NAACP LDF successfully defends race-conscious admission in higher education

Federal Court Upholds UT Austin’s Admissions Plan as a Constitutional Pursuit of Diversity

(New York, NY) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the admissions program utilized by the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) to assemble a diverse student body. Fisher v. Texas is the first federal appellate challenge to the use of race in university admissions since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. The Fifth Circuit’s unanimous decision affirms that UT Austin’s admissions plan is entirely consistent with Grutter.

In an opinion authored by Judge Patrick Higginbotham, the Fifth Circuit recognized “[t]he need for a state’s leading educational institution to foster civic engagement and maintain visibly open paths to leadership.” Today’s opinion further emphasized that “cultivating paths to leadership for underrepresented groups serves both the individual and the public, sustaining an infrastructure of leaders in an increasingly pluralistic society.”

“Our nation’s future depends on students being exposed to diversity in their formative educational experiences,” said John Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF).

This lawsuit was launched in 2008 by two white students who were denied entry to UT Austin. Most students are admitted to UT Austin under the Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to all Texas students in the top ten percent of their high school class. The remaining students are admitted under a holistic admissions process that considers race as one of many factors in a student’s application file.

During oral argument before the Fifth Circuit and in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the Black Student Alliance at UT Austin, LDF emphasized the isolation experienced by the small numbers of African-American students who enrolled at UT Austin in the eight-year period before it reinstituted race as a factor in admissions for the 2005 entering class. By themselves, the Top Ten Percent Plan and other race-neutral efforts that the University pursued were insufficient to achieve a critical mass of African-American students and other students of color. As a consequence, LDF argued that all students were deprived of the educational benefits of diversity. It was for this reason, that UT Austin decided, after careful evaluation, to institute the limited race-conscious admissions process which the Fifth Circuit panel today unanimously agreed is a lawful application of Grutter.

“Today’s ruling affirms that universities have wide latitude to seek diversity in their student bodies,” said LDF Assistant Counsel Joshua Civin, who presented oral argument in the Fifth Circuit on behalf of LDF and the Black Student Alliance.

The law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP is co-counsel with LDF in this case. Also supporting UT Austin’s position in this case were the United States, the American Council of Education and other higher education organizations, and numerous civil rights groups including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and the Asian American Justice Center.

Read more...

The Kansas African American Museum unveils new exhibit to promote Prematurity Awareness

The Wichita Branch NAACP, The Kansas African American Museum, The March of Dimes and Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc and other collaborating organizations are working together to promote Prematurity Awareness.

Pre-term birth/low birth weight is one of the leading causes of infant deaths in Kansas. Across all races and ethnicities, infant deaths occur most often for young mothers under the age of 20, who are single parents, and who have less than a high school level of education.

According to the March of Dimes, “While the national infant mortality rate continues to decline, the Kansas rate is nearly 20 percent higher. While many states have made progress in closing the gap between white and black infant mortality, Kansas has not. Kansas ranks highest in the nation for black infant mortality.”

By coming together, we hope to ensure that every woman has a healthy pregnancy, gets early prenatal care and support services, learns about safe sleep, and makes choices that promote healthy lifestyles for a lifetime.

The Kansas African American Museum is now hosting a display entitled “Prematurity: A visual perspective”. An open house will be held tonight (November 29th) from 6-7pm, refreshments will be provided. Please join us in our efforts to address this important public health issue. For more information about the event please go contact J’Vonnah Maryman at 316-706-7776.


Every pregnant woman should be considered at risk of preterm birth. Around the 20th week of pregnancy, all pregnant women should learn the signs and symptoms of preterm labor and what they can do if they occur. To help prevent preterm birth, women should:

• Know the warning signs of preterm labor.
• Get regular prenatal checkups.
• Reduce stress.
• Quit smoking, drinking alcohol or using illegal drugs.
• Avoid secondhand smoke.
• Call a healthcare provider if she feels burning or pain when urinating (possible sign of an infection that can increase the risk of preterm birth).

To learn more please visit:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/kansas/
www.datacounts.net/infant_mortality/
www.kdheks.gov/bcyf/infant_mortality_campaign.htm

Read more...

Senate filibuster kills the Paycheck Fairness Act (S.3772)

The Paycheck Fairness Act (S.3772) was designed to update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially the same work. An identical measure was passed in the House of Representatives as HR12 back in March of 2009.

The Act would have revised the remedies for, enforcement of, and exceptions to prohibitions against sex discrimination in the payment of wages. Wage Rate Differentials (differing pay rates for persons performing essentially the same job) are generally prohibited but with some exceptions. The Paycheck Fairness Act would have limited the exceptions to the prohibition against wage rate differentials to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience. It would have made employers who violated sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or (except for the federal government) punitive damages. And lastly, it also would have partially closed the loophole in discrimination cases caused by the Courts allowance of alternate definitions of the term "similarly situated" when determining whether disparate treatment and actions rise to the legal standard of Discrimination. And it would have pushed back against the trend in discrimination cases to so limit considerations and to require such specific evidence as to place an unreachable burden on plaintiffs. The Act stated:

(b) The Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the Office--
(1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at the Office’s disposal, including pay grade methodology;
(B) in considering evidence of possible compensation discrimination--
(i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of types of evidence; and
(ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
(C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
(2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and enforcement activities, shall define ‘similarly situated employees’ in a way that is consistent with and not more stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of subsection A of section 10-III of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000)

In addition to strengthening the language and penalties of the original Equal Pay Act, this bill would have also made grant funding available to provide negotiation skills training programs for girls and women. It also called for the convening of a national summit to discuss, and consider approaches for rectifying pay disparities.

Opponents of the act argue that the status quo is just fine. They falsely claim that the current system for determining pay discrimination (known as the Interpretative Standards for Systemic Compensation Discrimination) has been hugely successful and therefore need not be altered. They further claim that any alteration of the system would likely result in additional claims being ruled in favor of plaintiffs (alleging discrimination) and that THAT would be "bad for business"...

But the truth is, it is NEVER good business to discriminate.

We here at the Wichita NAACP Blog have been sounding the alarm for years now that the Civil Rights that we take for granted are under real threat. Laws are dynamic; once passed, they must be protected. No victory is permanent and every gain, if taken for granted, can be lost. This bill was an offensive salvo; a bill intended to push us back in the direction of level playing fields and fundamental fairness... this bill was killed today - but the fight must go on.

