Jackie Robinson's Other Break of the Color Barrier

This was an interesting bit of trivia I didn't know about. In 1944, 2nd Lt. Jackie Robinson -- yes, that Jackie Robinson -- was court-martialed after refusing to move to the back of a bus on a Texas army base. The army had recently desegregated army buses on army bases, and so Robinson knew he was entirely in the right when he refused to move back. Nonetheless, he was taken into custody and interrogated by a superior officer who was none too keen on the "uppity" Robinson.

Robinson was charged with insubordination, but in part thanks to excellent representation and in part thanks to sterling testimony by his battalion commander, he was acquitted of all charges.

The Roberts Court Votes on Brown

Norm Ornstein, writing in The Atlantic, argues that had it been the Roberts Court sitting in 1954

[t]he decision would have been 5-4 the other way, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race"—leaving separate but equal as the standard.

Ilys Somin cries foul. And I think Somin has the better of the argument, but it's a more interesting question than he lets on.

Somin observes, quite correctly, that the "colorblind constitution" advocated by Chief Justice Roberts and others makes easy work of the de jure racial classification at issue in Brown. But I don't think the point of the hypothetical is to transport the doctrines and particular legal and policy beliefs of the Roberts Court back to 1954. After all, these doctrines and policies derive from particular historical roots, of which Brown of course looms large. But in 1954, the "colorblind constitution" was hardly so entrenched -- its jurisprudential provenance was a solo dissent in an 1896 decision that the Court had, to that point, been extremely careful not to disturb. And the "separate but equal" doctrine that prevailed instead was, on face, perfectly egalitarian. It has "equal" right in the name!

Somin contends, though, that irrespective of this superficial equality "a Supreme Court justice who believes that the government should “stop discriminating on the basis of race” would have no trouble striking down school segregation laws, regardless of whether the separate schools were 'equal' or not. Jim Crow segregation laws were nothing if not blatantly obvious examples of discrimination on the basis of race."

But was it so "blatantly obvious" back then? Of course, in many cases there were material differences between the separate accommodations, and that is indeed an easy case. The Court had begun tackling these facial violations of "separate but equal" in cases like Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents, and I have no doubt that Roberts and company would have followed those precedents. But making the jump to the colorblind constitution requires more -- it requires a theory for why formal equality isn't enough. It is notable that this debate played on Plessy, and the terms of the debate were the social meaning of racial separation. The majority adamantly ignored these social conventions:

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.

But does anyone seriously have confidence in the Roberts Court to develop a new rule on race based on the social effects of a formally equal legal rule? This, to put it mildly, is not their standard operating procedure.

Nonetheless. maybe these cultural conventions really were so "blatantly obvious" that the Roberts Court would craft a brightline rule addressing them. This is buttressed, ironically, by the fact that in my estimation the Roberts Court's identification with a "colorblind constitution" doesn't derive from any cognizable legal foundation (originalism, textualism, etc.), but really represents a deeply-felt policy preference. And while that normally is not praiseworthy, it does mean that the conservative Justices would be more inclined to craft this rule even where it did not have a clear link to prior precedent or a prevailing legal theory.

The really interesting question, though, is how the Roberts Court would have decided Brown II (and the subsequent "remedial" jurisprudence line). Ornstein did not raise this issue, so I don't fault Somin for not responding to it. But recall the context: after Brown the District of South Carolina on remand took away from the cases the following principle:

The Constitution, in other words, does not require integration. It merely forbids discrimination. It does not forbid such segregation as occurs as the result of voluntary action. It merely forbids the use of governmental power to enforce segregation.

To the extent Brown II allowed or even required the use of affirmative race-conscious steps to integrate schools, would the Roberts Court have followed along? Or would it have endorsed the position of the District of South Carolina that the start and end of "desegregation" was erasing government statutes mandating racial separation?

To be sure, the Roberts Court today recognizes (barely) that the use of race to remedy de jure racial discrimination is constitutional. But their acceptance of this principle is much more tenuous than that of the colorblind constitution, and derives almost entirely for the legal and emotional precedential force of the Court's civil rights era desegregation jurisprudence. Starting from scratch, would they have announced a similar rule? I think not.

