Holly Johanknecht, the class of less than ten students was rumored to be very poorly supervised. There were even allegations that the conditions in the classroom left some students vulnerable to physical abuse. A disability rights organization known as the Disability Law Center of Alaska got wind of the situation and sought to investigate in order to protect the children. The organization filed a lawsuit to gain access to student records, including contact information for the students’ parents. The suit was filed under the federal Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, which gives agencies, like the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with developmental disabilities.

In the first ruling on the case, the district court found that another piece of federal legislation, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prevented the school district from releasing the records. On appeal, however, the court held that the Developmental Disabilities Act provides an exception to FERPA. Judge Jerome Farris wrote in the decision:

"The agencies stated that 'if a school or other facility could refuse to provide the name and contact information, it could interfere substantially with investigation of abuse or neglect, thereby thwarting Congress' intent that act to protect vulnerable populations from abuse or neglect.’”

The appeals court did mandate that the Disability Law Center is required to maintain the confidentiality of any student records it receives. Yet through this ruling, the court ruled in favor of protecting the rights of a group of young children very much unable to defend themselves, establishing valuable legal precedent in the process. The Disability Law Center of Alaska and its investigators are currently working to ensure the safety of the children affected.

Is the Supreme Court Undoing Local Efforts to Reduce Racial Isolation in Public Education?

The progress resulting from Brown v. Board of Education is slowly being undone as public schools are seeing an increase in racial isolation. Almost 40% of black and latino students attend intensely segregated schools whereas only 1% of white students attend segregated schools. The progress made post Brown is in reverse. In 2003, more black students attended segregated schools than in 1988, as schools are become increasingly segregated.

Supreme Court Affirms Parent’s Right to Reimbursement For Private Special Education When Services Are Not Available in the Public Schools

We received a great press release yesterday on an important Supreme Court ruling on disability rights in our school system.  While the rollback of our civil rights is a real and terrifying thing, it's just as important to celebrate the victories that help preserve our freedoms and well-being.

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Contact: Jaclyn Okin Barney, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest: 212.244.4664, [email protected]; Linda Gross, Marsha Gordon, LCG Communications:  718.853.5568, [email protected], [email protected] 

 

BREAKING TODAY: Supreme Court Affirms Parent’s Right to Reimbursement For Private Special Education When Services Are Not Available in the Public Schools; Advocates Applaud Court Ruling In Favor of Educational Opportunities for Children with Disabilities

Today, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the right of parents of children with disabilities to recover the costs of their children’s education when the public school system fails to offer an appropriate educational program. In NYC Department of Education v. Tom F, the court evenly split, leaving undisturbed a lower court determination that Tom F. was entitled to reimbursement for his private school placement. Justice Kennedy took no part in the decision. The case raised the question whether, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a parent can obtain reimbursement for tuition costs at a private school, when the parent unilaterally decides to place the child in private school, based on his/her conclusion that the public school offers no appropriate options.

Jaclyn Okin Barney, a special education attorney at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), which filed an amicus brief supporting the parents. “This is a victory for parents of students with disabilities across the country. Parents might otherwise be unwilling and unable to risk the financial burden of placing their children in private schools, even when it is obvious that the public school system cannot offer appropriate services,” says

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court did not accept the argument put forward by the New York City Department of Education that a parent is not entitled to reimbursement unless the child had previously received special education and related services under the authority of the public agency,” said attorney Paul Gardephe, partner at the law firm of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, who argued the case for the parents. “Congress never intended the IDEA to limit the ability of parents to obtain reimbursement by first requiring attendance at an inappropriate program. To conclude otherwise would lead to completely absurd results,” Gardephe continued.

"Most important, had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DOE, children would be forced to be placed in settings that are potentially harmful to their development just so it can be said that they previously received special education services from the public education system,” said Ron Hager, Senior Staff Attorney at the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), which joined NYLPI on their amicus brief. He continued, “This could have the most profound affect on those with the most significant disabilities who need the services at the earliest stages of their development.  In the argument before the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice Alito stated that requiring children to be placed in some sort of short term inappropriate placement in the public school would make ‘no sense whatsoever’.” 

Okin Barney said, “We see too many children with special educational needs entering the special education system in Kindergarten or later, and confronting a program that cannot meet his/her needs. The public school system does not always have the appropriate therapies or the capacity to address the social and behavioral needs of children with particular emotional issues.”

Tom F. is represented by attorneys from Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP and was assisted by New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYPLI). NYLPI and NDRN’s amicus brief was submitted by Morrison & Foerster LLP.

 ***

Founded in 1976, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest is a nonprofit, civil rights law firm that strives for social justice. In partnership with member law firms, corporate law departments and other organizations, NYLPI helps underrepresented people develop legal strategies to serve their vision for themselves and their communities. To find out more about NYLPI please call (212) 244-4664 or visit the NYLPI  website at  www.nylpi.org . 

Courts Can Change

Sometimes I wonder about what goes on in the mind of Supreme Court Justices. What really impacts their ruling? Does the society in which we live in shape their decisions or do their decisions shape society? I got the chance to play the role of a Supreme Court Justice in a mock trial today. I am currently attending an academic summer camp for high school students at the University of California, San Diego. I am taking a course called "Law, Politics, and the Supreme Court."

At first, I thought I was just going to be sitting in a classroom listening to lectures and learning a list of law jargon. But, I was wrong. When I stepped into the classroom, I realized I was in for a different experience. For the past couple of days, our class has been doing our own trials on previous Supreme Court cases. We get briefings and play the role of advocates, oracles, and justices. When I was playing the role of a Supreme Court Justice during our mock trial, I felt a sense of power.

When the trial was over, I had to make my decision on the case. Before announcing my verdict, I realized something. Supreme Court Justices are normal people. Their views on issues can change. They are never set in stone. Just because a court makes a ruling, it does not necessarily mean that society will stay that way forever. I came to realize the power of persuasion and remembered Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote, "Speech is power: speech is to persuade, to convert, to compel." Things can change, and it is up to the people to speak out. The recent Supreme Court rulings clearly rolled back the civil rights that our country took many years to earn.

When I played the role of an advocate during the next mock trial in class, I was able to persuade my fellow classmates to change their view on an issue.

The recent Supreme Court ruling took a step backward for civil rights, but it can still take many steps forward in the future.

Posted by Jody Leung, high school student

Kapow! Supreme Court strikes again.

Even though our society is becoming more diverse, the Supreme Court has rolled back the opportunities for children to attend schools that reflect the world in which they live. In two key cases today, it ruled against local efforts to reduce racial isolation in public schools.

Although this is bad for those districts -- and possibly others trying to overcome segregated schools -- we are at least relieved because it could have been worse. A (thin) majority of judges (only five of nine) still believe diversity is important.

We hear there are still some things left that schools can do, but we can't seem the shake the queasy feeling in our stomachs.

Tell us what you thinking by clicking on "comments," below.

Nation's highest court still hasn't decided what to do about voluntary integration

Our country's Supreme Court didn't decide a couple of key cases today, leaving those of us who care about diversity in our schools hanging on tenderhooks. You can read about these schools cases here, here, and here.

So, should parents, communities and local school districts have the right to determine whether their communities reflect our "nation's vibrant diversity"? Tell us what you think by posting a comment.