Read more...

The American Constitution Society releases new brief on SCOTUS decisions that undermine Civil Rights Enforcement

Over the last three years, this blog has attempted to sound the alarm about the Supreme Courts shift away from the enforcement and the intent of Civil Rights Legislation. With a series of subsequent decisions, the Courts have continuously raised the legal thresholds and pleading standards until we now have a system where litigants in Civil Rights cases must meet a nearly insurmountable burden of proof just to avoid dismissal or summary judgement.

By requiring plaintiffs in Civil Rights or discrimination cases to essentially prove the plausibility of their claims at the time of pleading and PRIOR to discovery, the courts have created a standard in which only the most egregious, most obvious, and least sophisticated acts could successfully be prosecuted.

It has become easier to coat various forms of discrimination with the appearance of propriety, or to ascribe some other less odious intention to what is in reality discriminatory behavior. In other words, while discriminatory conduct persists, violators have learned not to leave the proverbial “smoking gun” behind. ~ Third Circuit Court

The American Constitution Society has released a brief which details the Supreme Courts construction of new and onerous legal standards in the Twombly and Iqbal cases which undermine Civil Rights enforcement by limiting plaintiffs access to the courts.

Click HERE to download the report

Read more...

What happens to a dream deferred?

47 years ago, the NAACP, the SNCC, the SCLC, CORE, the Urban League, and A Phillip Randolph came together and led the groundbreaking 1963 March on Washington. The organizers and host organizations each spoke eloquently to the needs and concerns of our community, but certainly the day belonged to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. On that day he delivered his "I have a dream" speech" which is considered by many to be one of the greatest speeches ever recorded.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

For far too many, the entire speech, the march, and Dr. King's legacy as a whole, is simplified and reduced to that single line. It is a beautiful sentiment to be sure, but when taken as a summation of King's mission and message, the "Dream" itself is diminished. Dr. King said so much more... He spoke not only to his dreams and aspirations for the nation he wished his children to inherit, but he also spoke quite eloquently and often about the obstacles and conditions we would need to overcome to get there.

"...one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

Dr. King went on to speak until his death about the need to challenge racism, discrimination, militarism, religious bigotry, and poverty. In fact, on the night before his assassination, Dr. King spoke in Memphis, where he was organizing a campaign on behalf of sanitation workers. In that speech he said to the many Reverends in attendance:

"it's all right to talk about "long white robes over yonder," in all of its symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. It's all right to talk about "streets flowing with milk and honey," but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day. It's all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God's preachers must talk about the New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. This is what we have to do."

But what of us now?
On this day of celebration, many will lay claim to the mantle of Dr. King and the movement. Many will pronounce their intent to "restore" it or "reclaim" it or otherwise... But as we sing and celebrate, let us not forget that just last month, shortly after President Obama announced a $1.25 billion settlement for black farmers who were found to have faced overt discrimination by the USDA in the eighties and nineties, Congress refused to authorize the money. The Senate stripped the funding for the Pigford II settlement and several other programs from a bill that appropriated more funds for our war efforts.

Let us not forget that in Gainesville Florida, Muslim religious scriptures are being burned in the name of God. In Cobb County Georgia, Hartford Connecticut, Chicago Illinois, Morton Grove Illinois, and Mayfield Kentucky, permits to build Mosques are being denied or revoked. And in New York City, where even an Islamic community center is seemingly subject to a popular vote, on Tuesday of last week, a 43 year old cab driver from Bangladesh was asked if he was a Muslim. When he stated that he was, the passenger pulled out a knife and cut his throat.

Let us not forget that we are now in the 9th year of our longest war, with no end in sight, EVEN as our schools are laying off teachers, growing class sizes, and consolidating buildings due to the lack of funds.

Let us not forget that the victory in Brown vs the Board of Education which stated that separate was inherently unequal and had no place in public education, is routinely and ubiquitously undermined by those seeking to withdraw children into racially homogeneous enclaves, aided by State and District Courts...

Let us not forget that after the bailouts, and the loans, and the stimulus funds, OUR wealth has been redistributed to the rich, while THEIR pain and loss was redistributed to US.

Let us not forget that 5 years after Katrina, many from the lower 9th STILL are without their homes.

Let us not forget that a study released in March of this year showed that the average median wealth for a single Black Female was only $5.00

Let us not forget that according to a report recently released by the Schott foundation, the National graduation rate for Black males is only 47%, and in some States like New York, it is as low as 25%.

Let us not forget that within many of our inner cities, a culture of resignation and under achievement have taken root; animating our young men with a spirit of hopelessness and discontent which allows them to take and trade young lives with neither forethought or remorse.

Let us not forget that in cases like Ricci vs DeStepano, Gross vs FBL Financial Services, Iqbal vs Ashcroft, Phillips vs Ford Motor Company, and Citizens United vs the FCC, the courts have attacked and deliberately weakened existing Civil Rights law making it increasingly difficult to hold corporations and institutions accountable for violations against common citizens.

Let us not fail to notice that with each passing day our national dialogue becomes increasingly shrill and coarse, and as we retreat to our lesser and more tribal selves, we move further and further away from the 'Dream' we each seek to honor.

Honoring King requires more than our sharing his quotes, reciting his speeches, retracing his steps or displaying his likeness... We honor the messenger by carrying the message, and right now, as badly as ever, our society needs to hear it...

Read more...

Full text of Senator Franken's remarks on the Supreme Court's shift away from civil rights and legal protections

Thank you, Judy, for that introduction, and for your work on behalf of working Americans. Thank you to Caroline Fredrickson for your leadership and for inviting me to speak here tonight. Thank you all for being here tonight, and for the good work you do to defend the Constitution and the American values it represents. It is an honor to address this convention.

Speakers at past ACS gatherings have included Supreme Court Justices, Attorneys General, other cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and distinguished legal scholars. So tonight I guess we'll finally get an answer to the question: "What do Stephen Breyer, Laurence Tribe, and Al Franken have in common?" Other than: "They were all in the front row when the Dead played the Garden back in '71."

