“The Future of Movement Building” session is at 10 a.m. that day. On the panel, Eva joins Kim Klein (Author of “Fundraising for Social Change”), Vincent Pan (Executive Director, Chinese for Affirmative Action) and moderator Adriana Rocha (Practice Director, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services).

Nonprofit Day 2009 will start with a visionary keynote address by Benjamin Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP. The event offers topic-specific plenaries focused on The Future of Leadership; Movement Building; and the Economy. Participants will have opportunites to refine critical skills in interactive breakout sessions.

For more information and to register, visit: www.compasspoint.org/nonprofitday.

Over the last few days, I’ve searched my heart and mind to figure out why I’m so emotional about Michael Jackson’s death. I mean, it’s not like I knew him . . . or even followed his career in many years.

Friends in my age group say that it’s because his music helped to define our childhood. Others say it’s because his death signifies the end of a chapter of our lives. Yet others say that it’s because his songs conjure deep memories of the past.

All of those things are true. So are the memories of the Michael Jackson concert I went to in 1997 with my closest friends, the zillion times I played “Thriller” on my record player, and the way I almost wore out our Betamax VCR playing his videos. And, of course, I’m emotional because I feel sorry for his tortured life and much-too-early death. But for me, there’s something more.

I’m half Japanese American and half Puerto Rican – and quite Afro-Puerto Rican, at that. I grew up in a small, very-predominantly white town – Petaluma, California – with my single mom. Playing with my friends was fun. We all had white baby dolls. We all had blond Barbies. We acted out Grease. We loved Shaun Cassidy. We read Tiger Beat and kissed all the handsome, young, white movie stars that graced the pages. We got “Physical” to Olivia Newton John.

But I never saw anyone in my image. No teachers. No parents. No friends. No role models. At that time, there may have been many white ethnic groups in Petaluma, but a diverse place it was not.

Some kids called me “nigger.” Others called me “Jap” (making sure to make squinty-eyes with their fingers while they were saying it). Others told racial jokes in my presence as if it didn’t matter that I was there.

One girl said that if she ever brought a non-white boy home, her dad said he would get out the shotgun. Even those important adults (teachers, parents and others) who were well-meaning, inadvertently said things that made me feel even more different – and excluded.

I was full of self-hate. I straightened my hair. I wore the whitest powder on my face I could manage. I lied about my race. I envied my white friends. I wished on stars that I could be white - somehow. I even asked my mom why she couldn’t have married a white guy so I could have come out different. Some days, I felt as though I lived in my own private hell.

Then came the force that was Michael Jackson. He was Black. He was handsome. He was a superstar. We all learned how to moonwalk. We watched his videos over and over . . . and over. We bought his records, his posters. White girls screamed for him. White girls.

For the first time in my short and undeveloped life, I breathed a sigh of relief. If white girls could have crushes on an African American man, that must mean that being non-white was OK. Maybe I was OK. Maybe the standard of beauty wasn’t blond hair and blue eyes – maybe I could look more like the African American girl in the “Thriller” video – and that was OK.

For the first time, I really realized that there were people out there who looked more like me, and they were well-loved, popular, and real.

I know, almost all kids and teens go through a “stage.” They feel like they don’t belong. They get teased. But this is not just about zits or baby fat. This is about race. And race in America comes with a long history of exclusion, occupation, segregation, discrimination.

So, the fact that Michael Jackson broke down barriers, integrated music television, crossed-over, transcended, spoke to the masses, was – and is – a big deal. For the U.S. and the world.

And while Michael was throwing open the doors of opportunity in the entertainment business, he was giving me the confidence as a young woman of color to stand tall and go on. And for that, I am forever grateful.

Of course, Michael Jackson did not single-handedly solve my – or anyone else’s – racial issues. Transformation doesn’t happen overnight, and sometimes not in a lifetime. The wounds of American racial history run deep. And, ironically, Michael suffered from his own intense version of self-hate.

But that doesn’t matter to me now. All I remember is that fast-footed, sparkling-gloved, sweet-voiced Black man who helped launch me into adolescence just a little less ashamed of who I was.

And that is why I mourn his passing.

Thank you, Michael, for what you gave me . . . and the world. Rest in peace.

- Susan K. Serrano

These types of federal ‘conspiracy’ charges always endanger civil rights because they tend to be overbroad, vague and often times, outright false when the accusers have a long history of corruption, such as the LAPD.

In fact, in the late 1990s, Alex led a community grassroots campaign to shed light on police corruption and successfully exposed the CRASH Ramparts scandal where LAPD were found to have falsely framed Latinos on bogus charges.

This became one of the largest police corruption scandals in U.S. history with over 70 officers named as corrupt. Homies Unidos made an issue out of holding police liable to California state and federal law.

