Categories
Join Us At:
|
A Brewing Battle Over Warrantless Wiretapping One of the hardest-fought civil liberties battles of the George W. Bush era involved the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the post-Watergate statute that was meant to rein in domestic surveillance undertaken in the name of national security. It's almost certain that we'll have an equally hard-fought battle over FISA this year, both in the courts and in Congress. The first volley may come as early as next week, because the administration must decide by Tuesday whether to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the ACLU's constitutional challenge to the FISA Amendments Act, the 2008 law that ratified and expanded the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. And that law is scheduled to sunset in December, which means that the litigation will unfold against the background of a congressional reauthorization debate. To understand the significance of this brewing battle, you need to know (or recall) a little history. Right after 9/11, President Bush instructed the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept Americans' telephone calls without first obtaining warrants. The program was developed in secret but exposed by The New York Times in 2005 and immediately challenged by civil liberties groups, including the ACLU. In response to public pressure, and in an effort to derail the legal challenges, the Bush administration announced in January 2006 that it would allow the program to be supervised by the judiciary — specifically, by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the entity established by FISA to oversee domestic intelligence surveillance. Though there were unanswered questions — for example, what, precisely, did the administration submit to the FISA Court, and what did the FISA Court approve? — it seemed, briefly, like a victory for civil liberties. But the FISA Court reconsidered its endorsement of the warrantless wiretapping program only a few months later, and the administration and its allies in Congress began to press for legislative change. It was a misleading campaign. If there was a problem with FISA as written, the problem was narrow and could have been addressed with a minor legislative fix that no one would have opposed. The administration, though, was not interested in fixing the narrow problem it had identified; it was interested in allowing the NSA to turn its powerful technology inward, towards the United States. This is what it asked Congress to permit. And this, ultimately, is what Congress allowed. Congress weakened FISA in 2007 and then again in 2008 to permit the warrantless wiretapping that the law had previously prohibited. It granted retroactive immunity to the companies that had facilitated the warrantless wiretapping program. And it gave the NSA unprecedented power to monitor the international communications of people living in the United States — to listen to their phone calls, and to read their emails. "We are targeting our own country," one NSA whistleblower observed. Marty Lederman, then a law professor but later a lawyer for the Obama administration, explained the 2008 amendments like this: The new statute permits the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and a foreign location, without making any showing to a court and without judicial oversight, whether or not the communication has anything to do with al Qaeda — indeed, even if there is no evidence that the communication has anything to do with terrorism, or any threat to national security. Predictably, the NSA has not simply used the law aggressively but abused it as well. Congress's 2008 amendments to FISA are scheduled to sunset in December, and over the next 10 months the ACLU and its partners will be urging Congress to fix FISA's problematic provisions and rein in the NSA. We'll also be pressing the constitutional challenge we filed less than an hour after the 2008 amendments became law. In that case we represent a coalition of labor, media, and human rights organizations whose work depends on their ability to communicate confidentially with clients, witnesses, sources, and victims of human rights abuses. (Profiles of our clients are here.) The government has tried to keep the case out of court; it's argued that our clients lack standing to challenge the 2008 Act because they can't prove that their communications were (or will be) monitored under it. Some courts have accepted that cynical argument, but early last year a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected it, and late last year the full Second Circuit declined the government's request to reconsider that ruling. The Obama administration must decide by Tuesday whether to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. As we've said before, our hope is that the Obama administration will drop its objection to our plaintiffs' standing and allow the constitutionality of the FISA amendments to be tested in court. For a full decade, the executive branch — first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration — has used the standing and "state secrets" doctrines to insulate its most intrusive surveillance activities from public oversight and judicial review. But the Constitution doesn't contemplate that core democratic rights — the right to privacy, the freedoms of association and expression — will be left to the mercy of the political branches. The courts have a role to play in ensuring that government surveillance complies with the Constitution. We'll find out on Tuesday whether the Obama administration is finally willing to let the courts play that role. Learn more about warrantless wiretapping: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: faa, fisa, spying, telecom immunity, warrantless wiretapping