Tonight, we celebrate the rise of a new generation of progressive legal scholars and jurists. Look to your left. Look to your right. Odds are, at least one of the three of you will someday be filibustered by Senate Republicans. Speaking of which, I'd like to give a special shout-out to all the filibustered nominees we have here with us tonight.

The Republican obstruction that is standing between you and the work you've agreed to do for your country is unacceptable. And we will continue to fight it. In particular, I want to recognize Dawn Johnsen, who should be the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. What Republicans have done to keep you from doing that important job is flat out wrong. And I want to recognize Goodwin Liu, who should be sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now, and who deserves an up-or-down vote.

When I joined the Senate, I was thrown right into the fire as a member of the Judiciary Committee, where, by the way, I enthusiastically voted for Goodwin. On my fifth day in office, I found myself taking part in the confirmation hearings for now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Just like I am tonight, I was one of the few non-lawyers in the room, but I didn't mind. You see, I did some research, and it turns out that most Minnesotans aren't lawyers, either. But that doesn't mean they aren't directly affected every day by what happens on the Supreme Court, and in our legal system.

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to recognize that the Roberts Court has, consistently and intentionally, protected and promoted the interests of the powerful over those of individual Americans. And you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to understand what that means for the working people who are losing their rights, one 5-4 decision at a time.

Tonight, I'd like to talk about how we got to this sad moment in American legal history - because it didn't happen by accident.

Conservative activists - led by the Federalist Society - have waged a remarkably successful battle to re-shape our legal discourse, and thus our legal system. And they're not done yet. I should acknowledge up front that this story is kind of a downer.

But there's good news: the ending has not yet been written. And I really believe that, if we pay attention to how things got so bad, we'll learn how to make them better.

---
Federalist Society members have long believed that, if you change the way you talk about the law, you can change the law.

They are right.

If you listen to the U.S. Senate talk about judicial nominees, you'd be forgiven for thinking that originalism was a time-honored American value, one of the things we fought the British to protect. But ironically enough, originalism - like the designated hitter - only dates back a few decades. Indeed, as Cass Sunstein has pointed out, it was Robert Bork who first popularized the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted according to what we believe was the "original understanding" of its authors. Just to clarify: That's not Robert Bork the Founding Father. That's Robert Bork the 20th century conservative legal activist.

Originalism isn't a pillar of our Constitutional history. It's a talking point.

During his confirmation hearing, John Roberts broke out another conservative talking point. He said: "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them." And he promised: "I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."

How ridiculous. Judges are nothing like umpires.

You know who agrees that judges are nothing like umpires? The guy who came up with the umpire analogy in the first place. In 1886, in State v. Crittenden, a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice ruled that "a trial is not a mere lutte" - lutte is a French term for a wrestling match, as this analogy dates back to when baseball was a just a cult phenomenon - "a trial is not a mere lutte between counsel, in which the judge sits merely as an umpire to decide disputes which may arise between them." So, when it comes to this analogy, I guess I'm an originalist.

But this kind of bamboozlement is effective. You hear Senators of both parties rush to condemn judges who might "legislate from the bench." The end result is that people like Goodwin Liu - a brilliant, thoughtful, passionate young legal mind with a terrific life story and character references from the likes of Ken Starr - get tagged as dangerous radicals. Look, say what you will about Ken Starr, but he's not the sort of guy who pals around with dangerous radicals. Well. Not left-wing radicals.

---
The Federalist Society has changed the way we talk about judges - and the way we talk about justice. Justice Souter once said: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected." Conservatives would like us to forget this lesson.

They've distorted our constitutional discourse to make it sound like the Court's rulings don't matter to ordinary people, but only to the undeserving riff-raff at the margins of society. So unless you want to get a late-term abortion, burn a flag in the town square, or get federal funding for your pornographic artwork, you really don't need to worry about what the Supreme Court is up to.

The ACLU has a long and proud history of defending the First Amendment, and while I haven't seen polling on this, I'd bet that most Americans are fairly pro-First Amendment. But, thanks to a generation of conservative activism, the ACLU is now best known as "those guys who hate Christmas."

By defining the terms of constitutional debate such that it doesn't involve the lives of ordinary people, conservatives have disconnected Americans from their legal system. And that leaves room for lots of shenanigans.

---
By controlling the conversation, the Federalist Society has moved the Supreme Court sharply to the right. "Including myself," Justice Stevens said in an interview with the New York Times, "every judge who's been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That's bound to have an effect on the court." And, indeed, the Roberts Court has overturned two principles I believe are deeply ingrained in our Constitution, in our legal tradition, and in our American values.

First: Judicial restraint.

As I have noted repeatedly - and in an increasingly exasperated tone of voice - over the last few years, Justice Thomas has voted to overturn federal laws more often than Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer combined. They haven't just been activists in their decisions, but also in their process.

In both Citizens United and Gross, the Court answered questions it wasn't asked, reaching beyond the scope of what they accepted for appeal to overturn federal laws the conservative wing didn't like. I mean, I don't speak Latin. But unless stare decisis means "overturn stuff," then maybe it's time for conservatives to stop calling other people "dangerous radicals."

Second, and more importantly: They've overturned the principle that the law should be a place where ordinary people can turn for relief when wronged by the powerful.

At the front entrance to the Supreme Court building here in Washington, beneath the words "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW," there's a set of 1,300-pound bronze doors. Countless Americans have flowed through those doors to see the place where that principle is protected. Now those doors have been locked to the public. Things have changed.

---
Supreme Court jurisprudence involves weighing competing interests. Most Americans are familiar with cases in which the Court has had to balance individual rights against some compelling state interest. It's easy to feel disconnected from these cases. Even though the government has awesome power - enough to take away your freedom, or even your life - the degree to which that power is deemed to supersede your individual rights doesn't really enter into the daily lives of most Americans.

But there's more than one kind of power.

If you have a credit card, if you watch TV, if you file insurance claims, if you work - in other words, if you participate in American daily life at all - then you interact with corporations that are more powerful than you are. The degree to which those corporations' rights are protected over yours, well, that's extremely relevant to your life. And in case after case after case, the Roberts Court has put not just a thumb, but a fist, on the scale in favor of those corporations. A fist with brass knuckles. Which weigh a lot. Because they're brass.

