Racial justice

  • January 2, 2013

    by John Schachter

    Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” has earned rave reviews, myriad award nominations and more than $132 million at the box office. All this for a 2½ hour movie about politics. While other films with government and politics at their core often struggle to draw sizable audiences, “Lincoln” has transcended the genre and demonstrated mass appeal. That’s likely because of the superb acting and script – and the moral force behind the film’s focus, the fight to end slavery in America once and for all..

    Tuesday, January 1, marked the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, a document Fredrick Douglass praised as “the most important document ever issued by an American president,” according to historian Eric Foner (in his book The Fiery Trial).

    Douglass was no Lincoln apologist; he recognized the great man’s flaws and imperfections. But Douglass also got to know Lincoln and appreciate the great pressures under which he operated. When it came to the Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass understood the content, the context and the confines. In his “Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln,” delivered at the unveiling of the Freedmen's Monument in Washington D.C. in memory of Lincoln, on April 14, 1876, Douglass said:

    “Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the President had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt which would smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress.”

    Though sectional conflicts over slavery certainly contributed to the war, ending slavery was not an initial goal. The National Archives notes that that “changed on September 22, 1862, when President Lincoln issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which stated that slaves in those states or parts of states still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be declared free.” Just 100 days later, seeing no action from the rebelling states, Lincoln issued the official Emancipation Proclamation declaring “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious areas “are, and henceforward shall be free.” While the proclamation did not end slavery in the United States, it did fundamentally transform the character of the war and added moral force to the Union cause while strengthening the Union both politically and militarily.

    Eric Foner wrote in The New York Times that to some extent the Emancipation Proclamation “embodied a double emancipation: for the slaves, since it ensured that if the Union emerged victorious, slavery would perish, and for Lincoln himself, for whom it marked the abandonment of his previous assumptions about how to abolish slavery and the role blacks would play in post-emancipation American life.”

    Across the nation, celebrants have many opportunities to appreciate the value and meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Library of Congress is displaying Lincoln’s first handwritten draft, on display for six weeks starting Jan. 3 in "The Civil War in America" exhibit. And the National Museum of African American History and Culture at the Smithsonian has an exhibit called "Changing America," which recounts both the 1863 emancipation and the 1963 March on Washington for Civil Rights. The exhibit includes a rare signed copy of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that abolished slavery and is the centerpiece of the Spielberg film. What a great opportunity to see and appreciate the reality of what's been portrayed on the movie screen!

  • December 20, 2012
    BookTalk
    Brandishing the First Amendment
    Commercial Expression in America
    By: 
    Tamara R. Piety

    by Professor Tamara R. Piety, Associate Dean of Faculty Development and Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law


     

    The Supreme Court has been very active on the First Amendment in the last few years. In 2010 it issued Citizens United, a controversial and unpopular decision which announced a robust vision of the role of corporate personhood. According to the New York Times, “[t]he First Amendment dominated” the 2011 term as well when the Court decided, among other cases, Brown v. Entertainment Merchantsa decision striking downa California statute which attempted to restrict the sale of violent videos to children, and Sorrell v. IMS Health, a decision striking down a Vermont statute which attempted to limit the sale of physician prescriber information for marketing purposes without the doctor’s permission on First Amendment grounds.  These cases, and others, taken together reflect a distinct trend, in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, toward greater protection for commercial speech. This trend is the subject my new book, Brandishing the First Amendment: Commercial Expression in America (U.  of Michigan Press, 2012). In Brandishing the First Amendment I discuss the way in which increased First Amendment protection for commercial speech has provided the intellectual foundation for increased protection for corporate political speech, which has, in turn been then used to argue for greater protection for commercial speech, thereby turning the First Amendment into a sort of all-purpose weapon against a variety of governmental regulations.            

    This is a troubling development because it is difficult to meaningfully and effectively regulate commerce if you cannot regulate commercial speech. This new and robust commercial speech doctrine threatens to undermine a good deal of the basic regulatory regime legitimized since the New Deal.In Brandishing the First Amendment I look at the various theories that have been offered for why we might want to protect freedom of expression, using as a starting point the work of the late Yale law professor

    Thomas Emerson, in particular his book Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, and conclude that none of interests that freedom of expression is meant to protect are particularly advanced, if at all, by protecting commercial speech.  To the contrary, I argue there is good reason to suppose that offering robust protection to commercial speech may well undermine the very interests the protection for freedom of expression is thought to advance.

