|
 |
The Struggle Continues 59 Years after Brown v. Board of Education
By Damon Hewitt, Director of the Education Practice Group at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
On May 17, 1954, the United State Supreme Court decided a case that changed the course of American history. In Brown v. Board of Education, which was litigated by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a unanimous Court declared segregated education systems unconstitutional, marking the beginning of the end of America’s racial caste system.
As we mark the fifty-ninth anniversary of that landmark decision, it is appropriate to reflect on the progress of civil rights efforts since Brown was decided. But some are now questioning whether American institutions should still use race-conscious tools to promote diversity and inclusion in education and beyond. That issue is being played out in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the latest challenge to higher education affirmative action programs.
But what we have learned since Brown suggests that we should be asking an entirely different question: In light of significant progress through mighty struggles, and with American society becoming increasingly diverse, can we afford at this point to allow our institutions to go in the opposite direction?
The closing doors of opportunity in states that have banned affirmative action programs have made the stakes clear. After Proposition 209 in California banned race-conscious admissions, the selective institutions with the University of California system became more segregated. And Texas’ own history provides another reminder. During the most recent years when UT-Austin did not consider race in admissions and instead used only race-neutral efforts, the percentage of African-American students never comprised more than 4.5% of enrollment, despite making up 12-13% of high school graduates in Texas and over 10% of the state’s workforce.
The stakes are high not just for those who seek admission to college; all Americans stand to lose. For example, colleges and universities realize that declining enrollment of African-American students limits their ability to realize the educational benefits of diversity and is not conducive to training the leaders of tomorrow who must be able to navigate diverse workplaces and environments. The issues in play in the Fisher case could also impact K-12 education, where waning political will has led in part to a significant re-segregation of America’s public schools. These trends exacerbate ongoing problems such as gaps in fiscal and human resources, access to college-preparatory curriculum and student achievement, as well as racial disparities in school discipline—what we have come to refer to as the School to Prison Pipeline.
Ironically, these are the very types of problems that the litigation effort behind Brown was designed to address. And many of these issues are evident in the nearly one hundred K-12 school desegregation cases that the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund continues to litigate.
The persistence of these issues nearly sixty years later reminds us of the work left to be done. And it points to the need for America to do more –not less—to promote equity, inclusion and opportunity. This is especially true in higher education and the continued need for affirmative action programs. With the changing landscape of higher education institutions, and the perverse impact of the “new economy” on college access and affordability for all, especially children of color, the nation finds itself at a critical juncture when it can ill afford to lose a vital tool to opening pathways to opportunity. Doing so now would not only mean a change in policy – it would mean turning our back on the unfulfilled promise of Brown.
Contacts for NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc.:
Valerie Holford, 301/926-1298 (valerieholford@starpower.net) or
Margot Friedman, 202/332-5550 (mfriedman@dupontcirclecommunications.com)
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
Clothing Chain Wet Seal Settles Lawsuit Charging It with Firing African-American Employees
Company Agrees to Compensate Former Store Managers and Change Company Practices
Wet Seal agreed to settle a national class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) and co-counsel. Cogdell v. The Wet Seal, Inc. charged that former top executives at Wet Seal directed senior managers to get rid of African-American store management employees for the sake of its “brand image,” and to hire more white employees. The lawsuit alleges that Wet Seal had a policy of denying equal pay and promotion opportunities and terminating African-American store management employees across the country.
Wet Seal’s new CEO and Board of Directors have agreed to make numerous changes to address the discrimination charges. Wet Seal also agreed to pay $7.5 million in monetary relief, including damages to current and former African-American managers of at least $5.58 million.
In December, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a Determination that former Wet Seal executives racially discriminated against store manager Nicole Cogdell, the lead plaintiff in the class action being settled.
Ms. Cogdell learned she was being terminated after a former Senior Vice President visited her store in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania and discovered Ms. Cogdell was African-American.
Ms. Cogdell said about the settlement, “Being targeted for termination from a job I loved because of my race was a nightmare. It was important for me to be a force for change, but I could not have done it without the support of other employees who spoke out against discrimination. Wet Seal has now committed to strong, fair policies because we took a stand. I hope these changes will create opportunities for all deserving employees, regardless of their race.”
