Tagged: Civil Rights

Bias and the death penalty

January 24, 2012 | Jocelyn Wolf | Tags: Civil Rights, Criminal Law

The bias and discrimination that exists in our society is rampant in our criminal justice system. So says Michelle Alexander in her newly released book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The book details how today it is legal to discriminate against convicted criminals in nearly all the ways that it was previously legal to discriminate against African Americans. It argues that incarceration has become the newest form of racial control.

As a part of the criminal justice system, death penalty sentencing is also biased. While there are persistent difficulties with finding data related to bias, partly due to the nature of bias and insufficient data collection, there are studies and cases that point to the nearly arbitrary nature of sentencing.

One relevant study, “The Impact of Legally Inappropriate Factors on Death Sentencing for California Homicides, 1990-1999″ (46 Santa Clara L. Rev. (2005)), is a state-wide study on the role of race, ethnicity and geography in death sentencing in California. The authors, Glenn Pierce and Michael Radelet, reviewed all homicides that occurred in California from 1990-99, using records from the FBI and Vital Statistics. They conclude that the race and ethnicity of the victim and the location of the crime play a critical role in determining who will be sentenced to death.

Key findings of the study include:

While 27.6% of murder victims are white, 80% of executions in California have been for those convicted of killing whites.
Those who murder whites are over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill African-Americans and over four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill Latinos.
Death sentence rates vary substantially from county to county in California and this variation cannot be explained simply based on homicide rates. A person convicted of 1st degree murder in a predominantly white, rural county is more than three times as likely to be sentenced to death than a person convicted of a similar crime in a diverse, urban county.

This year, anti-death penalty groups in California will attempt to abolish the death penalty in part due to the erratic nature of death sentencing. The Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement for California Act, or SAFE California Act, would abolish the death penalty, causing prisoners currently sentenced to death to have their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. These prisoners and future prisoners sentenced to life without parole would be required to work and make restitution to the Victims’ Services fund. In addition, the SAFE California Act would create a SAFE California Fund to fund police departments, sheriffs and district attorney offices, in order to increase the rate at which homicide and rape cases may be solved. Organizers must collect 504,000 valid voter signatures by the March 18th deadline to qualify the initiative for the election.

Study shows majority of States fail to teach the civil rights movement

January 20, 2012 | Lauren Hansen | Tags: Civil Rights, Education

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently released a study called “Teaching the Movement: the State of Civil Rights Education 2011” that suggests the majority of States are not adequately teaching the civil rights movement to children.

The study compared the state standard requirements to a body of knowledge that reflects what civil rights historians and educators consider core information about the civil rights movement.

Researchers concluded that states are failing to set high expectations for student learning about the civil rights movement. States’ curricula on the movement tend to be about leaders and events, but are less likely to include information about the obstacles that civil rights activists faced, like racism and white resistance.

Researchers gave a grade to each state indicating how that state performed in teaching civil rights. 35 states received a grade of “F.” 16 states have no requirements for teaching the movement. Only three states received an A: Alabama, Florida, and New York. The study found that less attention is paid to the movement in states farther away from the South.

SPLC suggests that learning about the civil rights movement educates children “about the possibilities of civic engagement while warning…about the kinds of resistance that stand[s] in the way of change.” The study also states that teaching about the movement “helps minority students to find themselves in history classes that are often alienating and confusing.”

This study is part of Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Teaching Tolerance is a program designed to reduce prejudice, improve intergroup relations and support equitable school experiences for children.

HUD proposes discriminatory effect rule

December 12, 2011 | Jocelyn Wolf | Tags: Civil Rights, Fair Housing

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which administers the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), has proposed a new rule: Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard. This rule is intended to make clear that the standard to be used in implementing the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin includes discrimination with or without discriminatory intent. HUD’s proposed rule recognizes that the FHA includes discriminatory effect as a basis for liability.

While HUD and most circuit courts have used the discriminatory effects standard in deciding FHA cases, the circuits have differed in their application of the standard. A primary example is the differences among the circuits with respect to how the burden-of-proof shifts between the parties. The proposed rule is intended to create uniform standards.

The proposed standard will mirror the discriminatory effects standard used to determine cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e), which prohibits discriminatory employment practices. This is consistent with what HUD has done historically in interpreting other provisions in the Fair Housing Act that are analogous to provisions in Title VII.

Comments on the proposed rule are due on January 17, 2012. Those interested in commenting are strongly urged to contact Meliah Schultzman of the National Housing Law Project at mschultzman@nhlp.org. Ms. Schultzman is coordinating with other civil rights and fair housing advocates with expertise in the subject matter.