Every Child Deserves a Family, Including in VirginiaYesterday was Valentine's Day, a day when we celebrate our love for one another, whether it is between significant others, class mates, or a child and their parents. Growing up, I always received a small box of chocolates on Valentine's Day from my parents. I looked forward to those chocolates every year, not just for the sweet treat, but because of the love I felt from my parents. In a small way, it reflected the love my family shared for each other. This love is something every child should have the opportunity to feel. Sadly, there are 107,000 children in the foster care system nationwide who are waiting to be adopted and wanting to feel the love of a "forever family." Despite the desperate need for more families who are willing to open their hearts and homes to these children, many qualified families are arbitrarily turned away on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. Most recently, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law, which the governor is expected to sign, which would allow private, state-licensed adoption and foster care agencies to discriminate against prospective parents based on their sexual orientation, religion or other bases that may be contrary to the adoption agency's religious tenets. These practices are particularly harmful to the children in the foster care and adoption systems. Currently, only six states explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the adoption process, leaving children and families vulnerable to the potential biases of individual case workers and judges. No child should be denied the right to be a part of a family based on the sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status of their prospective parent(s). With 27,000 children leaving foster care without ever finding a permanent and loving home, we should not have policies that prevent qualified and loving individuals from opening their hearts and homes to these children, solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The ACLU has succeeded in challenging discriminatory adoption laws in Florida and Arkansas, but a broader solution is necessary. Today, the ACLU sent a letter to the Senate urging support for the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. This legislation would prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved. It would remove discriminatory adoption policies and allow qualified and caring families to welcome these children into permanent, safe, and stable homes. It is time for all children to be able to feel the love of a family that I felt every Valentine's Day from my own parents. Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: adoption, foster care, Virginia
A Sunny Day in Florida (Unless You're a Private Prison)Today, the Florida Senate averted disaster by voting down a proposal to create the largest private prison system in America. The plan would have turned over nearly 30 Florida correctional facilities to private, for-profit companies, which have would run the prisons under contract with the state. Florida operates the third-largest prison system in the United States, a $2.2 billion-a-year enterprise overseeing nearly 101,000 inmates and another 112,800 on community supervision. The prison population has nearly quadrupled since harsh sentencing laws were passed in the 1980s – Florida incarcerated just 26,471 people in 1980. If lawmakers want to save money in our prison system, they should reform mandatory minimum sentencing, invest in re-entry programs and re-visit parole policies that feed the addiction to incarceration and throw people into the revolving door that is our prison system. Privatization schemes, often coupled with inflated claims of cost savings, distract policymakers from an inescapable truth: The best way to reduce prison spending is to reduce the number of people we imprison. The defeat of the privatization bill is a victory for Florida. As Julie Ebenstein, Policy & Advocacy Counsel at the ACLU of Florida, explained shortly after the bill’s defeat: “Florida’s prison system needs reform, but private prisons aren’t reform – they deform the process by linking corporate profit to incarceration. The bottom line is that private prisons make money by keeping people in prison when we should be looking for ways to keep them out in the first place.” For more on the problematic incentives injected into incarceration by the profit motive, see Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration, the ACLU’s recent, comprehensive report on the private prison industry. Learn more about private prisons: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: private prisons
Love Is in the Air: Update on Efforts to Expand the Freedom to Marry I know it suddenly seems like marriage is breaking out all over, even though what we’re seeing is the product of long-planned campaigns. It’s getting hard to keep up with all the good news, so here’s a quick guide to what’s happening with efforts to expand marriage for same-sex couples on the ground now and what’s in store for us during the rest of 2012. Washington State: Gov. Christine Gregoire signed the new marriage law yesterday, making Washington the seventh state in the country (plus D.C.!) to open marriage to committed same-sex couples. The law goes into effect on June 7, but if marriage opponents gather enough signatures before then, the law will be suspended pending a referendum on the November ballot asking whether voters approve of the marriage law. The ACLU of Washington is a leader on the steering committee of the Washington United for Marriage campaign, and lobbied hard for the marriage bill. New Jersey: The state Senate passed a marriage bill yesterday, and the Assembly is expected to vote for it on Thursday. Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to veto the bill, but we and our allies have almost two more years to gather the votes to override that veto, and we’re committed to making that happen. The ACLU of New Jersey has been lobbying for the marriage bill in Trenton and has gotten ACLU members out in force. Maryland: The House of Delegates held hearings last week on a marriage bill supported by Gov. Martin O’Malley. Here, as in Washington, if the marriage bill passes, there’s a real chance that the issue will end up on the ballot in November. The ACLU of Maryland is on the steering committee of Marylanders for Marriage Equality, and has hired organizing staff to help with the campaign. Laura Murphy, who is legislative director for the national ACLU, testified in favor of the marriage bill before the House of Delegates. Maine: Back in 2009, the Maine legislature passed a freedom to marry law and the governor signed it, but the law was narrowly rejected by the people at the ballot that fall. Now we are putting the issue back on the ballot in November 2012. The ACLU of Maine is on the executive committee of the Why Marriage Matters Maine campaign, and is hiring organizing staff to team up with partner organizations. Minnesota: We face a bad marriage amendment in Minnesota, which is on the ballot in November 2012 and would bar marriage for same-sex couples. The ACLU of Minnesota is a member of the Minnesotans United for All Families coalition and is working to educate the state about the freedom to marry. North Carolina: In May 2012, we’re facing an even worse amendment to the state’s constitution that would ban marriage or other forms of relationship protection for same-sex couples. The ACLU of North Carolina is on the steering committee of the Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families, and has hired organizing staff to help fight the amendment. These contests are all important. We stand to win the freedom to marry in as many as four new states this year, catapulting us from six to 10 marriage states in one year. As important, we have a real chance to win marriage fights at the ballot box, which we have managed to do only once in the past (Arizona in 2006, and that lasted only until 2008, when we lost at the ballot again). A ballot box win alone would change the national debate and would reinforce the polls showing growing majorities across the country that support marriage for committed same-sex couples. Finally, expanding the number of marriage states is the best way to help the Prop. 8 lawsuit succeed if it gets before the Supreme Court. All across the country, the ACLU is proud to join with our allies and help lead the struggle for the freedom to marry. As you celebrate Valentine’s Day today, please take the time to help other couples and families have their love and commitment recognized. Call your legislators if marriage is before your state's legislature, or support the campaigns where marriage will be on the ballot this fall. Clearly, love is in the air. Help us keep the momentum to expand the freedom to marry going strong. Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Maine, marriage, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Washington
Promising Beginnings: States Provide a Model for Federal Criminal Justice ReformIn his 2007 State of the State address, Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) aptly explained, “I believe we can take an approach to crime that is both tough and smart…[T]here are thousands of non-violent offenders in the system whose future we cannot ignore. Let’s focus more resources on rehabilitating those offenders so we can ultimately spend less money locking them up again.” Gov. Perry is just one voice in the chorus of policymakers, from both sides of the political aisle, calling for serious criminal justice reform that promotes public safety, reduces unsustainable prison populations and saves scarce taxpayer dollars. Elected officials like Gov. Perry are beginning to put their money where their mouths are by passing reform legislation to address overincarceration. For example, in 2008, former Gov. Haley Barbour (R- Miss.) signed legislation that allowed all incarcerated individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies to be eligible for parole after serving 25 percent of their sentences. In Kansas, conservative lawmakers mandated community-based drug abuse treatment and community supervision for nonviolent offenders convicted of drug possession for the first or second time. And last year, in Ohio, a Republican-majority legislature passed a measure that is projected to save $1 billion over the next four years by — among other things — increasing the amount of time a prisoner can earn toward early release, eliminating the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity, removing mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level drug offenses and increasing the use of diversion programs for low-level drug offenders. Many other states, including Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia, have also passed legislation that will reduce corrections spending, enhance public safety, and increase justice. A more detailed discussion of these reforms can be found in the ACLU’s recently released report, Promising Beginnings: Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform in Key States. While the reforms discussed in this report do not represent the final solution to our incarceration crisis, it is encouraging to know that legislators in a variety of states are working in a bipartisan manner to thoughtfully address this serious problem. Given the successes of these state initiatives, now is the time for Members of Congress to put aside petty politics and pass the National Criminal Justice Commission Act (S. 306), which would create a bipartisan commission tasked with examining the nation’s criminal justice system and offering reform recommendations in a number of important areas including sentencing policy, law enforcement, crime prevention and re-entry. With over 2.2 million people incarcerated in local jails or in state or federal prisons, now is the time for the federal government to follow the lead of the states and take a holistic look at the justice system. As the bill’s author, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) explained on the Senate Floor, “Nowhere is the need to think creatively for the good of the country more clear than where it affects our dysfunctional criminal justice system, whose challenges threaten the safety and the well-being of every single community and every single American. This system will not be fixed by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending not to see its failings. It will only be fixed by bringing together good minds who have dedicated years of thought and action to finding the answers.” Take action now. Tell Congress to support meaningful reform by passing the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2011. Learn more about sentencing policy: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: drug sentencing, sentencing disparity, sentencing reform, U.S. Sentencing Commission