As a result, Alex was arrested and handed over to then INS (today known as ICE). After being deported, Alex successfully secured asylum in the U.S. Now that authorities in Los Angeles cannot attack Alex based on his immigration status, we are faced with his indictment.

Read Roberto Lovato’s analysis on his Of América blog (excerpt below) and a subsequent post, “Why Was Alex Sanchez Arrested? Uprising Radio Interview.”

I for one do not believe the charges. Rather, I think that these recent accusations are but the most recent in the long, rotten chain of attempts by law enforcement officials to frame Alex, who was regularly beaten, framed, falsely arrested, deported, and harassed by the Los Angeles Police Department since founding Homies Unidos in 1998. First and foremost, I spent the evening calling those who know and have worked most closely with him, and they ALL share that sense that, as one of his best friends told me, “He really is a good person.” I’ve known him for years and will be sending a strongly worded support letter like the many I’ve sent over the course of the many years and many frame-ups law enforcement has ravenously pursued. Those close to Homies and Alex know and are again feeling that cloud of anger and concern that comes with being harassed by authorities abusing the power delegated to them.

Also, Alex is alleged to have conspired to kill Walter Lacinos, who sources in the Salvadoran and gang communities tell me had, in the words of one gang expert interviewed, “many, many enemies in the U.S.-and El Salvador.” While most of charges levelled against most of the the 24 other plaintiffs point to physical acts and evidence, the one and most serious indictment (see full indictment here)naming Alex alleges that he participated in “a series of phone conversations” in which the possibility of killing Lacinos is discussed. No proof is offered to corroborate the charges relating to managing narcotics operations for MS.

Lastly, the sensationalistic judgements of many media and some law enforcement officials raises serious concerns, as well. Close scrutiny of the media coverage reveals an definite disposition to judge and convict Alex even before his trial begins. For example, almost all of the coverage follows uncritically the logic laid out in the indictment. No attempt is made to notice that, for example, Alex is not named in most of the 66-page indicment. Other plaintiff’s names appear throughout. Those reading reporting in the LA Times and other outlets might come away believing that Alex might be involved in the murder of seven people or in conspiring to kill another 8. Consider this note from today’s LA Times:

The arrests cap a three-year investigation into the gang and its cliques, which operated in the Lafayette Park area, west of downtown. Among the most serious allegations contained in a 16-count federal indictment unsealed today was the claim gang members conspired to murder veteran LAPD gang officer Frank Flores.

Those named in the indictment include Alex Sanchez, a nationally recognized anti-gang leader and executive director of Homies Unidos.

Notice how there’s zero attempt to clarify or give greater context to Alex’s story, even though he headlines most of these stories. Even worse is the way that law enforcement authorities like L.A. Police Chief Bill Bratton, who the Times tells us has a big “I told you so” for the city, use Alex’s case to build the case for punitive-and failed-anti-gang policies, LAPD Chief William J. Bratton said the Sanchez case reinforces the thinking behind the city’s efforts to consolidate and more strongly regulate anti-gang funding.

Read Roberto’s full post.

]]> http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/2009/07/violence-prevention-advocate-alex-sanchez-arrested-by-fbi-under-questionable-circumstances/feed/ http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/2009/06/ricci-decision-threatens-constitutional-values-of-equal-justice-for-all/ http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/2009/06/ricci-decision-threatens-constitutional-values-of-equal-justice-for-all/#comments Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:59:38 +0000 Keith Kamisugi http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/?p=807 In a 5 to 4 decision in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated Title VII when it declined to make promotions in the fire department on the basis of a test that disproportionately screened out minority candidates.

The Equal Justice Society joined the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief urging the Court to uphold New Haven’s efforts to root out discrimination from its promotional process, consistent with civil rights laws and the Constitution. The Lawyers’ Committee brief was also joined by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Urban League.

“We are shocked by the decision and we will continue our work to preserve the vital protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” said Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Like Justice Ginsburg, we anticipate that the decision ‘will not have staying power.’”

In this case, the city of New Haven, Connecticut declined to certify the results of a firefighter promotion test based on evidence that the test discriminated on the basis of race. The city also had evidence that more fair and effective tests were available. Rather than making promotions on the basis of the discriminatory test, the city declined to certify the results, and sought to explore less discriminatory alternatives, in keeping with its obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the city declined to make promotions on the basis of the test results, firefighters who had scored highly on the test filed suit, alleging that the city discriminated on the basis of race.

“Today’s decision ignores the plain language of Title VII, congressional intent and established precedent,” said Sarah Crawford, senior counsel with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law’s Employment Discrimination Project. “We still have far to go to fulfill Title VII’s promise of equal employment opportunity. This is a giant leap backward.”

“Continuing its assault on our civil rights laws, the five conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court today rejected long-standing law to weaken Title VII protections for traditional victims of discrimination,” said Aron.