Under the settlement Wet Seal will:
Pay $5.58 million into a fund for current and past workers affected;
Track applications to ensure diversity in applications and hiring;
Expand Wet Seal’s human resources department to better investigate complaints of discrimination;
Post store management and District Director openings;
Hire experts to develop updated job-related hiring, promotion, and compensation policies and practices;
Hire experts to develop performance evaluation tools for store management employees;
Maintain a Diversity and Inclusion Council made up of a diverse group of current employees that will advise the company on topics including equal employment in recruiting, hiring, and compensation; and
Regular review and reporting regarding hiring, promotions and terminations of minority employees.
“With this settlement Wet Seal is attempting to right its wrongs. It has agreed to address our claims challenging the treatment of black workers in its retail stores,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., which is on the legal team representing the plaintiffs. “The fight for equality in the workplace is far from over in America. No one should have the cards stacked against them on their job simply because of their race.”
Nancy DeMis of the Gallagher, Schoenfeld law firm said: “This brings a sad chapter to a close. We are proud to have had the opportunity to represent the courageous employees of Wet Seal who stood up for what was right. ”
According to Bill Lann Lee of the Lewis Feinberg law firm: “Wet Seal’s new management made improvements to its employment policies after the filing of the case. That led to this resolution. We expect the proposed settlement agreement will benefit African-American employees for years to come.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Orange County, California in July of 2012.
The plaintiffs are represented by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), as well as two law firms: Oakland, California’s Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. and Media, Pennsylvania’s Gallagher, Schoenfeld, Surkin, Chupein & DeMis, P.C.
Wet Seal, headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California, has over 7000 employees at its 550 Wet Seal and Arden B. stores.
The settlement is subject to court approval.
The settlement agreement, the lawsuit, and additional information are available at www.naacpldf.org/wetseal
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF)
Under the direction of its founder Thurgood Marshall and subsequent leaders, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) has been a pioneer in the struggle to secure equal rights for African Americans through litigation, such as Brown v. Board of Education. LDF focuses on economic justice, voting rights, educational opportunity and criminal justice. LDF was founded in 1940 and has been a separate entity from the NAACP since 1957. Therefore, if its name needs to be shortened, please refer to it as “LDF” instead of “NAACP.”
Contacts for NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc.:
Valerie Holford, 301/926-1298 (valerieholford@starpower.net) or
Margot Friedman, 202/332-5550 (mfriedman@dupontcirclecommunications.com)
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
Hello. I am writing on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. They’ve played a significant role in two of the most high-profile cases that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on this term: the case on the consideration of race in college admissions and the case on minority voter protections in the Voting Rights Act.
Please visit our website to see the pages on each case:
http://www.naacpldf.org/case/fisher-v-texas
http://www.naacpldf.org/case/shelby-county-alabama-v-holder
There you will find a lot of information, such as legal documents, case summaries, Q&As and a list of the many supporters who have weighed in with the Supreme Court. We will also send you a statement in response to each ruling when the decisions are issued.
In the meantime, here’s a brief description of each case and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s (LDF) involvement. As you know LDF, founded by Thurgood Marshall, is the nation’s leading law firm fighting for racial justice in America and has been a separate entity from the NAACP since 1957.
Fisher v. University of Texas is a case that challenges the constitutionality of UT Austin’s undergraduate admissions policy, which considers race among many other factors in order to admit a student body that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse. NAACP Legal Defense Fund has been involved in the case since the beginning, and argued successfully before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the UT Black Student Alliance and UT African-American alumni. They’ve been fighting against segregated schools and equal opportunity in education for decades, and litigated Brown v. Board of Education.
In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, the county is challenging the constitutionality Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, one of the nation’s most successful civil rights laws. Section 5 requires jurisdictions with the worst histories of persistent racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval before voting changes become legally enforceable to ensure that they do not harm voters of color. NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued this case before the Supreme Court in defense of Section 5, and also defended Section 5 the last time it was challenged before the court.
Thank you very much for your attention to these important cases.