It's important to recognize that, for some conservative legal activists, this is the whole point. Do they want to undercut abortion and immigration and Miranda rights? Sure. But those are just cherries on the sundae. What conservative legal activists are really interested in is this question: What individual rights are so basic and so important that they should be protected above a corporation's right to profit? And their preferred answer is: None of them. Zero.

More than a century ago, in Lochner, the Court held that a state cannot intervene to protect the interests of an individual entering into a work relationship with an employer. In other words, the Court held that employees should have to fend for themselves against the same powerful corporations they rely on for a paycheck.

Last month, Rand Paul, the Republican Senate candidate down in Kentucky, got into some hot water for suggesting that we really shouldn't have used the law to force private businesses to stop discriminating against African-Americans, that the market would have eventually handled it. My question was: In what year would the market have gotten around to doing that? 1965? 1967? 1987? 1997? Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act deals with the workplace, because your rights at work are civil rights.

And without legal protection, workers would have no leverage to secure those basic rights: the right to organize and bargain for better wages, the right to a safe work environment, the right not to get fired because of who you are. It's a nightmare for progressives, but a dream for powerful economic elites and their legal activist allies: a return to Lochner, to a system of corporate authoritarianism where business giants hold all the cards and workers have to hope that the market will someday provide them with basic rights.

---
Those elites are well on their way. The Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the legal protections that help ordinary people find justice when wronged by the economically powerful.

In Stoneridge, it stripped shareholders of their ability to get their money back from the firms that helped defraud them.

In Conkright, it gave employers more leeway to deny workers their pension benefits.

In Leegin, it made it harder for small business owners to stop price fixing under the Sherman Act. Now, the burden is on them--small business owners--to show that price fixing will hurt competition.

In Iqbal, it made it harder for everybody to get their day in court.

In Exxon, it capped punitive damages resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill because, get this, having to own up to your mistakes creates "unpredictability" for corporations. Which, by the way, means that BP's liability may be capped because the Court doesn't want to cause an unpredictable impact on its future profitability.

In Rapanos, it cut huge swaths of wetlands out of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands that had been covered for 30 years.

You know what has a lot of wetlands? Minnesota. No, really. You know what else has a lot of wetlands? The Gulf Coast. I could spend a long time talking about how these cases were wrongly decided. But I'm not an academic - and these aren't academic issues. These decisions affect real people. They hurt real people.

Jamie Leigh Jones is a real person who went to work for KBR, then a Halliburton subsidiary. When she arrived in Iraq in July of 2005, she immediately complained to her supervisors about sexual harassment in her barracks, which housed over 400 men and only a handful of women.

KBR just mocked her. Then, four days after she got to Iraq, she was drugged and gang-raped by several of her co-workers. When she woke up, she struggled to the infirmary and had a doctor administer a rape kit, which KBR promptly lost.

Then, Jamie was locked in a shipping container under armed guard and prohibited from any contact with the outside world.

Because of the Court's decision in Circuit City, KBR had been able to force new employees like Jamie to sign a contract requiring that any future disputes be arbitrated in secret and not in open court. So Jamie Leigh Jones spent four years fighting for her right just to get her day in court after her employer put her in a dangerous situation, ignored her concerns, and kept her hostage in a shipping container after she was gang-raped.

Lilly Ledbetter is a real person who worked as a manager at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama. Towards the end of 20 years of service there, she noticed that her male co-workers had gotten more and better raises. By 1998, when she took early retirement, she was earning several hundred dollars less per month than her male counterparts. So she sued.

But the Court decided to give Goodyear maximum leeway to avoid responsibility for pay discrimination, thanks to the most unbelievable loophole you can imagine. The law requires that discrimination claims be brought within 180 days. The Court decided that this meant within 180 days - from the time Goodyear started discriminating against Lilly, not the most recent discriminatory check. And Lilly lost out on a chance to recoup years of wage increases that were illegally withheld just because she's a woman.

---
Now, the judiciary is just one branch of our system. I was proud to pass legislation giving victims like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. And I was thrilled to see that the very first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. But even as it has closed the door on ordinary Americans looking for justice in the legal system, this Court has made it harder for the political system to address these injustices.


In Citizens United, the Roberts Court overstepped its procedural bounds so that it could graciously provide corporations with First Amendment rights and, by the way, open the door to foreign entities deciding our elections. But, again, as bad a piece of jurisprudence as that decision was, even worse could be the ramifications it will have on the lives of real people.

Well into the 1960s, oil companies didn't want to stop putting lead in gasoline despite the fact that they knew how dangerous it was. But Congress passed the Clean Air Act anyway. And the percentage of children with elevated levels of lead in their blood dropped 84 per cent over the next quarter century. And around that same time, our car companies still didn't want to put seat belts in cars, even though they knew it would save lives. But Congress passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Act anyway. And by the year 2000, the fatality rate from car accidents had dropped 71 per cent. Both laws passed just a couple of months before midterm elections.

Does anybody think either would have stood a chance if Standard Oil and GM had been able to spend millions of dollars in those campaigns?

In Citizens United, the Court didn't just abdicate its duty to subject efforts to impair our political process to strict scrutiny. It served as an accomplice to such an effort. Not satisfied with giving corporations a leg up on individuals under the law, the Roberts Court is trying to prevent the American people from fighting back.

---
Bummed out yet? Well, we're finally in a good position to fight back.

It took the conservative legal movement decades to produce this activist Supreme Court. We're still in our first decade. But already the American Constitution Society has established itself as a major force in our legal system. And while we often continue to struggle to get our nominees confirmed and our message heard, we have a President who understands that our legal system is broken when it favors the powerful over the powerless, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only Senator ready to take action.

So let's talk about what we can do.

Right now, I'm co-sponsoring legislation called the DISCLOSE Act that would force the heads of corporate-sponsored advocacy groups to appear in their ads, require corporations to tell their shareholders what they're spending political dollars on, prohibit corporations from who receive taxpayer dollars from telling taxpayers how to vote, and keep foreign-controlled corporations out of our elections.

It's a start.

But it's important to recognize that Citizens United is really the first major shot fired in a coming battle over information, a battle that extends beyond paid political advertising.

For instance, I'm very concerned about media consolidation. If we care about public debate, then it matters who runs our media companies.