In short, I think Chief Justice Roberts would have signed onto Brown. But I think that's as far as he would have gone. When it comes to remedies, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." The judgment of the District of South Carolina on remand would be affirmed.

JK, Seattle

Some selected passages from Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1:

The present cases are before us, however, because the Seattle school district was never segregated by law. . . . The justification for race-conscious remedies in McDaniel[v. Baressi, 402 U.S. 39 (1971)] is therefore not applicable here. The dissent's persistent refusal to accept this distinction—its insistence on viewing the racial classifications here as if they were just like the ones in McDaniel, "devised to overcome a history of segregated public schools," post, at 2825-2826—explains its inability to understand why the remedial justification for racial classifications cannot decide these cases.

127 S. Ct. 2733, 2761 (2007) (plurality).

Seattle has no history of de jure segregation; therefore, the Constitution did not require Seattle's plan.

Though the dissent cites every manner of complaint, record material, and scholarly article relating to Seattle's race-based student assignment efforts, post, at 2839-2841, it cites no law or official policy that required separation of the races in Seattle's schools. Nevertheless, the dissent tries to cast doubt on the historical fact that the Seattle schools were never segregated by law by citing allegations that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other organizations made in court filings to the effect that Seattle's schools were once segregated by law. See post, at 2803-2805, 2812. These allegations were never proved and were not even made in this case. Indeed, the record before us suggests the contrary.

127 S. Ct. 2738, 2771 & n.7 (2007) (Thomas, J., concurring).

As it happens, the history of Seattle schools vis-a-vis segregation also made an appearance in today's Schuette opinion:

Although there hadbeen no judicial finding of de jure segregation with respect to Seattle’s school district, it appears as though school segregation in the district in the 1940’s and 1950’s may have been the partial result of school board policies that“permitted white students to transfer out of black schools while restricting the transfer of black students into white schools.” Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U. S. 701, 807–808 (2007) (BREYER, J., dissenting). In 1977, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, a federal agency. The NAACP alleged that the school board had maintained a system of de jure segregation. Specifically,the complaint alleged “that the Seattle School Board had created or perpetuated unlawful racial segregation through, e.g., certain school-transfer criteria, a construction program that needlessly built new schools in white areas, district line-drawing criteria, the maintenance of inferior facilities at black schools, the use of explicit racial criteria in the assignment of teachers and other staff, and a general pattern of delay in respect to the implementation of promised desegregation efforts.” Id., at 810. As part of a settlement with the Office for Civil Rights, the school board implemented the “Seattle Plan,” which used busing and mandatory reassignments between elementary schools to reduce racial imbalance and which was the subject of the state initiative at issue in Seattle. See 551 U. S., at 807–812.

If I were Justice Breyer I'd be inclined to lob a molotov cocktail through the window, but sure, concur in the judgment instead. At least Justice Sotomayor identifies the contradiction in footnote 9 of her dissent (and Justice Scalia does so as well in footnote 2 of his concurrence).

As for me, it's amazing how the much more trusting we are of democratic decision-making on racial issues when the ultimate decision seems to favor White people. The contrast between Schuette, on the one hand, and Parents Involved and Shelby County is so stark as to be blinding. The people, through the democratic process, decide that racism is no longer a serious problem? Democracy in action. The people, through the democratic process, declare the opposite? That's what we have courts for -- to shield powerless majorities from such intolerable insults upon their character. Once again, we can credit Scalia for his honesty -- he puts Carolene Products squarely in his cross-hairs -- possibly the first truly negative citation that venerable footnote has seen since its 1938 inception.

Poor Door

Well this is gross (via):

A luxury high-rise apartment in Manhattan’s Upper West Side is set to have a so-called “poor door” — a separate entrance for low-income residents receiving subsidized housing.
[...]
With this disparity between the million-dollar condos for purchase versus the units for rent at a phenomenally low price for Manhattan, the developer decided to design the building with separate entrances for those who own condos and those who rent at a price below market value. As one might expect, this “rich door,” “poor door” situation doesn’t sit well with some.