Contact Info:
Valerie Holford
(301) 926-1298
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
New Research: Harris County District Attorney’s Office
Was Three Times More Likely to Seek Death for African Americans
Like Duane Buck
- Mr. Buck, Called a Future Danger Because He is Black, Files Petition Seeking New, Fair Sentencing Hearing
-
(Houston, Texas, March 13, 2013) A significant new study finding racial bias in Harris County’s death penalty system was released today in an appeal filed by condemned prisoner, Duane Buck, in Harris County’s 208th Criminal District Court. Mr. Buck challenges his death sentence as an unconstitutional product of racial discrimination and presents research showing that at the time of his 1997 capital trial, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office was over three times more likely to seek the death penalty against African American defendants like himself, than against similarly-situated white defendants. The research also shows that Harris County juries were more than twice as likely to impose death sentences on African American defendants in cases like Mr. Buck’s, than on similarly situated white defendants.
Mr. Buck, who seeks a new, fair sentencing hearing, cites a recent analysis conducted by University of Maryland Professor Ray Paternoster. Prof. Paternoster, who has more than 35 years of experience in criminology and quantitative methods, examined data on over 500 Harris County cases in order to identify and compare, based on a comprehensive set of variables, the cases most similar to Mr. Buck’s. Prof. Paternoster found that in the cases like Mr. Buck’s, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office sought the death penalty 20 percent of the time when the defendant was white and 70 percent of the time when the defendant was African-American. This sharp disparity was similarly present in the decisions of Harris County sentencing juries: juries imposed death 20 percent of the time in the cases similar to Mr. Buck’s, that involved white defendants and 40 percent of the time in the cases involving African-American defendants
“We are all at risk when our justice system allows prosecutors and juries to exercise lethal discretion based on race,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, Director Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. which represents Duane Buck, along with Kathryn Kase of the Texas Defender Service and attorney Kate Black. “Duane Buck's case is as much about his own unlawful death sentence as it is about the ability of Harris County's criminal justice system to produce outcomes free from the taint of racial discrimination."
David Kirk, Associate Professor of Sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, said that “Professor Paternoster's research conforms to highly rigorous standards for statistical analyses. His conclusion - that there is strong evidence of Black-White disparities in the advancement of cases to a death trial as well as the imposition of a death sentence - is the logical, and profoundly disturbing, conclusion to be drawn from the weight of the available data."
The evidence of racial discrimination in Mr. Buck’s case is not limited to Prof. Paternoster’s recent study. At Mr. Buck’s capital sentencing hearing, the trial prosecutor elicited testimony from a psychologist that Mr. Buck posed a future danger to society because he is black. The prosecutor relied on this testimony in arguing in favor of a death sentence.[1] The jury accepted the prosecutor’s argument, declared Mr. Buck a future danger, and sentenced him to death. Three years later, then-Texas Attorney General (now U.S. Senator) John Cornyn acknowledged that reliance on testimony connecting race to dangerousness was wholly unacceptable and promised that the Attorney General’s Office would seek new, fair sentencing hearings for seven people, including Mr. Buck, whose cases were tainted by such testimony. The State kept its word in every case – except for Mr. Buck’s.
“The suggestion that a person’s race can be a basis for assessing the ultimate penalty of death undermines our entire system of justice,” said Gary Bledsoe, President of the Texas NAACP. “I am hopeful that the Harris County District Attorney's office will take action to start and make amends for the many wrongs it has perpetrated against African-Americans, including many facing the most serious of punishments.”
Mr. Buck’s life was spared by the U.S. Supreme Court before his scheduled execution in September 2011. Although two U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed that Mr. Buck’s death sentence required review because “our criminal justice system should not tolerate” a death sentence “marred by racial overtones,” the case is now back in the hands of state officials.
“Texas should honor the promise that was made by the highest legal officer in the state, then-Attorney General John Cornyn, and grant Mr. Buck a new, fair sentencing not tainted by racial discrimination,” said Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis, whose district includes parts of Harris County.
One of Mr. Buck’s trial prosecutors, former Harris County Assistant District Attorney Linda Geffin, and the surviving victim, Phyllis Taylor, have joined Sen. Ellis in opposing Mr. Buck’s execution. Ms. Taylor explained, “I have forgiven Duane and could not bear to see him executed. I pray that his life is spared.”