The trend is towards vertical integration of the companies who produce the programs Americans rely on for information, and the companies who run the pipes through which Americans receive those programs. Executives at both Comcast and NBC Universal swear that they're not interested in corporate control of programming. I used to work at NBC; I know better. And I'm very worried about this merger.

We should also be very worried about efforts to undermine the free flow of information on the Internet.

Right now, a blog loads just as quickly as a corporate webpage. An email from your mother comes through just as smoothly as a bill notification from your bank. An independent bookstore can process your order as quickly as Barnes and Noble. But top telecommunications companies have declared their interest in offering "prioritized" Internet service for companies who can pay for it. This could lead to the creation of a high-speed lane for wealthy corporations and transform the Internet from an open playing field into yet another place where powerful economic elites have a bigger megaphone than the rest of us.

Some of the same people who were instrumental in the Federalist Society's effort to change our legal system are now working to help corporations increase their control over the flow of information. If you control the flow of information, you can control the conversation around important issues. If you can control the conversation, you can change this country.

---
But we can't be satisfied with stopping conservatives and their corporate clients from controlling the narrative when it comes to our legal system. We have to fight back with our own.

In our narrative, the legal system doesn't exist to help the powerful grow more powerful - it exists to guarantee that every American is entitled to justice. In our narrative, we defend our individual rights and liberties against corporate encroachment just as fiercely as we defend them against government overreach. In our narrative, judicial restraint actually means something - for starters, how about ruling only on the case you're presented? In our narrative, even if those big bronze doors have to remain closed for security reasons, the door to our legal system should be open to everyone, because what happens in our legal system matters to everyone.

If you followed my career before I got to the Senate, you know that I'm a big believer in speaking truth to power, and in the power of telling the truth. To legal scholars and lovers of our constitution, the truth about what's happened over the last 30 years is at the heart of our struggle to restore balance to our courts and wisdom to our laws. But I gotta be honest with you: That's not why I'm here tonight. And I think you know that, or you would have invited a lawyer.

I'm here tonight because, for the people I represent in Minnesota and for regular working people all over the country, that truth is at the heart of their struggle, too. Their struggle to earn a fair wage at a job that treats them well. Their struggle to live their lives free of corporate intrusions into their privacy. Their struggle to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Their struggle to find justice when they're wronged. I know how important it is that our legal system support individuals in that struggle. And so do you. But most people don't. And we have to change that.

The American Constitution Society has a role to play in the national conversation around our Constitution and our laws. And not just within the walls of a debating society. Ordinary Americans have to understand what's at stake for them in all this. And that means someone has to bring them into the debate. It is my hope that you will. And it is my great honor to stand with you in that fight.

Thank you.

Read more...

Remembering our fallen and departed this Memorial Day

Memorial Day is the time when we celebrate the lives and sacrifices of those who have given their lives in service to this nation. First celebrated on May 1st, 1865 by African Americans commemorating those who had given their lives in the Civil War, it became a National observance in 1868 when the Grand Army of the Republic (a society of Civil War Veterans) called for its observance by all National posts.

But as we pause to remember those who gave their time, their youth, and their lives, to building a better nation through military service, let us also remember those who struggled here at home. For there is no national holiday or observance set forth for the remembrance of those who fought the nation's war against its own incivility. The war known only as 'the movement'. Our longest war; waged to rescue the nation from ignorance, hatred, violence, and oppression. Let us also remember those veterans as well.

As you place those steaks on the grill, carve out a moment to pay tribute and honor to our fallen and departed. Veterans like Ida B Wells, Carter G Woodson, Dr. Benjamin Hooks, Mary McCleod Bethune, Martin King, Malcolm X, Dorothy Height, Enolia McMillan, Queen Mother Moore, John Hope Franklin, John Henrik Clark, Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, Fannie Lou Hamer, Charles Hamilton Houston, Bayard Rustin, Ella Baker, Coretta Scott King, Betty Shabazz, Medgar Evers, Vivian Jones, Marcus Garvey, WEB Dubois, Booker T Washington and countless others.

Let us bring forth the memories and call out the names of those veterans who have given and struggled within our local communities as well. Veterans like Chester I Lewis, Alphonso Harrell, and Jihad Muqtasid of Wichita, and Omar Ali-Bey of my hometown of Cleveland.

But most of all, let us remember this day, the nameless and faceless thousands who fought for us, and prayed for us, and sacrificed for us, and struggled for us, though they did not know our names. Let us remember all of those who braved pick-axes, billy clubs, fire hoses, and police dogs. Let us celebrate those who conquered their own fears and marched, chanted, protested, demonstrated, and faced down the powers that be demanding that this nation honor its own creed.

To you, the UNIA, SNCC, US, the Panthers, the Future Outlook Leagues, to all of you who history never recorded though your very lives shaped history... Today I say thank you... To all of you who cared enough to challenge the schools when they were being unfair to our babies, today I say thank you... To all of you who signed the petitions, carried the signs, or prayed for our deliverance, today I say thank you... To all of you who labored in the background, preparing the meals, setting up the chairs, doing the leg work, and making sure the venues were prepared, today I say thank you... Know that you are not forgotten... your sacrifices are remembered and appreciated... Thank you for your struggles, your battles, your successes, and your setbacks... In large part, it is to you that we owe our freedoms on this day; and for that we are eternally grateful...

Ashe

Read more...

Sign the petition to STOP the re-imagining of American History

With the Texas State Board of Education scheduled to vote THIS WEEK on the final adoption of Texas' new, politically motivated social studies textbook standards, board member Don McLeroy has proposed some more last minute bits of revisionist history. The changes take clear aim at the separation of church and state and characterize the Progressive Era as a negative influence on America.

There's a good chance the new standards could be adopted this Friday. The People for the American Way have started a petition to the major textbook publishers, urging them to keep Texas's controversial standards out of textbooks sold nationally.  To maximize its impact, we need another 10,000 signatures this week.

Please make sure you are part of this important effort by adding your name now. Then, make sure to spread the word on Facebook and by forwarding this message.

