Archives for category: Injustice

The Trump administration has officially abandoned affirmative action, having decided that African Americans and Latinos no longer need any additional breaks and can pull themselves up by their own shoelaces.

Trump forgot that his son-in-Law Jared Kushner was the beneficiary of affirmative action. As detailed by journalist Daniel Golden in a book about preferential treatment for rich boys, Kushner’s dad gave Harvard a couple of million dollars, although no one in the family ever went to Harvard. This cleared the way for Jared’s admission, who vaulted over better qualified applicants from the same high school. Golden’s Book is called “The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.”

I’m not sure how Donald got into the Wharton School. It surely wasn’t grades or brains or even athletic skills (remember that the bone spur in his foot enabled him to avoid the Vietnam draft, his fifth deferment).

The story begins:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, Trump administration officials said.

Last November, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the Justice Department to re-evaluate past policies that he believed pushed the department to act beyond what the law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court had required, Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman said. As part of that process, the Justice Department rescinded seven policy guidances from the Education Department’s civil rights division on Tuesday.

“The executive branch cannot circumvent Congress or the courts by creating guidance that goes beyond the law and — in some instances — stays on the books for decades,” Mr. O’Malley said.

The Supreme Court has steadily narrowed the ways that schools can consider race when trying to diversify their student bodies. But it has not banned the practice.

Now, affirmative action is at a crossroads. The Trump administration is moving against any use of race as a measurement of diversity in education. And the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the end of this month will leave the court without its swing vote on affirmative action and allow President Trump to nominate a justice opposed to a policy that for decades has tried to integrate elite educational institutions.

A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions has systematically excluded some Asian-American applicants to maintain slots for students of other races. That case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.

“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”

The Obama administration believed that students benefit from being surrounded by diverse classmates, so in 2011, the administration offered schools a potential road map to establishing affirmative action policies that could withstand legal scrutiny. The guidance was controversial at the time that it was issued, for its far-reaching interpretation of the law. Justice officials said that pages of hypothetical scenarios offered in the guidance were particularly problematic, as they clearly bent the law to specific policy preferences.

In a pair of policy guidance documents, the Obama Education and Justice departments told elementary and secondary schools and college campuses to use “the compelling interests” established by the court to achieve diversity. They concluded that the Supreme Court “has made clear such steps can include taking account of the race of individual students in a narrowly tailored manner.”

The Trump administration’s decisions on Tuesday brought government policy back to the George W. Bush administration guidances. The Trump administration did not formally reissue Bush-era guidance on race-based admissions, but, in recent days, officials did repost a Bush administration affirmative action policy document online.

That document states, “The Department of Education strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools.”

For the past several years, that document had been replaced by a note declaring that the policy had been withdrawn. The Bush policy is now published in full, with no note attached. It reaffirmed its view in 2016 after a Supreme Court ruling that said that schools could consider race as one factor among many.

In that case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a white woman claimed she was denied admission because of her race, in part because the university had a program that admitted significant numbers of minorities who ranked in the top 10 percent of their class.

“It remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the 4-3 majority.

The Trump administration’s plan would scrap the existing policies and encourage schools not to consider race at all. The new policy would not have the force of law, but it amounts to the official view of the federal government. School officials who keep their admissions policies intact would do so knowing that they could face a Justice Department investigation or lawsuit, or lose federal funding from the Education Department.

A senior Justice Department official pushed back against the idea that these decisions are about rolling back protections for minorities. He said they are hewing the department closer to the letter of the law.

He noted that rolling back guidance is not the same thing as a change of law, so that the decision to rescind technically would not have a legal effect on how the government defends or challenges affirmative-action related issues.

The move comes at a moment when conservatives see an opportunity to dismantle affirmative action.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said his prosecutors will investigate and sue universities over discriminatory admissions policies. And the conservative-backed lawsuit against Harvard is being pushed by the same group, the Project on Fair Representation, that pressed Fisher.

Yesterday I posted G.F. Brandenburg on the same question. He posted a letter by a parent activist, who thinks the charter industry wants a chancellor on their side. She wrote: “the D.C. Public School Chancellor has absolutely no authority over any charter school in this city. The Chancellor cannot make any determinations on the siting of a school, the board composition of a school, the curriculum, staff or any other matter related to a charter.” Furthermore, charters can locate wherever they choose, even across the street from a public school.