As Kate Black, counsel for Mr. Buck, explained, “This case is very simple: no death sentence can be supported by an appeal to racial prejudice.”
For more information about Mr. Buck’s case, please go to:
http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/duane-buck-sentenced-death-because-he-black
###
To speak with Mr. Buck’s attorneys or other experts, please contact Laura Burstein at 202-626-6868 (o); 202-669-3411(c); or laura.burstein@squiresanders.com.
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
NAACP LDF Urges Supreme Court to Strike DOMA
(New York, NY) The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) submitted a friend-of-the-court brief today to the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor asking the Court to hold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. LDF’s brief urges the Court to apply heightened scrutiny to the law because it intentionally relegates gays and lesbians to inferior social status.
LDF’s brief states that DOMA and other laws that purposefully infringe on the rights of gay people are “analogous to the racial caste system effectuated under ‘separate but equal’ in an important respect: they create and perpetuate a social hierarchy that is premised on the superiority of one group over another.” “DOMA’s denial of marital benefits under federal law to gays and lesbians subordinates them within the institution of marriage. And like early laws that were designed to oppress African Americans, DOMA relegates gays and lesbians to an unequal and inferior status as a group.”
On October 18, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the federal government to refund $363,053 in estate taxes to Edie Windsor, a widow who had been married to a woman, and was therefore ineligible for a refund under DOMA.
DOMA is the law that denies marital benefits under federal law to gays and lesbians who are legally married under state law while extending benefits to married heterosexual couples. The Obama administration has declined to defend the federal statute and asked the Court to hear Ms. Windsor’s case.
LDF is also part of a coalition of civil rights groups who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the United States Supreme Court earlier this week in Hollingsworth v. Perry urging the Court to apply heightened scrutiny to its examination of California’s Proposition 8 which denies gay men and women the right to marry in that State, and to hold that the proposition is unconstitutional.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is the country’s first and foremost civil and human rights law firm. Founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, who became the first African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice, LDF’s mission is to achieve racial justice, equality, and an inclusive society. LDF has been a separate entity from the NAACP since 1957.
Contact: Margot Friedman at 202-332-5550
http://www.naacpldf.org
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
New HUD Regulations Will Help Reduce Housing Discrimination
The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) today applauds the issuance of final regulations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that endorse use of the “disparate impact” standard under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
“We are thrilled about HUD’s action today. Disparate impact is a powerful tool for challenging the structural and institutional inequalities that persist in our housing and financial markets. The regulation comes at a critical time as African-American families struggle to overcome the devastating effects of the recession on homeownership and wealth,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of LDF
“Disparate impact” occurs when government or private actors unjustifiably pursue practices that have a disproportionately harmful effect on communities of color and other groups protected by the Fair Housing Act. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), this method of proving discrimination has been recognized by courts in a variety of civil rights cases, including those addressing employment discrimination, unequal educational opportunities and environmental racism. In the housing context, disparate impact is a powerful tool for promoting fair housing opportunity and meaningful housing integration. This standard is particularly helpful in challenging discrimination in mortgage lending, the provision of homeowners’ insurance, exclusionary zoning and admissions, redevelopment or demolition practices in public housing.
Although disparate impact doctrine is focused primarily on harmful outcomes, it can also help root out intentional discrimination, which is often more difficult to prove. Importantly, the HUD regulations also reaffirm that the Fair Housing Act bans practices which create or perpetuate racially segregated housing.
LDF relied on the disparate impact standard in a recent case, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center et al. v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development et al. LDF alleged that HUD’s “Road Home” program, which sought to assist homeowners after Hurricane Katrina, discriminated against African-American homeowners by awarding grants based on the lesser of the pre-storm value of the home or the cost of rebuilding. Because property values were lower in African-American communities, African-American homeowners were awarded insufficient grants for rebuilding whereas white homeowners with higher value homes were likely to receive grants allowing them to rebuild. The case settled.