Texas is now seeking to add even more changes school textbooks to:

• Maintain that separation of church and state was not the intent of the Founders.This despite the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" came from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists where he specifically explained the intent and proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
  
• Strike from a high school U.S. history course a 1948 court decision, Delgado v. Bastrop ISD, which barred segregation of students of Mexican descent in Texas public schools, and replace it with a case decided last year by the Roberts Court making it harder for local governments to encourage a diverse workforce (Ricci v. DeStefano). Ricci v. DeStefano was a case where instead of remanding the case back to the City of New Haven and having them follow the existing law and process by "validating" their test, Justices on the Supreme Court who are hostile to Civil Rights used the 'unvalidated' test results to craft a decision that created an entirely new legal standard. They used the Equal Protection provisions of the 4th Amendment to attack the Disparate Outcome protections of the Civil Rights Act. (Justice Scalia even remarked that he wished he could review the Civil Rights Act itself)
  
• Minimize the positive impact of Progressive Era reforms and suggest that the work of the era's reformers like Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells and W.E.B. DuBois created a negative portrayal of America. In so doing they attack the foundations of the Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, Human Rights, and Organized Labor movements.These movements did more than 'criticize' America, they challenged America to look at herself 'Critically' and to become better. We know that a caricatured 'Pollyanna' type portrayal of America the perfect serves no one! If we can not acknowledge out shortcomings and mis-steps, then we can not correct them. These social movements offered the promise of equality and fair treatment to all of our citizens and helped make America a beacon of hope to people around the world and we must not stand by silently and see them mis-characterized or diminished... 
  

McLeroy even wants to feed paranoid conspiracy theories about "one world government" by adding a standard to high school U.S. history requiring students to "evaluate efforts by global organizations to undermine U.S. sovereignty."

This is nothing short of a naked attempt by politicians to brainwash a generation of American students at the expense of a sound education.

It's not too late to speak up now by signing the PFAW petition to make sure that in the event these new standards make it into Texas textbooks, they don't make it into textbooks elsewhere.

Read more...

Non-Profits may lose their tax exempt status on Monday

A change in law put in place through a 2006 federal pension bill requires all non-profits, even small ones, to file IRS form 990s or a simplified version of the form. Nonprofits with less than $25,000 in annual revenue formerly didn't have to file with the feds like larger organizations. But that changed with the passage of the 2006 law. Small volunteer type organizations had three years to comply, but many remain unaware of the impending deadline. The grace period ends on Monday.

The deadline applies to groups that report $25,000 or less in income but excludes churches. Organizations that lose their tax exempt status may not find out until Jan. 1, 2011, when they're notified they have to pay taxes on donations they thought were exempt. And it could be months before their nonprofit status is restored.

Please forward this post to any community groups or small volunteer organizations that currently have 501c3 Tax exempt status...

Organizations can still E-File their 990s form and beat the deadline. CLICK HERE for the E-Filing form.

Read more...

On the life and passing of Dr. Dorothy Height

Born 2 years before women were granted the right to vote, Dr. Dorothy Height was an eyewitness to and a key participant in nearly a century of change. An advisor to Presidents, a champion of Womens equality, and a towering figure in the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Height was, as some have described her, the Godmother of the Movement.

She was a Past President of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, a Past President of the National Council for Negro Women, a consultant on African affairs to the Secretary of State, the President's Committee on the Employment of the Handicapped, and the President's Committee on the Status of Women. She was also the founder of the National Black Family Reunion, an Executive Committee member of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, an NAACP Spingarn Award Winner, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Dr. Height dedicated her life to ensuring that our generation and our children would have better lives. She stood on every battlefield, and helped us mark every milestone...

Dr. Height, for all that you gave and sacrificed on our behalf, for all that you've accomplished and for all you wished and worked towards, we are eternally grateful.  We love you, we thank you, and we cherish your memory. On this day Dr. Height, we mourn your passing, and celebrate your home-going...

Read more...

National unemployment rate declines while African American unemployment rate increases

The Obama administration was quick to herald a drop in the nation’s unemployment rate last month from 10 percent to 9.7 percent. But everyone is not cheering. The unemployment rate for African Americans actually increased from 16.2 percent to 16.5 percent. The unemployment rate for black men rose from 16.6 percent to 17.6 percent. Nearly 44 percent of black teenagers who were looking for work could not find a job.

Higher education remains the best way to combat unemployment. Less than 5 percent of Americans with a college degree were unemployed in January.

Read more...

...but was it a "Hate Crime"?

Few pieces of legislation are as misunderstood as the Federal Law which designates and prohibits 'Hate Crimes'. As a result, almost anytime there is a violent crime involving persons of different races, someone on one side or the other generally calls for the issue to be designated as a 'Hate Crime'. I decided to pen this column to hopefully shed a little light and provide some guidance for activists unsure of when to pursue a 'Hate Crime' designation.

The current confusion over what is or isn't a 'Hate Crime' obfuscates the real intent of the legislation. Each time a high-profile incident with a racial component is determined not to be a hate crime, it plays into the narrative that 'Hate Crime' designations are governed by a needlessly complex and somewhat arbitrary standard. Conversely, the very existence of hate crimes legislation has served to enflame some on the Right who view the designation as an attack on politically incorrect thought and free speech. Neither position is correct. The legal standard for a Hate Crime designation is neither complex nor arbitrary, and the Federal law governing Hate Crimes does not criminalize speech, thought, or membership in groups or associations organized around hate speech or ideology.

Examples of recent descriptions of Hate Crime Legislation

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech. – Richard Cohen, Washington Post

Wrong
~~~

The views of millions of religious Americans will be violated if this legislation passes. It punishes the thoughts of a person! – Traditional Values Coalition

Wrong Again
~~~

" Hate crimes legislation is antithetical to the First Amendment, unnecessary and will have a chilling effect on religious freedom," - Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana

Wrong and duplicitous
~~~

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act states that a Hate Crime has occurred when:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
Or because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

In layman’s terms: To understand when a Hate Crime designation should be applied, you must first identify the ‘intended’ victim. It is necessary to differentiate between a victim chosen because of some real or perceived relationship with the attacker and a victim who is ‘symbolic’; chosen as a proxy because they are in someway representative of a group or class. Understood in this context, a Hate Crime is the physiognomic equivalent of terrorism.

This critical distinction between related and symbolic victimization is the reason we don’t charge terrorists with 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. A terrorist's intended target is not the person or persons they kill, rather their intent is to strike out at the group of people that the victim(s) represent. In order to cause injury or send a message to members of a nationalistic or ideological cohort, they single out and attack otherwise random citizens from those respective groups. In the same way, a Hate Crime is one where the intended victim is not necessarily the person or persons who were attacked, but rather their intent is to strike out at the group of people that the victim(s) represent. In order to cause injury or send a message to members of a social or physiological cohort (be it ethnic, religious, sexual orientation or gender-based) they single out and attack otherwise random citizens from those respective groups. And it is the essentially random nature of these attacks that elevates them to a higher degree of culpability.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act does NOT criminalize hate speech, hateful expressions, or membership in groups based upon such beliefs. Those who argue to the contrary clearly have not read the Act. The act states:

Section 4710: subparagraph 4, 5, and 6

(4) FREE EXPRESSION
Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

(5) FIRST AMENDMENT
Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(6) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

Read more...

What you don't know about Civil Rights CAN hurt you

"Civil Rights" is not the name of a movement...

"Civil Rights" is not a type of organization...

"Civil Rights" is not a method of protest...

Civil 'Rights' are the rights and privileges guaranteed by law to all citizens of the United States. The Civil Rights movement was an organized and protracted effort to ensure that the rights guaranteed by law were equally extended to all Americans. Civil Rights Organizations were those groups who worked to ensure the fair and equal application of the laws, foremost among them being the 14th amendment to the Constitution which reads in part,

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In its truest sense, the struggle over civil rights has never really abated. Because Civil 'Rights' are, in essence, matters of law; and the laws from which they derive are dynamic.  Their meanings and applications are subject to change with each interpretation. By Stare Decisis - as courts render new decisions, their precedent becomes the new practice, so a law that you wrote or read yesterday, could be interpreted to mean something completely different next year. When you factor in the role of politics and how federal appointments to District Courts are often made along political and ideological lines, you come to realize that our Civil 'Rights' are extremely fragile. We as activists must not only concern ourselves with securing Civil Rights for all Americans, but we must be equally focused upon protecting those Civil Rights that now exist. Because on any given Monday a court decision, a ballot initiative, or a legal appeal could change the law or its application and strip away a right you had previously taken for granted.

Which brings me to Gross vs FBL Financial Services Inc

Jack Gross went to work at FBL Financial Services back in 1987. He worked his way through the ranks, and by 1999 he had been named the Claims Administration Vice President. A couple years later, Jack's job title and duties began to change. He noticed that the duties and responsibilities that he once had, were being shifted to a younger employee. In 2003 Jack noted that his position as "Claims Project Coordinator" lacked a real job description or clearly defined duties, but his younger co-worker had all but assumed the functional equivalent of his old position.

In 2004 Jack Gross sued FBL Financial Services for Age Discrimination. The trial lasted a mere 5 days and Jack Gross prevailed. The jury found that Jack Gross proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was demoted and his age was a motivating factor in the demotion decision. They awarded him $46,945.00 for lost compensation.

Not surprisingly, FBL appealed... They filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, informally referred to as a "Cert Petition" with the Supreme Court. A Cert Petition is a formal request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court granted the Writ of Certiorari and on June 18th, Justice Thomas rendered the 5-4 decision of the court which held that: A plaintiff bringing an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision.

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision in favor of Jack Gross, and also put forward a new legal standard for ruling in Age Discrimination cases. The conservative majority on the court (Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy) ruled that a plaintiff in an age discrimination case must not only prove that age was "A" motivating factor in an adverse employment action or decision; they must prove that age was "THE" motivating factor. And unless or until the plaintiff can present direct evidence of the employer's primary personal motivations, the employer should not be required to prove anything.

The case was remanded back to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for retrial. And earlier today, the 8th Circuit Court issued a new ruling in favor of FBL Financial Services... The preponderance of the evidence still shows that FBL Services was considering Jack Gross' age when deciding to demote him, but as of this morning, that no longer meets the legal standard of an Age Discrimination Claim. You see, protection from discrimination or adverse employment actions on the basis of ones age is still a 'Civil Right', but is is now a right guaranteed in a law that is virtually impossible to assert.

I said all of that to say this... Civil Rights are fragile. Like the picture above, these Rights are like a candle in the wind. If we are not vigilant, if we do not safeguard and protect them, they will be lost...The courts have been busy chipping away at them, bit by bit, for a number of years. We must remember that the protections and safeguards that we fought so hard to secure in the 50's and 60's are not promised to our children. Whether or not they are passed on to the next generation will depend on what we do today. Because on any given Monday, things can change... just like this morning.

Read more...

The National Fair Lending Training Academy offering free training sessions for fair housing advocates

FREE! NFHTA Regional Fair Lending Training

The following courses will be offered at no cost to the public:

Lending Discrimination: What you need to know (2 Days)

Financial Aspects of Buying a Home (3 Days)

Preventing Foreclosure (3 Days)

Buyer Beware (2 Days)

These courses will be offered in the following locations:

Cleveland, OH - details and registration
Ft Worth, TX - details and registration
Los Angeles - details and registration
Miami, FL - details and registration
Philadelphia, PA - details and registration
Phoenix, AZ - details and registration
Salt Lake City, UT - details and registration
Stockton, CA - details and registration

For more information contact Maqueda Fuller (202) 314-3422

Read more...

NAACP President and CEO throws Yellow Flag on Rush Limbaugh

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous today, had a conversation with NFL Commissioner Goodell to discuss Rush Limbaugh’s intentions to buy the St. Louis Rams.

“The NAACP was very clear in our conversation with the NFL Commissioner—we will not stand for a potential owner, of any race expressing the kind of hatred that Rush Limbaugh continues to spread,” stated Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP President and CEO. “Commissioner Goodell was very supportive of the NAACP’s concerns and we both pledged to work together to expand opportunities throughout the NFL. The NAACP fully supports the NFL and the NFLPA and we were pleased to see the Commissioner standing up for the players and condemning the remarks made by Limbaugh,” added Jealous.

A source has since told ESPN that Rush Limbaugh will in fact be dropped from the bid.

Read more...

Senate Confirms Tom Perez to Head the Civil Rights Division!