“This ‘separate but equal’ arrangement is abominable and has no place in the 21st century, let alone on the Upper West Side,” Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, a Democrat, told the West Side Rag. “A mandatory affordable housing plan is not license to segregate lower-income tenants from those who are well-off. The developer must follow the spirit as well the letter of the law when building affordable housing, and this plan is clearly not what was intended by the community.”

There is a fair amount of evidence that one of the best ways of fighting entrenched poverty is economic integration (read the phenomenal Waiting for Gautreaux for some stark demonstrations). Lower-income persons who live in higher-income areas have much better life chances than persons surrounded by poverty. Part of this is simply access to better services and living conditions. But it also helps mitigate the effects of hypersegregation. A person who grows up in a middle-class (or higher) neighborhood, regardless of her own socio-economic status, is more likely to have successful role models, more likely to have friends from diverse backgrounds, more likely to have personal experience with a wider swath of life possibilities.

The "poor door" -- and the concurrent segregation of the low-income tenants -- flies in the face of these ambitions. As Rosenthal puts it, it manages to obey the letter of class integration while eviscerating the spirit.

The Changing DC Region

The Washington Post has a pair of fascinating articles on shifting residential demographics in the DC area. The first documents the decline of White enclaves in the region. The second looks at the rise of the overwhelmingly Black and very wealthy Prince George's County.

How does this work? Well, it seems that (at least in the DC area), barriers to minority groups moving to White neighborhoods are finally starting to crumble, and when members of other racial groups move in, Whites aren't moving out. That being said, Whites still aren't willing to affirmatively move into neighborhoods that are predominantly non-White, which allows spaces like PG County to continue serving as Black enclaves.

Anyway, they're both good reads. Highly recommended.

UPDATE: Ta-Nehisi Coates has characteristically great thoughts.

Wealth Circles

One of the interesting factoids about race in American life is the degree to which even relatively well-off Black and Hispanic Americans are still deeply tied into structures and neighborhoods we associate with poverty. Some new census data helps paint the picture:

The average affluent black and Hispanic household -- defined in the study as earning more than $75,000 a year -- lives in a poorer neighborhood than the average lower-income non-Hispanic white household that makes less than $40,000 a year.

"Separate translates to unequal even for the most successful black and Hispanic minorities," says sociologist John Logan, director of US2010 Project at Brown University, which studies trends in American society.

"Blacks are segregated and even affluent blacks are pretty segregated," says Logan, who analyzed 2005-09 data for the nation's 384 metropolitan areas. "African Americans who really succeeded live in neighborhoods where people around them have not succeeded to the same extent."

Ta-Nehisi Coates has some great analysis.

On the one hand, this is obviously pertinent to the typical "it's not race, it's class!" rejoinder deployed against those who still think that racial injustice is a serious problem in America. I've already explained the most basic flaw in this analysis -- that race is not an independent source of disadvantage in American life -- but the continuing fact of segregation also reminds us that part of the benefit of wealth is being surrounded by wealth.

My family was quite well off. And that was very advantageous for me! But a goodly portion of that advantage also came from the fact that we lived in a wealthy, well-connected neighborhood. The fact that the whole area was well off meant that the schools had a larger than average tax base. The fact that families had considerable disposable income meant that there were more resources to support extra-curriculars. The fact that I was surrounded by high-performing individuals meant I had potential role models for virtually any high-end career I possibly could have imagined. And so on and so forth. Wealth is good on its own, but its utility multiplies dramatically when it isn't lonely. That many people of color, even those who are well off, still live in much poorer neighborhoods, with much worse services, and much fewer connections, is a detriment.

But Ta-Nehisi also points out the need not to pathologize everything. There are benefits to growing up and being able to walk in more than one world. And even if life circumstances aren't ideal, people value where they came from. I don't have much to say about that side of his post, other than recognizing its import and not wanting it to get lost.

A Success Story's Last Chapter?

Dana Goldstein reports on going-ons in Northern Virginia, where shifts in student population may cause district lines to be redrawn, moving a largely White and wealthy subdivision (Wakefield Chapter) from Annandale High School (49 percent low-income and about one-third Latino, 29 percent white, 23 percent Asian, and 15 percent black) to Woodson High School (Two-thirds white and 6 percent low-income).