For decades, the availability of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act has been recognized by courts, repeatedly endorsed as federal policy and utilized by HUD and other agencies in enforcement actions. HUD issued a proposed regulation in November, 2011, asking for comments. LDF was one of many civil rights groups who submitted comments in strong support of the regulations, noting that the “importance of the disparate impact standard to effective and vigorous fair housing enforcement cannot be overstated.”
Leslie Proll, Director of LDF’s Washington Office, said: “Issuance of the HUD regulation has long been a top priority for LDF. The federal government’s official imprimatur will reinforce the courts’ and federal agencies’ longstanding and consistent interpretation of the Fair Housing Act. This regulation will promote stronger fair housing enforcement across communities and in all aspects of the housing market. This is a very good day for fair housing.”
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is America's premier legal organization fighting for racial justice. Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, LDF seeks structural changes to expand democracy, eliminate disparities, and achieve racial justice in a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. LDF also defends the gains and protections won over the past 70 years of civil rights struggle and works to improve the quality and diversity of judicial and executive appointments.
Contact: Margot Friedman at 202-332-5550
http://www.naacpldf.org
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
Federal Court Rules That Louisiana Systemically Violated the NVRA
Public Agency Clients Must Be Offered an Opportunity to Register to Vote
(New Orleans, LA) – On January 23, 2013 voting rights advocates won a major legal victory on behalf of Louisiana’s public assistance agency clients, the state’s most vulnerable and most marginalized residents.
In a 36-page ruling, following a trial in October 2012 in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Jane Triche Milazzo found that the state of Louisiana violated federal law by failing to offer an opportunity to register to vote to all applicants and recipients of food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, and WIC. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires that voter registration be offered to all such individuals, whether they seek benefits in person, or by the internet, telephone, or mail.
“Yesterday’s ruling means that Louisiana will finally be required to comply with federal law, and that the state must help our most vulnerable fellow citizens register to vote,” said Dale Ho, assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). “Our democracy is stronger when more Americans are provided with an opportunity to participate.”
“The NVRA’s purpose is to expand voter registration and encourage participation in our great democracy,” said Sarah Brannon, director of the Public Agency Voter Registration Program at Project Vote. “The state of Louisiana spent over two years fighting compliance with the NVRA. Thankfully their efforts were not successful, because the court recognized that a meaningful opportunity to register to vote must be provided to low-income citizens.”
The NVRA’s requirement that states must provide voter registration to public assistance clients has resulted in millions of Americans becoming registered to vote. The court found that Louisiana failed to do its job to provide these opportunities to its citizens and must take meaningful action to provide those opportunities in the future.
The court’s order was a major victory for the plaintiffs, the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP and Luther Scott, Jr., an individual client of the state's public assistance program. The court concluded that the Louisiana Secretary of State, Department of Children and Family Services, and Department of Health and Hospitals systemically violated the NVRA’s requirement that they provide voter registration to public assistance clients. The court enumerated numerous violations by the Department of Health and Hospitals and the Department of Children and Family Services, and found that the Secretary of State had failed to ensure that the departments were in compliance with the NVRA.
The court ordered that all three defendants amend their practices and certify compliance with the law by March 15, 2013. The court also issued a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to comply with the law in the future. The decision sends a clear message that states will be held accountable if they do not follow the law.
“It is a great day in the state of Louisiana for voting rights,” said Dr. Ernest Johnson, president of the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP. “We urge the state of Louisiana to act with all due speed to comply with the law and the court’s order. We would like to thank the legal team and others, including Mr. Scott, for all their support and contributions the resulted in success of the case.”
"The significance of the decision rendered by Judge Milazzo cannot be overstated,” said attorney Ron Wilson. “In so ruling, she acknowledged and gave due meaning to the purpose behind the enactment of the NVRA, to make it easier, and not more difficult, for individuals to register to vote. We look forward to Louisiana's immediate implementation of the court's ruling."
“I'm glad that justice was served in the state of Louisiana,” said Luther Scott, Jr., a plaintiff.