Before the Court issued its ruling, People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker said that: “Opponents of Judge Sotomayor have gone to great lengths to use the ruling of her panel in Ricci v. DeStefano against her, and they will surely ramp up their efforts if the Supreme Court overturns the Second Circuit. But the simple fact is that the Supreme Court’s ruling, whatever it may be, will not reflect upon Sotomayor’s jurisprudence.

“Sotomayor and her panel colleagues were bound by longstanding precedent and federal law. They applied the law without regard to their personal views and unanimously affirmed the district court ruling. To do anything but would have been judicial activism.

“The full Second Circuit backed up the panel, which came as no surprise. Nearly ten years earlier a Second Circuit panel — consisting of three GOP nominees — reached the same conclusion in a similar case (Hayden v. County of Nassau).

“When a case virtually identical to Ricci came before the Sixth Circuit — Oakley v. Memphis — a panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims and affirmed the district court ruling. Notably, they did so in an unpublished summary order, and one of the three judges was conservative Bush nominee Richard Allen Griffin.

“In other words, Sotomayor is anything but an outlier. She and the seven other federal judges who decided Ricci and Oakley at the district and circuit levels were unanimous in determining that precedent and federal law required the rejection of the suits.”

The Director of Law and Public Policy is a member of the management team of EJS and participates in the overall management and development of the organization. The Director reports to the President of EJS.

EJS is a national strategy group driven by a vision of a society where race is no longer a barrier to opportunity. Our mission is to heighten consciousness on race in the law and popular discourse. Grounded by an agenda that seeks progressive legal reform, we engage a three-pronged strategy that incorporates communications, law and policy, and fostering a “grand alliance” among our progressive allies.

Our legal strategy aims to broaden conceptions of present-day discrimination using cognitive science, structural analysis, and real-life experience. We provide attorneys with tools to challenge the flawed assumptions underlying current anti-discrimination doctrine.

The Director of Law and Public Policy is responsible for managing and directing the implementation of multiple programmatic responsibilities in pursuit of the organization’s goals and strategies. The Director will be expected to:

* Supervise and prepare legal activity, including appellate briefs, amicus curiae, and, eventually, impact litigation involving issues of critical importance to EJS’s mission;

* Direct research by EJS staff, consultants and outside academics and social scientists on various legal and social justice issues;

* Plan and prepare law related conferences that bring together legal scholars, practitioners, law students, social scientists, journalists and other concerned activists to stimulate analysis and progressive reform of key areas of the law, with a particular emphasis on civil rights and social justice;

* Direct outreach to law schools, students and faculty to engage in research, public policy initiatives and legal action and supervising legal and/or research interns.

The Director of Law and Public Policy should have at least five (5) years of academic and/or legal experience, particularly in the area of civil rights, critical race theory, and/or the use of social science and the law. The ability to engage legal scholars, practitioners and grassroots activists is essential to successful performance. The Director will supervise a full-time staff attorney and a fellow, additional legal staff as the organization grows, occasional interns and help coordinate and direct other program staff.

The position is an exempt, professional and management position. The Director is expected to be a senior, experienced manager. A demonstrated record of working in coalition with other organizations is required.

Interested candidates should send a résumé and letter of interest on or after July 1* and sent no later than July 15, 2009, to info@equaljusticesociety.org and sent via postal mail (postmarked by July 15) to:

Search Committee
Equal Justice Society
260 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111

* We ask that applications be sent on or after July 1 due to our office move taking place June 26-30.

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court recognized that “[t]he historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.”

Today’s ruling, which was joined by seven other Justices, recognizes Section 5’s critical importance in addressing voting discrimination faced by citizens throughout our country.

“The entire thrust of LDF’s argument was that Section 5 remains critical to our democracy and, however grudgingly, the Court acknowledges that in its opinion today. In an unusually harmonious opinion, today’s decision upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection in our democracy,” said John Payton, LDF Director-Counsel.

Payton observed that “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act protects and shields the rights of minority voters from discrimination. Section 5 has long been symbolic of our nation’s long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protections, our nation would unnecessarily face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made.”

The Court’s ruling today ensures that minority voters will continue to have the safeguards provided by the Section 5 preclearance process.

The Court expanded the number of places that can seek to “bailout” or exempt themselves from preclearance. However, no Section 5-covered jurisdiction can do so without demonstrating a clean bill of health for a ten-year period.

The bailout provision has proven workable and achievable for those jurisdictions that have sought it. It remains to be seen how the Court’s interpretation of the bailout provision will impact enforcement of Section 5. If, for any reason, today’s ruling renders Section 5 unworkable in the future, Congress could always amend the statute.

“The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congress’s greatest legacies,” said Debo P. Adegbile, LDF Director of Litigation, who argued the case on behalf of Appellee-Intervenors.