The interesting part of the debate is how it is shaking out within Wakefield Chapter. Parents of younger students support the move, believing that their students will benefit from it. But parents of students already in Annandale High -- and those students itself -- are stridently opposing it, pointing out to the immense benefits they've received from attending a diverse (and academically very successful high school).

This decision has opened up an interesting rift in the neighborhood. Parents of younger kids --those currently attending whiter, wealthier elementary and middle schools--are in favor of the switch to Woodson. They assume that their own already-privileged children will get more out of a high school experience learning alongside similar peers. But current Annandale High students and parents who live in Wakefield Chapel oppose the move, saying Annandale's diversity, school spirit, and challenging curriculum have shaped their lives in positive ways. In an online petition, they also mention that Wakefield Chapel parents are active volunteers at Annandale, and that rezoning those families to another high school would negatively impact the entire Annandale student body, especially low-income kids whose own parents aren't able to get involved at school.

Dozens of Annandale High families are actively opposing this rezoning, even though current students would all be allowed to finish their high school careers at the school. These parents and teens believe that keeping Annadale integrated is the right civic decision, the best policy for future generations.

This tracks findings common amongst scholars who study integrated schools (something becoming rarer and rarer as resegregation accelerates) -- products of these schools are consistently laudatory of their experience and how it helped enable them to be at ease in multi-racial settings (or where they themselves are in the minority), preparing them for an increasingly globalized and multi-cultural workforce. The major blight on such schools was that minority students were dispirited by the contrast between their integrated educational lives and their lives outside the school doors which remained largely separate and unequal.

Segregation Forever

Wake County, North Carolina, has been long renowned as one of racial integration's few enduring success stories. But it's looking like that chapter will come to an end, as a newly elected Tea Party school board is planning to eliminate the district's integration efforts, instead (I'm not kidding) promoting a policy of concentrating poor and underprivileged students in a few schools, isolated from other pupils.

You look at the rhetoric here -- "no to the social engineers", opposition to "forced busing" -- it's literally a mimicry of the first wave of putatively "post-racial" opposition to school integration that we saw in the 1970s. The kindest thing you can say about this board is that it is indifferent to the project of educating underprivileged children (the idea that schools chock-full of concentrated poverty would be better for those kids is so far removed from empirical observation of what makes for effective schools that I'd laugh if I wasn't so angry. It's the sort of claim that would strain the credibility even of a credible speaker, which this school board is not). The least kind thing you could say is that they are taking affirmative steps to dismantle one of America's great civil rights stories.

The other thing I want to point out is what one might call (or I might soon be calling -- I've been kicking this idea around for awhile) "oppression realism". The great legal realist Karl Llewellyn had a famous article, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules of Cannons About How Statutes are to be Construed, 3 VAND. L. REV. 395 (1950), in which he demonstrated that for any canon of statutory construction, there was an equal and opposite "counter-canon" that could be used to interpret the statute in the precisely opposing way. Hence, judges have exceptionally broad latitude to interpret statutes however they please while still writing opinions that are perfectly "legalistic", in the sense of adhering to well-established legal conventions of how judges ought to behave.

And so it seems, sometimes, with our publicly stated desires for how we want minorities to act in our society. There is no stability to the requests, they are infinitely malleable to account for whatever particular policy outcome folks want to impress on a racialized issue. Out in Tuscon, Arizona, the right-wing is calling folks who support ethnic studies programs "Bull Connors" because they're "segregating". So apparently, what we want is mixing -- all blending together as Americans. Except back in North Carolina, we hear the exact opposite criticism: As one "libertarian" think tanker (lord only knows what libertarianism has to do with this) put it: "We are losing sight of the educational mission of schools to make them into some socially acceptable melting pot." Oh yes, the melting pot -- that longstanding bane of the conservative racial vision. Integration, separation -- which is it? Nobody knows. It's Calvinball.

I have to contrast this move by Wake County to the reaction of the denizens of Walthall County, Mississippi, when they found out that their "school transfer" policy was being struck down as contributing to school resegregation. One White parent, who had always considered the transfer issue to be a simple matter of student happiness, not race, reflected on the upshot of the policy: "But if all that adds up to segregated schools?" he asked, and then paused for a while. "That wouldn't be right, no."