If charters are competing with public schools, why do they get a large say in picking the chancellor who leads the other team?

Here is another post by Brandenburg, with the names of those on the search committee. He cites a post written by Valerie Jablow.

He adds:

“All told, of the 14 people on the selection panel, half have ties to charter and ed reform interests. And several were the source of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for the mayor.

“[Confidential note to Mayor Bowser: Does this mean that if I and two of my DCPS BFFs donate $5000 to your current campaign, one of us will be named by you to serve on the charter board? I mean, this is the selection panel for the DCPS chancellor we’re talking about here! Why have any charter reps at all, as there have been zero purely DCPS reps. EVER on the charter board? Or is this all OK here because, um, well, because cross sector something something?]

“Then, too, of those 14 people on the selection panel, there are a total of 1 teacher; 1 student; and 4 parents, half of whom have ties to ed. reform and charter interests.

“The law regarding chancellor selection states (boldface mine) that “the Mayor shall establish a review panel of teachers, including representatives of the WTU, parentS, and studentS to aid the Mayor . . . in the selection of the Chancellor.” The law also says nothing about principals or officials from organizations unrelated to DCPS serving on the selection panel.

“Notwithstanding the (remote) possibility that the singular student and teacher selected for this panel have multiple personalities, the math here simply doesn’t add up: there are more than a hundred THOUSAND parents and students in DCPS and several THOUSAND teachers.

“And yet we have a rep from Friendship charter school on this panel and not even TWO DCPS teachers or students??

“Gees, Mayor Bowser: it’s nice that you’re soliciting limited feedback on the next chancellor from us unwashed masses, but can’t you dial back the public dissing?

“Amazingly, all of this is downright familiar in DC public education:

“For instance, several years ago the process to change school boundaries showed that people wanted, overwhelmingly, a strong system of by right public schools in every neighborhood.

“Since then, our city leaders have enacted policies and taken actions that ensure that remains a pipe dream:

“–Thousands of new seats have been created in the charter sector, with little public notification. (One–Statesman–will start this fall without any public notification or input whatsoever beforehand. Yeah: check out these public comments.) Without commensurate growth in the population of school-age children, the result is a declining share of DCPS enrollment–all without any public agreement whatsoever.

“–A closed DCPS school (Kenilworth) was offered to a charter school in violation of several DC laws, including public notification; RFO to other charter schools; and approval of the council. (I am still waiting for my FOIA request to DCPS about this to be answered, since no one on the council, at the deputy mayor for education’s office, or at DCPS ever answered my questions as to how this offer actually came about.)

“–A test-heavy school rating system was approved, which tracks closely with what our charter board uses, without any consideration for what the public actually said it wanted. (And with a private ed. reform lobbying organization phonebanking to ensure it got what it–not the public–wanted.)

“–Ours is a public education landscape in which wealthy donors set the conversation (watch the linked video starting at 1:21:25); determine the way in which schools are judged; and profit from it all, while the public is left far, far behind.

“–Despite clear data showing problems in both sectors for graduation accountability and absences, there has been little movement in city leadership to ensure both sectors are equally analyzed.

“In the same manner, in our new chancellor selection panel the public is disenfranchised and the law not followed, while personnel from private groups are heavily involved and stand to profit in a variety of ways.

“Hmm: Familiar indeed.”

Dr. Colleen Kraft, the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics visited a child detention center and was stunned by the cruelty of what she saw.

Jeff Sessions justified this cruel policy by citing the Bible. No law requires family separation.

It is amazing that he thinks he is a good Christian. Do you think he has asked himself, “What would Jesus do?” I can’t speak for Jesus but from what I know of his love for humanity, I don’t think he would approve of the policy of family separation.

There is No Dignity in Teaching

You should read this post. It is the story of a teacher who—in the telling of her story—is a dedicated, beloved teacher. She did her job, and she cared for her severely brain damaged child. The system punished her for taking too many personal days.

If she worked in the private sector, she would have been given the rights to which she was entitled. The school system treated her shamefully.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to approve the nominations of judges for life-term appointments who refused to say whether they agreed with the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. I saw their testimony on television and was appalled. Democratic senators asked them if they agreed, and they said they could not answer because the matter might come before them on the federal court. This is appalling. They cannot say that they agree that laws that separate children by race are unconstitutional.