The large part of the proposed rule reads as follows:

Subpart G—Discriminatory Effect
§ 100.500 Discriminatory Effect Prohibited
Liability may be established under this subpart based on a housing practice’s discriminatory effect, as defined in § 100.500(a), even if the housing practice is not motivated by a prohibited intent. The housing practice may still be lawful if supported by a legally sufficient justification, as defined in § 100.500(b). The burdens of proof for establishing a violation under this subpart are set forth in § 100.500(c).
(a) Discriminatory effect defined. A housing practice has a discriminatory effect where it actually or predictably:
(1) Results in a disparate impact on a group of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin; or
(2) Has the effect of creating, perpetuating, or increasing segregated housing patterns on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
(b) Legally sufficient justification. A legally sufficient justification exists where the challenged housing practice:
(1) Has a necessary and manifest relationship to one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent, with respect to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 3610, or defendant, with respect to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 3613 or 3614; and (2) those interests cannot be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect. The burdens of proof for establishing each of the two elements of a legally sufficient justification are set forth in § 100.500(c)(2)–(c)(3).
(c) Burdens of proof in discriminatory effects cases.
(1) A complainant, with respect to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 3610, or a plaintiff, with respect to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 3613 or 3614, has the burden of proving that a challenged practice causes a discriminatory effect.
(2) Once a complainant or plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the respondent or defendant has the burden of proving that the challenged practice has a necessary and manifest relationship to one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent or defendant.
(3) If the respondent or defendant satisfies the burden of proof set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the complainant or plaintiff may still prevail upon demonstrating that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged practice can be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
(d) Relationship to discriminatory intent. A demonstration that a housing practice is supported by a legally sufficient justification, as defined in § 100.500(b), may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination.

For the first time in U.S. history, the single largest group of poor children is not white

November 23, 2011 | Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi | Tags: Census, Civil Rights, Health, REP

According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, for the first time in U.S. history, the single largest group of poor children is not white. According to the study and 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data, more Latino children are living in poverty (6.1 million) than children of any other racial or ethnic group. As of 2010, 37.3% of the nation’s poor children were Latino, 30.5% were white and 26.6% were black.

Between 2007 and 2010, poverty rates among Latino children increased (6.4%) at a greater rate than the rates of black children (4.6%) and white children (2.3%).

Although the largest group of poor children is Latino children, the nation’s highest child poverty rate is among black children. 39.1% of black children live in poverty compared to 35% of Latino children and 12.4% of white children.

Audit finds race discrimination in housing based on voice identification

November 13, 2011 | Mona Tawatao | Tags: Civil Rights, Fair Housing, Housing

A telephone audit conducted earlier this year in Solano County, California of 40 rental housing properties in which nearly 5,500 people reside, found at least some negative differential treatment toward African-Americans in 65% of the cases and no case in which African-Americans were treated more favorably. The most prevalent type of differential treatment uncovered (found in nearly 50 percent of the cases) was African-American testers receiving inferior, less flexible terms and narrower options, in terms of amount of rent, security deposit, minimum income requirements and move-in specials. The audit also found that a significant number of the African-American testers (as opposed to white testers) received less information about the availability of units.

Fair Housing of Marin with the help of the Solano County office of Legal Services of Northern California, conducted the audit following similar audits with similar results in neighboring jurisdictions, including Sonoma County and the city of Richmond. Undergirding the audit methodology and approach are studies by Stanford University linguistics professor John Baugh which found the existence of race and ethnicity discrimination based solely on speech patterns. As the audit states, Baugh’s March 1999 article (co-authored) Perceptual and Phonic Experiments on American English Dialect Identification showed that people are able to identify correctly the race of a speaker 80 percent of the time by the mere utterance of the word “hello”.

The audit recommendations include disseminating the report to Solano County official for remedial action and to other entities and the public as an educational tool and monitoring the sites where discrimination was detected for potential further action. Click here to read the full audit report.

E-Newsletter 6.3: Race, Poverty and Transportation, Part 2

October 24, 2011 | Mona Tawatao | Tags: Civil Rights, Environmental Justice, Transportation

Welcome to the third issue of the Race Equity Project’s 2011 e-newsletter: Race, Poverty and Transportation, Part 2.

The first piece, which traverses three centuries, details the history around transportation, race, and the law, and places modern day struggles related to transportation access and equity into their proper context. The second article highlights the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Sustainable Communities Initiative and how community advocates can maximize its potential to create opportunity for lower-income people of color living in transit-isolated, low-opportunity areas. The final piece is an inspirational account of a transportation and jobs project in the Sacramento, California region that, though small in scale, packs a big punch by providing a viable job-generating transportation-to-work model for otherwise isolated homeless, inner city and rural residents across the country.

Lessons from the History of Transportation Justice - By Richard Marcantonio and Marc Brenman

A Guide to Incorporating Equity into Sustainable Communities Regional Planning - By Kalima Rose and Mona Tawatao

“Wheels to Work”: A Unique Transportation/Employment Program Drives to End Homelessness in Sacramento – By Sandra Hamameh

Do you have an idea for a future e-newsletter? Would you like to share the race-based work that you are doing with others working to achieve race equity? Drop us an email.