    In Brandishing the First Amendment I draw on work in marketing research, psychology, behavioral economics, and professional and academic work in marketing and public relations to explore marketing practices and how they work and how marketers,  driven by the imperatives of the market, may engage in promotional practices that are contrary to the public health and welfare. I also explore the attributes of corporate “personhood” as dictated by principles of corporate law and argue that an examination of all of these elements suggests that full First Amendment protection for commercial expression is likely to exacerbate many of the pressing social problems of our times, from changing consumption patterns to ameliorate global climate change to protecting the public from unsafe pharmaceutical drugs; from reining in unsafe promotional practices in the consumer credit market to regulating the sale of securities.  Those interested in the interaction of the First Amendment, commerce, commercialism, and corporate influence in modern life will want to read this book.

  • November 19, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    One of the nation’s preeminent civil and human rights groups, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), tapped as its new leader one of the nation’s foremost civil rights attorneys and scholars Sherrilyn Ifill. The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall helped found LDF in 1940 and led the battle in its first couple of decades to end segregation of the public schools.

    Ifill (pictured), a frequent ACS participant, who has also occasionally provided guest posts for ACSblog, will be LDF’s next president and director-counsel in January. She is also a Professor of Law at the University of Maryland’s Francis King Carey School of Law, and as The Root notes is “no stranger to LDF’s work.”

    The Root continues:

    Early in her career, before joining the faculty of the University of Maryland School of Law, authoring On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 21st Century, and making a name for herself as a respected civil rights strategist, she served as assistant counsel in LDF’s New York office. There, she litigated voting rights cases, including the landmark Voting Rights Act case Houston Lawyers' Association vs. Attorney General of Texas.

    In March, LDF’s sixth Director-Counsel and President John Payton died. Payton, like his predecessors at LDF, was also a tireless advocate for civil liberties and human rights. In a tribute piece to Payton, ACS Board member and former LDF Director-Counsel and President Theodore M. Shaw said Payton’s “advocacy on behalf of the poor, the disenfranchised, and the excluded reached beyond the United States. He worked against the apartheid in South Africa, and traveled around the world in support of rights.”     

  • November 9, 2012
    The Supreme Court announced today that it will consider the constitutionality of a key section of the historic Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires states and localities – primarily in the South – with a history of discrimination to receive federal review and approval of any changes they want to make to their voting laws. Lawmakers first adopted the provision in 1965, during the midst of the fierce civil rights battles to help guarantee the voting rights of African-Americans.

    Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers; President George W. Bush signed the law. In Shelby County [Alabama] v. Holder, the Court will review a decisionupholding Section 5 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
     
    Critics of the law argue that singling out the specific nine states and localities in seven others is outdated and unnecessary now.
     
     
    Voting rights proponents, though, aggressively used Section 5 this year to challenge a slew of restrictions on voting that Republican-led legislatures enacted in a number of states. Despite a paucity of evidence showing voter fraud to be a serious problem anywhere, supporters of the restrictive measures insisted that they were needed to combat voter impersonation or help election officials do a better job on Election Day.
     
    An ACS Issue Brief by Loyola Law School Professor Justin Levitt earlier this year, “The New Wave of Election Regulation: Burden without Benefit,” made the case that these restrictive voting laws are “suspect as a matter of constitutional law and fundamentally flawed as a matter of public policy.” 
  • October 15, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Leave it to the American Family Association to freak out – and try to raise money – over an effort to promote equality and dissuade bullying in schools by tarring it as a nefarious plot to promote a gay agenda. Unless you’re a regular -- or even occasional follower -- of the machinations of the nation’s Christianist Right, you may wonder what AFA is all about. There are not too many things to know, it was founded in the late 1970s by an evangelical pastor, in part, to demonize the LGBT community and promote the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation.

    For decades the group has been pounding away at those themes with varying degrees of success. Its “philosophical statement,” declares that “God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest biblical change in any culture.”

    AFA, as noted by The New York Times, is now going ballistic over a program “started 11 years ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” dubbed “Mix It Up at Lunch Day.” The SPLC, a civil rights groups launched in 1971, devoted to “fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society,” operates an array of programs aimed at fostering inclusive and nurturing school environments.

    One way to do that is helping educators teach acceptance of their peers, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. One of the SPLC’s “teaching tolerance,” programs is a nationwide campaign to encourage students to share their lunchtime with different students, those they normally don’t have lunch with. “In our surveys, students have identified the cafeteria as the place where divisions are most clearly drawn. So on one day – Oct. 30 this school year – we ask students to move out of their comfort zones and connect with someone new over lunch,” SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance project states. “It’s a simple act with profound implications. Studies have shown that interactions across group lines can help reduce prejudice.”

    But efforts to eradicate prejudices mean something radically different to many Christianists. And in a recent statement by AFA, it attacks SPLC as a “fanatical pro-homosexual group,” and its “Mix it Up,” program as “gay indoctrination.”