"The Loving Story" Is What Love Is All About As we embark on the celebration of Black History Month, America is reminded of the stellar contributions that Blacks have made to American life, contributions made despite the greatest of odds, contributions that affect our everyday existence. Were it not for the energy and ingenuity of Black inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, without light bulb filaments, without even peanut butter — and an astounding number of other things we take for granted but could hardly live without. The 29 days in which we will observe Black History Month this year hardly seems time enough to explore it all, particularly when — as critics of the yearly observance point out — too many are prone to ignore the celebrations all together or to forget about these contributions the moment the calendar flips to March. Still, despite the general malaise surrounding the month, there’s no better time than February to talk about the history of civil rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the impact of one of its most important cases, and how this history impacts the continuing struggles we face today. I’d like to take this Black History Month to commemorate the history of ending anti-miscegenation laws in this country, to lift up a remarkable couple, Mildred and Richard Loving, to reflect on history and to talk about how we move forward to ensure that we all have the freedom to love.
In 1958, Mildred Delores Jeter and Richard Perry Loving left their home in Virginia because as an interracial couple they couldn’t be married there. They traveled to Washington, D.C., where a legal marriage was performed. When Mildred Loving, a woman of African and Native American descent, and Richard Loving, a man of European descent, returned to Virginia, the police found out about their presence and broke into the room where they were sleeping, hoping to discover them in an intimate, then illegal, act. Though police didn’t find what they were hoping for, the Lovings were nonetheless arrested for violating the state’s “Racial Integrity Act,” the judge declaring, “Mighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” The judge sentenced the Lovings to a year in jail, but suspended the sentence because they agreed to leave the state. They did leave, but they also fought — with the help of the NAACP and the ACLU. Loving v. Virginia was a classic civil rights struggle. At every level, the Virginia courts upheld the constitutionality of the Racial Integrity Act. But when it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Lovings were victorious. The Warren Court unanimously struck down the Racial Integrity Act as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses. It affected not only Virginia, but every one of the 15 states that still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. It was a great moment in not only Black history and civil rights history, but in American history. On the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia, Mildred Loving, having lost her beloved Richard, issued a rare public statement and it in part speaks to one of the great civil rights struggles of today — the struggle to make marriage legal for same-sex couples. Mildred Loving said: “I am still not a political person, but I’m proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, Black or White, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. “That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.” No matter how some might try to ignore it, or to negate its worth in our supposedly post-racial, colorblind America, that’s what Black History Month is all about, too — reaching into the very soul of the American experience and finding ways to not only celebrate the past but to move forward to a better more inclusive future for all of us. This blog post is one of several personal testimonials written by ACLU staff members to commemorate Black History Month. “A Loving Story,” a documentary about the Loving family and their Supreme Court case, debuts tonight on HBO at 9 p.m. Photo: Grey Villet, [Richard Loving kissing wife Mildred as he arrives home from work, King and Queen County, Virginia], April 1965. © Estate of Grey Villet. From an exhibit of 20 photographs of the Loving family currently on display at the International Center of Photography in New York City (1133 Avenue of the Americas at 43rd Street) through May 6, 2012. See more pictures from this exhibit. Learn more about racial justice: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Tags: Celebrate Black History, Loving v. Virginia, Mildred Loving