“This is a great victory for democracy,” said Michael B. de Leeuw, a partner at the law firm of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, LLP. “We were inspired at every turn by our client Luther Scott, a proud veteran of our armed services, who, in the wake of Katrina, found himself down on his luck for a while. Through this lawsuit, Mr. Scott continued to fight for his country, and his contribution to voting rights will not be forgotten.”
The plaintiffs are represented by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., Project Vote, the law firm of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, and New Orleans Attorney Ron Wilson.
Plaintiffs showed that, despite consistently high numbers of participants in Louisiana’s food stamp and Medicaid programs, voter registration applications originating from public assistance agencies have been surprisingly low in the state. As of 2008, voter registration applications originating in these agencies had dropped 88 percent from 1995, despite increased participation in public assistance programs.
A coalition of nonprofit partners has been working across the country to ensure that the NVRA is being enforced. As of September 2012, one and a half million low-income people in 10 different states have applied to register to vote as a result of proper NVRA enforcement.
Project Vote is a national nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) that works to empower, educate, and mobilize low-income, minority, youth, and other marginalized and under-represented voters.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. LDF has been a separate entity from the NAACP since 1957. Therefore, if the organization's name needs to be shortened, please refer to it as "LDF" rather than "NAACP.”
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP is a leading international law firm. From offices strategically located in the world’s principal financial centers in the US, Europe and Asia, Fried Frank’s client base includes many of the markets’ most influential players, from multinational Fortune 500 companies, to leading financial institutions and investment firms, to entrepreneurial companies across all sectors.
For more information and interviews, please contact Sarah Massey of Project Vote, at 202-210-6614; or Valerie Holford for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc., at 301-926-1298 or valerieholford@starpower.net; or Somna Maraj of Fried Frank at 212-859-8342 or somna.maraj@friedfrank.com.
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
Coalition Warns that Armed Police in Schools Lead to Unintended Consequences
Increasing the presence of armed police officers and guards in public schools in response to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut will bring unintended consequences, a coalition warned today. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) joined Advancement Project, the Dignity in Schools Campaign and the Alliance for Educational Justice in releasing an issue brief that urges President Obama and Vice President Biden to embrace other options instead as they consider proposals to address safety.
"Enhanced police presence in schools is not a panacea for preventing the violence we saw in Newton, Connecticut. Instead, adding police and armed security to schools often means that normal student behavior becomes criminalized. The negative consequences of increased police activity is felt most sharply in schools with large numbers of African-American and poor children,” said Damon Hewitt, Director of the Education Practice Group at NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) and a leading expert on the civil rights implications of school discipline policies. Hewitt is co-author of the 2010 book The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Structuring Legal Reform.
The coalition recognizes the need for greater protections on guns, as well as other tactics to address the root causes of violence.
“School safety is absolutely our highest priority,” said Advancement Project Co-Director Judith Browne Dianis. “It’s important to note that police in schools do not necessarily increase safety, nor do they catch early indicators of mental health needs, identify root and underlying causes of violence, or use the resources of law enforcement in an effective way,” Browne Dianis added. “Instead of addressing infrequent, serious threats to safety, police in schools often respond to minor student misbehavior by handcuffing, arresting and criminalizing the young people they were intended to protect.”
“A police presence makes us feel unsafe and unwelcome in our own schools,” said Tanisha Dennard, a youth leader with the Youth Justice Coalition, a member of the Dignity in Schools Campaign. “Police are trained to stop and prevent crime on the streets, not to mediate problems that may come up between young people in a school. When we go to school, we go there to learn, to be students, not to be treated like criminals.”
According to the Department of Education, 42% of students referred to law enforcement and 35% of students arrested in school are African American. Many of these children are left with records that follow them into adulthood as they apply for jobs. According to the new issue brief, many young people are being pushed out of school and into the juvenile and criminal justice system.
The issue brief highlights some examples of overzealous enforcement:
In April 2012, a kindergartener from Milledgville, GA was handcuffed and arrested for throwing a tantrum.
In May 2012, an honors student in Houston, Texas was forced to spend a night in jail when she missed class to go to work to support her family.
In 2008, a student at a Florida school has been arrested after authorities said he disrupted the classroom environment by "passing gas".