It was a poignant moment for me, when I read that quote. Nobody's perfect, and nobody should be expected to measure out all ends. The measure of man is that, when faced with the consequences of their actions, they are willing to stand for justice. But over in Wake County, they are taking affirmative steps to undo racial justice -- deliberately seeking to turn back the clock decades. It's tremendously sad.

Die Another Day Roundup

Terrible Bond flick, but it did contain perhaps the best one-liner in the series ("How's that for a punchline?").

* * *

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) wants folks to know we have an "urban" President.

The DADT report is out, and it looks good for team anti-discrimination.

Best quote from a soldier in that report? "We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay."

The NAACP is hosting a summit on the growing resegregation of our schools.

TNC on the "secession ball" neo-confederates are planning on hosting.

What makes food safety the one thing that actually managed to secure GOP cooperation this term?

US condemns Palestinian pseudo-science which denies Jewish link to the Western Wall.

Federal court judge issues a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of an Oklahoma law which would forbid courts from considering international or shariah law.

From the WIkiLeak: Qatari emir says he "can't blame" Israel for mistrusting Arabs.

Speaking of the WikiLeaks, I haven't been following them that closely, but I read somewhere that the one party whose private communications contained no surprising revelations is Israel. They're communiques with America apparently relay much the same things as what they say in public. So much for shadowy Zionists.

The Fruits of Their Labor

The Washington Post has an interesting profile of Louisville's continued efforts to keep their schools integrated after the Supreme Court's Parents Involved decision. The short story is that what was originally a rather popular and cost-effective plan is now more expensive, more convoluted, more difficult to administer, less effective and far less popular.

But hey -- at least Chief Justice Roberts got a pithy quote out of it.

No, Dr. King Would Not Be Proud

On the occasion of helping lead a right-wing rally on the Mall on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech", Sarah Palin declared her hope that "Dr. King would be so proud of us."

In his famous speech, Dr. King answered those who asked "When will you be satisfied?" He replied:

We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

As my friend notes, some of these, like the exclusion of Blacks from hotels, the "Whites only" signs, and the flat prohibition on Blacks voting in the South, have been rectified. Others, though -- like police brutality and rampant residential segregation, have not.

Has Sarah Palin spoken out on the issue of housing segregation? Has she spoken out on the issue of police brutality? Not that I can recall. Those aren't her issues. Those aren't her passion. And I doubt she knows or cares enough about the legacy of Dr. King to even know her short-comings.

I wrote several years ago that, for much of America, the only "good" civil rights leader was, quite literally, a dead one (Dr. King). There is a reason why the same admiration the right bestows upon Dr. King hasn't been granted to any of his surviving lieutenants.

Being dead, he can't contest or contextualize the actual content of his beliefs. Being dead, he can't remind audiences of the criticisms and abuse he was subjected to during his campaigns, and how it is eerily reminiscent of the charges foisted upon contemporary Black leaders. And being dead, he is no longer a political threat, and thus is a safe person to prop up upon an altar and praise. Were he alive, we might be faced with the uncomfortable prospect that this great hero of American history might demand we actually fulfill our covenant with Black citizens, and that would require actual change and reform and sacrifice. Dead people tell no such tales.

I firmly believe that, if Dr. King were alive today, Sarah Palin and her cohorts would believe he is a radical agitator, a socialist sympathizer, maybe someone who once had some important ideas, but whose time had effectively passed. It is quite fortunate, then, that he is dead, so he can be stripped of his essence and turned into a icon.

So no, I don't think Dr. King would be proud to be treated in this manner. I don't think he would be proud to have his legacy abandoned -- contorted as some abstract paean to "equality" rather than as a concrete struggle for justice. Sarah Palin can change that, by actually adopting Dr. King's agenda. But she won't. And he is not proud to be used as a tool by the likes of Sarah Palin..

Haredi Protests Planned Over Israeli Desegregation Order

The Haredi Jewish community in Israel is planning to protest the enforcement of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling which would require they desegregate their schools (currently, Ashkenazi and Sepharidc Jewish students are kept apart in these ultra-religious academies). If the parents disobey the court order, they risk a two-week jail sentence for contempt of court.