Valentine's Day Came Early: Celebrating a Historic Victory for Equality Valentine’s Day came a day early in Washington state. Yesterday, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill making Washington the seventh state to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples. Our state’s leaders have recognized that the relationships of all loving, committed couples need to be treated with the same respect under state law. The moment is made even sweeter as I recall the many years and scores of people that it took to get us here. The path was long and steep, but the Wash. state legislature pushed forward on a journey toward full acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships. In 2007 it passed a domestic partnership law which provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will. In 2009, legislators passed and voters statewide later upheld a bill that expanded those rights to include all the rights and responsibilities that opposite-sex couples have — the "everything-but-marriage” bill, as it was called. Senior couples 62 and older could register as domestic partnerships as well. Nearly 19,000 people in Washington registered as domestic partners. When the final push for marriage equality began in this year’s legislature, eyes were on the Senate, which appeared to be five votes short of a favorable majority. Gov. Gregoire gave the cause a significant boost in early January with a heart-felt public endorsement. A Catholic, she acknowledged that coming to support legal marriage for all couples has been a “personal journey” for her. “How can we tell some children that their parents’ love is less equal than that of others?” she asked. One-by-one, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle similarly changed their minds and stretched themselves to do what is right, not what is easy. Ultimately, the marriage equality bill passed by comfortable margins, first with a 28-21 vote in the Senate and then 55-43 in the House. A video of Republican Representative Maureen Walsh’s emotional speech — about her lesbian daughter and her own decision to support the bill — has gone viral. The story of marriage equality in our state is not over yet, though. Anti-equality forces are expected to file a referendum measure seeking to overturn the new law. That would put the new law on hold until after the result of this fall’s elections. And, confusing matters, a right-wing attorney already has filed an initiative measure aimed to prevent the enactment of any civil marriage law for same-sex couples. History teaches us that the struggle for social justice is a long-term effort. With our coalition partners in Washington United for Marriage, we already are making preparations to defend the legislative victory at the ballot box. We take comfort in the knowledge that the arc of history bends toward justice. Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Christine Gregoire, marriage, Washington
This Valentine’s Day, Let’s Talk About SexForget chocolate and cheesy Hallmark cards. Valentine’s Day is a day to remind us to tell the people we love most how much we care about them. And if you have a teen in your life, Valentine’s Day may offer be a perfect opportunity to have “the talk.” Never an easy topic to broach, but the producers of the documentary, Let’s Talk About Sex, are making it a little bit easier. This Valentine’s Day, the documentary will become available on Hulu free of charge. Let’s Talk About Sex is a documentary about what we are teaching — or failing to teach — our kids about sex. The film offers some clues as to why we are so stuck, and how we might move forward. In addition to telling stories from pregnant and parenting teens in Los Angeles to mothers and daughters struggling to communicate to gay teens building a life for themselves, the film offers a basic analysis of where we are and points to where we need to go. And (self-promotion plug), the film does a really cool job featuring a research project on sexuality that the ACLU commissioned from the linguists at Real Reason where we tried to figure out why policy makers are so reluctant to set good sex education policy when poll after poll shows that Americans, in every corner of the country, want their public schools to prepare young people to make healthy decisions by teaching them both about waiting to have sex and using contraception effectively.
Basically, Real Reason looked at how we talk about sexuality and found that as a culture, we seem to understand sexuality as either:
No wonder we’re so freaked out and can’t talk to our kids about sex so they can make healthy decisions as they move through adolescence and on to adult relationships. Let’s Talk About Sex asks us to move beyond these negative understandings of sex, get passed the cultural discomfort, and do better by our kids. So grab the Valentine’s Day box of chocolate and invite the young person in your life to watch the movie with you to get the conversation going. And if you want to continue the conversation, Answer and Planned Parenthood have a wealth of helpful resources and information for parents. Learn more about sex education: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: sex education
On the Agenda: February 13-17, 2012 Tonight is the HBO premiere of The Loving Story, a documentary about Mildred and Richard Loving, the couple that challenged a Virginia law that forbade interracial marriages. With the ACLU’s representation, the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, and in 1967, the Court’s unanimous decision struck down that Virginia law and all remaining state bans on interracial marriage. You can watch The Loving Story trailer here. If you’re in New York, don’t miss the International Center of Photography’s (1133 Avenue of the Americas at 43rd Street) exhibit of 20 photographs of the Loving family taken for Life magazine. "The Loving Story: Photographs by Grey Villet" will be on display through May 6, 2012. Many of these photographs are featured in the HBO documentary; you can see a few of them here in this slideshow. Also this week, the first hearing under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act will come to a close tomorrow. The ACLU is part of a team of lawyers representing Marcus Robinson, a black defendant convicted and sentenced to death by a jury that may have been tainted by a racially biased jury selection process. Throughout the hearing, counsel and experts have presented damning statistical evidence of race discrimination in jury selection in North Carolina. The House