As civil rights activist Vanita Gupta writes, This is not a trick question. Both Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were asked the same question and immediately agreed.

But Trump nominees refused to endorse this landmark of American law.

They are scoundrels. They do not deserve to be appointed judges for life.

They should have been asked whether they endorsed the Confederacy.

 

Rapper Kanye West made some ill-advised offhand remarks about slavery, suggesting that it was a choice. That kicked up a brief firestorm, which may have been his goal.

Yohuru Williams, scholar of African-American history and dean of arts and sciences at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis, used the occasion to offer a history lesson about slavery. 

Please read this concise response to the uninformed. 

“Were U.S. slaves in any way responsible for their own misery? Were there any silver linings to forced bondage? These questions surface from time to time in the American cultural conversation, rekindling a longstanding debate over whether the nation’s “peculiar institution” may have been something less than a horrific crime against humanity.

”When rapper and clothing designer Kanye West commented on TMZ.com that slavery was a “choice,” and later attempted to clarify by tweeting that African Americans remained subservient for centuries because they were “mentally enslaved,” he set off a social-media firestorm of anger and incredulity. And after a charter-school teacher in San Antonio, Texas asked her 8th-grade American history students to provide a “balanced view” of slavery by listing both its pros and cons, a wide public outcry ensued. The homework assignment was drawn from a nationally distributed textbook.

“Such controversies underscore a profound lack of understanding of slavery, the institution that, more than any other in the formation of the American republic, undergirded its very economic, social and political fabric. They overlook that slavery, which affected millions of blacks in America, was enforced by a system of sustained brutality, including acts—and constant threats—of torture, rape and murder. They ignore countless historic examples of resistance, rebellion and escape. And they disregard the long-tail legacy of slavery, where oppressive laws, overincarceration and violent acts of terrorism were all designed to keep people of color “in their place.””

 

This is a very sad story. A teenager in Brentwood, Long Island, the epicenter of the murderous gang MS 13, confessed to his teacher, putting his life at risk. He agreed to confess to the police and identify the gang members. He thought he would be safe, protected by cooperating with the police. But he wasn’t safe. His name was turned over the ICE, he was arrested and put into detention with the same gang members that he squealed on. Now he is slated for deportation. Surely, someone can stop this madness. Someone?

 

Mike Klonsky was a leader of the students’ rebellion against the Vietnam War and racism in the 1960s.

He just returned from a visit to Parkland, and he thinks this new movement may be the change we need now, especially if it expands its vision.

“Florida happens to be the state most averse to gun control legislation with a majority of state legislators receiving big campaign donations from the NRA. In FL, for example, if municipal officials pass a firearms-related law, they must pay a $5,000 fine and lose their jobs. They can also be forced to pay up to $100,000 in damages to any “person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance” —such as, say, the NRA.

“To show how deep the divide is, the old, white male Republicans who rule the state, after refusing to meet with Parkland students to consider a ban on assault rifles, passed a resolution declaring that pornography endangers teenage health.

“Refusing to be demoralized or turned around, not even by death threats from the right, the students are turning their grief and anger into militancy, organizing an NRA boycott, two national student walkouts against gun violence and lobbying for a ban on assault weapons. The shootings have sparked a new national movement with students taking the lead.

“Students have traditionally been the igniters of larger and broader progressive social movements. That was true of the Civil Rights Movement (SNCC) anti-war and anti-imperialist youth revolt (SDS) of the ’60s and the student uprisings here and in Europe 50 years ago.

“The power of the youth movement rests in its embodiment of a vision that transcends the immediate demands and aims at reshaping the world in which the next generation will live, work, and lead.”

 

 

If you want to put an end to civil rights enforcement in the nation, Trump has your guy to do it.

I received this mauling from CREDO ACTION.

“Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.”

Dear Diane,

Tell the Senate: Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division

Donald Trump hates equality. When he promises to “make America great again,” he’s talking about undoing decades of civil rights gains and doing everything he can to institutionalize white supremacy and misogyny.

That’s why, when it’s time to appoint heads of civil rights offices across the government, he picks people who will undermine the very principles they are supposed to defend.

Eric Dreiband, Trump’s nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a perfect example. Instead of having years of experience defending civil rights, he comes with decades of work defending people and corporations accused of discrimination.1 We need to do everything we can to keep him from being confirmed.