Am I the only one who really isn't bothered at the prospect of a bunch of racists being thrown in jail for awhile by the Israeli government? Seriously, my sympathy for these blots on the holy name is very, very limited.

Mississippi Sense

It's easy to get demoralized about the fact that a Mississippi school district is, in 2010, facing a desegregation order after a court found its school transfer policy had created racially identifiable school. But, optimist that I am, I'm actually finding hope. Why? Because the district officials and residents seem to have owned up to what happened, and understand why it has to change:

"I didn't realize it was getting to the point anyone should worry about it," said Jay Boyd, the school board president, who is white. "I just thought we need to do what's best for students -- if they're happy, let them go to Salem. Who's it hurting?"
[...]
Boyd, the school board president, reluctantly acknowledged that racism probably played a role in the transfer requests. "I thought that was a thing of the past," he said. "You live and you learn."
[...]
The ruling has led some white parents in Walthall County to reconsider the systemic effects of individual choice. Roger Ginn, a white parent whose children graduated from both Tylertown and Salem, said he'd always considered the transfer issue to be a simple matter of student happiness, not race.

"But if all that adds up to segregated schools?" he asked, and then paused for a while. "That wouldn't be right, no."

It's easy to lapse into defensiveness when faced with an order like this -- a tendency, I can't help but think, that is accentuated when the rest of the country is holding you up as the racist hillbillies who got stuck in the last century. To their credit, it looks like the residents of this county aren't taking that route. And that's worth commending.

Stomp the Floor

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a devastating piece up comparing ex-Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN), now considering a run for Senate in New York, to those figures in Southern politics who knew segregation was wrong, but said what they had to say to get elected. George Wallace (and I did not know this) had a reputation as a particularly unbiased and fair-minded judge for Blacks in the south, and indeed at one point ran for office with the NAACP's backing. It failed miserably. And so, Wallace said:

You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor.

Ford's political ambitions have caused him to take a variety of socially conservative positions that he is now racing to disavow. The most morally pernicious of these was his effort to position himself as the most anti-gay of the anti-gay politicians that infect the American political system. It's probable that Ford really didn't have a problem with gay marriage. But, as Coates writes:

In the 1950s and 1960s, Alabama had in its midst men who knew segregation was a reeking abomination, but embraced it because it allowed them to fix a road in their hometown, build a clinic in the underserved backwoods, or just hook a friend up for a job. Or maybe it was just power--who can tell?

From my perspective, motive is irrelevant. (There's usually a good reason to do evil. That's the nature of evil.) It takes a particular kind of cowardice to throw people's lives aside and bow to the mutually destructive curse of discrimination. I can believe Harold Ford was never actually against gay marriage, and was more concerned with good schools and good roads. But then when he said "constitutional amendment," they stomped the floor.

Amen.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/09/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

It's election time, and you know what that means: illegally keeping eligible voters off the rolls!

Polling places may not have the resources to handle the expected crush of voters this election.

The Supreme Court is examining whether employees who cooperate in discrimination and harassment cases, but are not the complaining parties themselves, are protecting via anti-retaliation provisions.

A federal appeals court has blocked the release of 17 innocent men being detained at Guantanamo, pending a hearing by that court.

Not only was the torture regime developed at Guantanamo exported to American prisons, but some officials worried that the tactics used domestically were actually "harsher" than those at our Cuban base.

High fuel prices mean its harder to run school buses. Not running buses means kids only go to their neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools lead to school resegregation. Resegregation means students suffer.

An Iowa resident crossed into Nebraska to take advantage of the state's extremely broad "safe haven" law, abandoning her 14 year old daughter to state authorities.

A federal judge is urging immigration authorities to hold off deporting a man until his civil case against the Boston Police concludes. The man served 19 years in prison for rapes that he did not commit.

Another immigration raid, another town torn asunder.

The Cook County (Chicago) sheriff has ordered his deputies to cease evicting people, arguing that many of the evicted are renters who have done nothing wrong -- victims of landlords whose properties are being repossessed.