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 72-22 to confirm Tom Perez as assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said the vote on Perez "gives the nation a leader who is arguably the most well-qualified individual ever nominated for the position and one who is completely dedicated to enforcing the law and protecting all Americans from discrimination."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released a statement which read, “As a former elected official, former state appointee, esteemed scholar and former trial attorney with the Civil Rights Division itself, Thomas Perez brings a wealth of experience to his new position as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. In addition, he has been a leading voice on issues ranging from immigration to racial disparities in the health care system.

“As a first generation Dominican-American, Mr. Perez is now the second Hispanic American to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. I applaud President Obama’s appointment of Secretary Perez and look forward to adding his voice and leadership to the Department of Justice.”

President Obama nominated Perez for the position on March 13. Perez will head the Civil Rights Division, the federal agency that enforces the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and other federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin.

Read more...

Join the 880 campaign and help ensure that every American has access to quality and affordable health care...

Why "880"? Because according to the American Journal of Public Health, the deaths of 880,000 black people would have been prevented if the mortality rate of blacks had been the same as that of whites over a 10-year period.

The health care crisis has hit our communities especially hard:

• Children born to black women are more than twice as likely to die within their first year of life than children born to white women
• People of color are more likely to suffer and die from diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic diseases
• Uninsured Americans are more likely to use the Emergency Room for preventative care and routine checkups, forcing longer wait times and costing states and taxpayers more

But this struggle goes beyond statistics. This is about you – everyday American families and children.

With your help, in the coming weeks, we will organize to ensure that our elected representatives support real health care reform with real results that will ensure every American has access to quality, affordable health care coverage... and help solve the health problems that plague our parents, children, friends, and communities.

For more information and to stay informed, visit the 880 Campaign Site!

Read more...

Black Couple Sets Guiness Book Record with 84-year Marriage

Liz Bowles/Sun Journal

A Craven County couple are in the Guinness World Records book. The two did nothing outlandish such as sky-diving upside down, dancing for days, taking the longest lawn mower ride or having the most tattoos. No, Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher of the Brownsville community have been married for more than 84 years. That is a feat in itself. They have the world record of the longest marriage for a living couple.

They can thank their granddaughter Iris Godette for getting the recognition. She submitted the information to the Guinness Book of Records. The information was apparently checked by Guinness and a certificate was given to the couple.

Herbert was born June 10, 1905. His hearing is going but his mind is sharp. Zelmyra was born Dec. 10, 1907. She uses a walker to get around the house and yard. The two of them can still give their reasons for marrying on May 13, 1924.

“He was not mean; he was not a fighter,” Zelmrya said. “He was quiet and kind. He was not much to look at but he was sweet.”

Read more...

NAACP supports bill to outlaw financial exploitation of African and other nations by "Vulture Funds" which target highly indebted poor countries

THE ISSUE:
A "vulture fund" is a private company that buys up the debt of poor countries at a big discount from the original owner with the purpose of suing the indebted country in court once it has some money (often after debt cancellation). This practice comes at the expense of the citizens of these indebted countries — some of the most impoverished people in the world — as well as taxpayers in countries like the United States, who bear part of the cost.

There are a number of countries that continue to face crippling debt in Africa and throughout the world. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the approximate number of people living on less than a dollar a day has actually increased since 1990. If current trends are not reversed, Africa will be the only region in the world where there will be more poor people in 2015 than there were in 1990. Debt cancellation gives impoverished countries a chance to start fresh and spend more money on health, education, and other essential social services. But while countries and international organizations have been giving some countries debt relief, "vulture funds", which make huge profits at the expense of the citizens of these indebted countries often undermine any benefits that debt relief may have brought.

The actions of several unethical vulture funds are threatening to undo some of the hard-won gains of the international campaign for impoverished country debt cancellation. In 2007 one such vulture fund won $15 million from Zambia, money that was freed up by debt relief and should have been used for the fight against HIV/AIDS and poverty. Zambia was not alone: a 2007 report on vulture funds by the International Monetary Fund showed that 11 out of 24 heavily indebted poor countries (HPIC) were involved in litigation worth a total of about $1 billion on original claims of $427 million. Now Liberia, a country emerging from decades of devastating civil war, faces the possible threat of vulture lawsuits as it tries to clear up its illegitimate debt with the international community. HIPCs are particularly vulnerable to vulture funds which purchase the defaulted debts of HIPC countries at much reduced prices and litigate against the debtor for inflated sums, often in U.S. or English courts, making huge profits on the backs of the world's poorest citizens.

The United States must work to help the world's poorest countries eliminate debilitating debt which undermines their ability to provide basic human needs such food, housing, education, health care and infrastructure development for their people. To assist in this struggle, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA) and others have introduced H.R. 2932, the "Stop Very Unscrupulous Loan Transfers from Underprivileged Countries to Rich, Exploitive Funds Act" or the "Stop VULTURE Funds Act". This legislation would prohibit any U.S. person from engaging in debt profiteering at the expense of another nation and would prohibit any U.S. Court from issuing a judgment which would further sovereign debt profiteering.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ACTION WE NEED YOU TO TAKE!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT MATTER!!!
If you have any questions, call Hilary Shelton at the Washington Bureau at (202) 463-2940.

Read more...

Louisiana aims to lower its drop-out rate BY LOWERING THEIR GRADUATION STANDARDS!

What in the world is going on? First California, and now This!

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recently signed two bills that aim to reduce Louisiana's school dropout rate by lowering educational standards and creating a new "career track" high school diploma. The bills: House Bill 612 and Senate Bill 259, require school districts to establish a "Career Track" diploma to capture those students who are not succeeding on the standard educational track, lower their academic requirements, and provide them with more vocational and technical courses.

Under the new law, students opting for the new alternative track diploma, could still pass the eighth-grade LEAP test and be promoted into the 9th grade, even if they fail the English or math portions.

As an educational advocate, I find this deeply disturbing. The world is becoming increasingly high tech and the job market of tomorrow will require higher and more sophisticated skills than we've seen to date. Lowering the bar and lessening educational standards is absolutely a step in the wrong direction; NO school district should be issuing diplomas to students who are woefully unprepared and ill-equipped to compete. No district should improve their educational outcomes by suspending the normal rules for failure. No district should de-value the diplomas they offer by diminishing the standard it represents. If students are not achieving, then we should provide them with the necessary assistance and support they need in order to achieve. But to simply remake the rules so that what once was failure will now be acceptable may help the stats in the short term, but it will certainly hurt the children in the long run.

Read more...