Tell the Senate: Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Click here to sign the petition.

Our country’s civil rights laws are part of a generations-long effort to come to terms with and make amends for a country founded on both the systematic oppression and dehumanization of people of color and the misogynistic subjugation and disenfranchisement of women. The Civil Rights Division has a history of defending voting rights, holding rogue police departments accountable, fighting housing discrimination and ensuring equal rights in education. Eric Dreiband’s career has done the opposite. He defended:

The University of North Carolina over challenges to North Carolina’s anti-LGBTQ HB2;
A Catholic challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit;
Abercrombie & Fitch’s attempt to deny a Muslim woman employment because of her headscarf; and
R.J. Reynolds’ policy of weeding out job applications from “older” applicants.2,3
He also spoke out personally against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act and efforts to “ban the box” as a way to minimize discrimination against job applicants with criminal convictions.4

In advance of Dreiband’s committee hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy said he “honestly couldn’t think of a more uniquely unqualified nominee to defend and enforce the core civil rights laws that codify the values of a just and tolerant society.”5 But Dreiband’s unique disqualifications are what make him a perfect choice for Trump and extreme right-wing Republicans who want to dismantle civil rights protections and use government to protect racists, misogynists, xenophobes and anti-LGBTQ bigots.

We have to put massive pressure on every Senate Democrat and any Republican with a conscience to block Dreiband’s confirmation.

Click the link below to tell the Senate: Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division:

https://act.credoaction.com/sign/Block_Dreiband?t=7&akid=27083%2E4147912%2EosCF3c

Thank you for everything you do,

Heidi Hess, Senior Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Add your name:

Sign the petition ►
References:

Deena Zaru, “Civil rights activists raise alarm over Trump’s DOJ pick,” CNN, Aug. 14, 2017.
Tess Owen, “Trump’s civil rights pick has made a career fighting for corporate rights,” VICE News, June 30, 2017.
The Leadership Conference et al., “Oppose the Confirmation of Eric Dreiband to Serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,” Aug. 31, 2017.
Ibid.
Paul Gordon, “Republicans Advance More Dangerously Unqualified Nominees,” People for the American Way, Jan. 19, 2018.
photo: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats

 

CREDO action
© 2018 CREDO. All rights reserved.

 

 

Apparently there are places in the U.S. that never heard of the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech. Vermillion Parish in Louisiana is one of them. A teacher was arrested for speaking out against the renewal of the superintendent’s contract. Probably, if she were a parent, no one would have touched her. But she was a teacher and she was treated like dirt.

I hope the NEA, the AFT, the ACLU, or some other group hires a lawyer for her.

“The Vermilion Parish School Board is comprised of eight members. For the better part of two years, four members were in favor of renewing Puyau’s contract and four were against. On November 20th of last year, one of the board members against the contract renewal, Luddy Herpin, passed away. The board president, Anthony Fontana, took advantage of the situation and brought an interim member who would support the contract before the board for approval to fill the seat until an election can be held. The appointment passed with a 4/3 vote.

“On January 8, 2018, the board held a special meeting to vote on the contract renewal and provide Puyau with a $38,000 raise. The teachers of Vermilion Parish filled the room in opposition. The teachers of this parish have not received a raise in ten years. Puyau was hired as superintendent in 2012; however, the district has maintained a rating of B, or above, since the inception of the school grading system.

“One of the teachers present, Deyshia Hargrave, was given permission to speak to the board on the issue. After she finished speaking, she sat down. Chatter and protests could be heard among the board members and the attendees. At some point, President Fontana addresses Hargrave, who is seated to his right, directly. She stands to respond. Fontana is distracted by the increased chatter to his left and comments to the effect that things are getting out of hand. At that exact moment, the City Marshall officer on duty enters the room. Seeing Hargrave standing and speaking, he approaches her and asks her to leave. In disbelief that she is being asked to leave while responding to a question directed at her, Hargrave initially resists. After realizing what is going on, she walks out of the room, and into the hallway, with the officer where he pushes her to the floor and handcuffs her.

“Meanwhile, this publicly elected board sits quietly and allows this to happen not only to a taxpaying citizen engaged in a public meeting, but a teacher employed in their district who is calmly explaining why the raise is opposed.”