The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a death row inmate arguing he's too fat to be executed. The argument is that his girth will make it too hard to find a vein insuring the execution is done quickly and painlessly.

It's looking as if minority college enrollment is stalling out. In an amazing coincidence, affirmative action efforts have also been stalling out or proactively rolled back in recent years.

Another Virginia paper comes out in favor of re-enfranchising ex-felons.

The Department of Justice has checked -- for now -- efforts by a Georgia county's election officials to investigate the citizenship of voters whom the county had suspicions about.

Quote of the Evening

From Derrick Bell, Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform (Oxford UP, 2004):

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, now a federal judge but writing as a University of Virginia professor two decades after Brown, offered practical details of why Brown II was a mistake. Brown II, he felt, left federal judges far too exposed; it "gave trial judges little to wrap in or hide behind. The enormous discretion of the trial judge in interpreting such language as 'all deliberate speed' and 'prompt and reasonable start' made his personal role painfully obvious." The judge who, in trying to enforce Brown, did more than the bare minimum, would be held unpleasantly accountable by the active, vocal, and powerful opposition that surrounded him. Wilkinson explained:

Segregationists were always able to point to more indulgent judges elsewhere. Brown II thus resembled nothing more than an order for the infantry to assault segregation without prospect of air or artillery support. That some of the infantry lacked enthusiasm for the cause only made matters worse.... Given the vague and sparse character of Brown II and the Court's low profile thereafter, stagnation was inevitable.

The Wilkinson block quote is from J. Harvie Wilkinson III, The Supreme Court * Southern School Desegregation, 1955 - 1970: A History and Analysis, 64 Va. L. Rev. 485, 507 (1978).

And my schizophrenic relationship with Judge Wilkinson continues.

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/06/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Almost forget today, kids ... I took the day off from work to catch up on some law school related paperwork, and my mind assumed it was a weekend.

It's tough being a woman of color in the military.

Chicago is starting to detain Hispanics during traffic stops on suspicion of being illegal immigrants, apparently in violation of local law.

Cry me a river of tears: Prince Williams County's aggressive campaign to undertake immigration enforcement on its own is costing more money than expected.

Two members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have written an op-ed protesting the Bush administration's policies in the wake of the Postville raid.

The McCain campaign has apologized after a Black reporter was apparently singled out and tossed from one of his events.

Mr. Medellin has been executed. Hopefully, the damage to the Vienna Convention will not be too great.

The Atlanta police force is facing a sex discrimination lawsuit from a former high ranking officer.

Wal-Mart is furiously denying that it told its employees to vote against Democrats (which would have probably been illegal).

A local resident has stepped up to pay the tuition of a high school valedictorian who was facing deportation due to his father's immigration problems.

The original judge on the Jena 6 case has already been removed, and now defense attorneys are trying to follow suit with the prosecutor.

A poultry plant with a large contingent of Muslim workers has replaced Labor day with a Muslim holiday as one of the worker's eight official days off. Despite the fact that all the principals (management and the union) seem to be happy with it, the union president (who is Jewish) is getting a lot of negative feedback from outsiders who think that its anti-American. Or something.

The EEOC has found evidence that a Louisville Sheriff violated the civil rights of female employees through sexual harassment.

Bad headline, good story about the battle to register Black voters as Obama makes a play for North Carolina.

Chicago-area parents are alleging that the practice of holding classes in trailers is abetting racial segregation.

The NYT asks: Is Obama the End of Black Politics?

Civil Rights Roundup: 7/28/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

An Iowa town has become "a flashpoint" for immigration protests after a raid on a meat processing plants. One anti-immigrant protester held a sign saying "What would Jesus do? Obey the law!" Umm...my Christian theology isn't great, but I'm not sure that's strictly accurate.

Maryland might finally be recognized as having eliminated the last vestiges of segregation in its public college system.

McCain flips on affirmative action, announces support of Arizona plan which would ban the program.

On the above issue, though, CNN reports that "McCain's own campaign refused to say whether it stands by the candidate's announcement that he supports the ballot initiative." I wasn't aware that "the McCain campaign" had the authority to trump John McCain as to his own position.