Other examples include:
In 2005 an African-American kindergartner in St. Petersburg, Florida was handcuffed and shackled for throwing a temper tantrum.
In October 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against officials in Meridian, Mississippi regarding their practice of arresting students for non-criminal behavior, such as violating a school dress code and talking back to teachers.
The issue brief is available at http://www.naacpldf.org/publication/police-schools-are-not-answer-newtown-shooting
For more than seventy years, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) has dismantled barriers to access and opportunity and advocated for high quality, inclusive education for African Americans and other students of color. LDF coordinated the legal challenge to public school segregation, including the historic case Brown v. Board of Education. LDF’s “Dismantling the School to Prison Pipeline” initiative is a logical continuation of this work, addressing contemporary obstacles to access and inclusion that undermine educational opportunity. Capitalizing upon institutional expertise in both education and criminal justice, LDF staff members engage in strategic legal advocacy on school discipline issues, designed to dismantle the pipeline to prison. And its staff provides leadership in several significant national efforts to reform school discipline, including the Dignity in Schools Campaign and the School-to-Prison Pipeline Legal Strategies Collaborative.
January 11, 2013
Contact: Margot Friedman,
202-332-5550 or
mfriedman@dupontcirclecommunications.com
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
Viola Davis Nominated for NAACP Image Award
- Davis, an award-winning actress and mother, portrayed a Teacher-turned-Community Organizer in movie “Won’t Back Down -
Los Angeles – January 2, 2013 – The holidays brought good news for Tony Award-winning actress Viola Davis: she received a nomination from the NAACP Image Awards for her performance in the movie “Won’t Back Down.”
Ben Austin, executive director for Parent Revolution, issued the following statement on Viola Davis’ nomination:
Parent Revolution applauds Viola Davis for her powerful performance as dedicated teacher and community activist Nona Roberts in the film “Won’t Back Down.” Davis’ character, a mother, faces the same difficult circumstances presented to parents in every state of our nation each and every day. The movie brings to light the need to ensure real parent empowerment in communities with persistently failing schools. We are delighted that the NAACP recognized her talents and wish her nothing less than the best on February 1 at the awards ceremony.
Parent Empowerment laws give parents whose children attend a failing school the power to organize themselves and force changes that may help immediately improve schools for their kids. These laws grant parents, including those who form Parent Union chapters, the right to mount a petition and, with more than 50% of parent support, compel turnaround options that include replacement of the school’s leadership and conversion to a charter school. Parent Empowerment laws empower parents to push schools toward a student-first agenda.
Parent empowerment is a parent issue, not a political issue. According to a PDK/Gallup poll, “Seventy percent of Americans favor giving parents whose children attend a failing school the option of mounting a petition drive requesting that the teachers and principal be removed.” Parent Empowerment laws have strong support across the political spectrum, including 61% support among Democrat voters and 75% among independents.
Parent Revolution continues to work with parents, students, teachers, and legislators on the ground both in California and nationwide to mobilize and organize to fix many of our nation’s broken schools. We dedicated to empowering parents so that they can make the choices about what is best for their children.
For more information on recent efforts to support parents using the Parent Empowerment law to force immediate change in their children’s schools, visit Parent Revolutions blog and newsroom.
For further information: David Phelps, Parent Revolution communications: 213-718-4660 or dphelps@parentrevolution.org
PARENT REVOLUTION
Since 2009, we at Parent Revolution have worked with parents to transform public education based on what is good for children, not adults, by empowering parents to transform their under-performing schools through community organizing. Through our “student-first” work, we build autonomous, school-based, parent-only organizations called "Parents Union chapters" to empower parents to fight for change, and we work to help educate the public on the importance of parent empowerment legislation. To learn more, please visit: www.parentrevolution.org.
ooOoo
The articles on this website are provided for information purposes only. BlackRefer.com does not accept any responsibility or liability for the use or misuse of the article content on this site or reliance by any person on the site's contents. Use at your own risk.
No Implied Endorsement:
BlackRefer.com does not endorse or recommend any article on this site or any product, service or information found within said articles. The views and opinions of the authors who have submitted articles to BlackRefer.com belong to them alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of BlackRefer.com.
|
|
|