An ex-felon in Florida has founded a group to help other released felons reintegrate into society.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an expansion of that state's hate crimes laws, ruling that they were unconstitutionally inserted into an unrelated bill.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette asks: Should sex offenders be tracked?

A California attorney representing a man shot by a Oakland police officer said he is going to press the state to bring homicide charges against the cop.

Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) have an op-ed out calling for the expansion of the ADA.

A new Virginia law requires that all foreign-born inmates be reported to federal authorities. I can't imagine that's constitutional as applied to foreign born U.S. citizens.

Two Muslim women are suing McDonalds, claiming that they were denied positions with the company because they wore the hijab (Muslim headscarf).

Racism slithers in to the campaign Obama runs, the Wichita Eagle reports.

The simmering split between the gay and transgender rights community continues to fester, with LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pulling out of a gay rights rally under heavy pressure from transgender groups angry about the former community's stance on federal anti-discrimination legislation.

Supporters and opponents of flying the Confederate flag near Tampa met to have some "dialogue." It didn't sound very successful.

Civil Rights Roundup: 07/10/08

Your morning dose of civil rights and related news

The American Medical Association is set to apologize for its racist past, including excluding Black doctors and largely sitting out the civil rights movement.

The NAACP alleges that Nashville's new zoning plan will alter the racial dynamics of the city so much that it actually re-establishes segregation.

A performing arts charter school in LA with a focus on hip-hop is probably going to be shut down after its charter expires.

You're saying "Asian" is too broad a description to accurately capture a coherent, unified set of people with regards to educational achievement? Whoa!

The San Francisco Chronicle has an editorial exposing how ridiculous the fears surrounding the demise of the English language are.

In related news, though I personally am awful with foreign languages, I can still recognize that if I were able to learn one it'd be a valuable skill. That apparently qualifies as progressive in today's political context.

Police officers in Maryland also see the benefit of foreign language knowledge.

The Washington Post writes on how the declining Latino population is affecting Prince Williams County, Virginia.

Is progress against pay discrimination and the "glass ceiling" (or as the author calls it, porthole) stalling out?

Republicans are investigating voter fraud in largely Black Alabama counties. Maybe there is a there there, but it remains true that voter disenfranchisement is a far, far worse problem than voter fraud.

On the front of trying to encourage more engagement, not less, the We Are America Alliance (WAAA) is kicking off a huge campaign to encourage immigrants to become citizens, citizens to register, and registered voters to get to the polls.

Afrocentric Schooling in Toronto

At the American Prospect, Dana Goldstein has a good article up on the debate over establishing afrocentric schools in Toronto, Canada. Though the background of Black students in Toronto is different from typical state-side patterns (the former are more likely to descend from Caribbean immigrant families, the latter from slaves), both share problems with school performance and graduation rates. She concludes:

Toronto certainly isn't alone in trying Afrocentric education as a way to combat the high dropout rate among black students. In Ossining, New York, the diverse local public school district has been experimenting with African drumming lessons and masculinity support groups for black boys. These activities take place during school-day elective periods or as after school extracurriculars, meaning students are gleaning the benefits of both culturally relevant schooling and the increased tolerance of diversity that researchers have found is inculcated in students of all races who attend integrated schools.

Unfortunately, Afrocentric public education, no matter what its effects on self-esteem, hasn't yet proven successful at raising low income black children's academic achievement. Another argument against such programs -- one that's been made by Ontario's Premier McGuinty -- is that students of all races and ethnicities would benefit from Afrocentric teaching. In Ossining, for example, wouldn't all third graders enjoy lessons in African drumming? In Toronto, teachers have already had success teaching multiracial classes about probability through a lesson on racial profiling. If those creative educators are siphoned off to a black-only school, the rest of the student population will be denied the opportunity to tackle an important sociological issue while learning math in a new and exciting way.

The good news is that with almost 300,000 students, 30 percent of whom are immigrants and over half of whom speak a first language other than English, the Toronto school district is large and diverse enough to encompass multiple experiments in how best to educate at-risk kids. One Afrocentric public school won't rip Canadian integrationist values to shreds, and, if successful, the new program could someday provide educators with innovative examples of how to make school more culturally relevant to students of color.

I think that hits it about right.