Judiciary Committee may continue a markup of the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act this week. Wednesday, February 15 Criminal Justice: The United States Sentencing Commission will begin a two day hearing to discuss federal sentencing since the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker. The hearing will focus on the Sentencing Commission’s proposal to “strengthen” the sentencing guideline system. National Security: The House Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization budget request. Witnesses will include Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Women’s Rights: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public meeting on the subject of pregnancy discrimination and caregiver issues. The ACLU is submitting a statement for the record. Immigration/Privacy: The Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will hold hearings on proposed fiscal 2013 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will testify. Thursday, February 16 National Security: The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled “Securing America’s Future: The Cybersecurity Act of 2012.” National Security: The House Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization budget request. Witnesses will include Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus; Chief of Naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert; and Gen. James Amos, commandant, U.S. Marine Corps. National Security: The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a full committee hearing on worldwide threats to U.S. national security. Witnesses will include Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper and Director of Defense Intelligence Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Roland Burgess. Privacy: The Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee of House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing titled "DHS [Department of Homeland Security] Monitoring of Social Networking and Media: Enhancing Intelligence Gathering and Ensuring Privacy." Civil Rights: The House Education and the Workforce Committee will hold a hearing on No Child Left Behind reauthorization and overhaul legislation that would restructure the federal role in elementary and secondary education. Thursday, February 16 Reproductive Freedom: The House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” Friday, February 17 Immigrants’ Rights: The ACLU will be in federal district court in Salt Lake City Friday challenging the constitutionality of Utah’s anti-immigrant law. National Security: House Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization budget request. Witnesses include Secretary of the Army, John McHugh and Chief of staff for the Army, Gen. Raymond Odierno. Voting Rights: Senior Legislative Counsel Deborah J. Vagins will participate in a Congressional Black History Month Briefing on Voting Rights and a National Update on Voter Suppression Tactics in 2012, co-hosted by Reps. Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, and Marcia Fudge. Immigrants’ Rights: The Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will hold hearings on proposed fiscal 2013 appropriations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Assistant secretary of Homeland Security John Morton will testify. Learn more about your rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
The Struggle for Equal Treatment Became My Reality In honor of Black History Month, let’s take time to remember those who set the foundation for equal treatment for Blacks and think about our next steps to protect against the erosion of racial equality. As a child, I remember being a witness to the fight for civil rights. Growing up in Detroit at the cusp of the civil rights movement, our house was located in the midst of an affluent Black middle class community. I was somewhat aware of racial disparities, but because my father was a founding member of the successful quartet known as The Four Tops, my life was largely removed from the racial inequities that plagued most Blacks. I traveled with the group as they performed on the “Chitlin Circuit” in venues that welcomed Black performers and audiences. Although we usually received star treatment, there were occasionally venues that did not allow us to sit with the audience or be served because we were Blacks. At home though, my maternal family was primarily Caucasian, in contrast to my father’s, so race was not a defining characteristic. In my mind, my white kindergarten teacher disliked me not because I was Black, but because I could already read. I was both a witness to and a victim of racism, although this realization came years later. One summer day in 1967, news spread that a riot had started outside an unlicensed bar in a “low class” or “predominantly Black” area of Detroit. That July day had started uneventfully. My siblings and I had walked a few blocks from our quiet well-manicured neighborhood to Edgewater Park, a waterfront amusement park that pre-dated Disneyland. Located on Grand River and Seven Mile Road, Edgewater Park was a favorite hangout for families and couples. People traveled from all corners of Detroit to enjoy thrill rides, corn dogs and cotton candy. With the news of the riot, Detroit, having already been twice occupied by Federal troops because of race riots, reacted quickly. Suddenly, the police claiming a tornado alert herded me and my siblings and other unaccompanied Black children onto a bus that day. We had no idea where we were being taken. After a long ride to the inner city, we were unceremoniously dumped into the midst of the rioters. This was especially disconcerting because we had been taken miles from our home. My siblings and I walked through the pillage and somehow found our way safely, though forever changed, to an aunt’s home. For days, the violence continued with Blacks being killed or arrested disproportionately more than whites. Black neighborhoods and businesses like my aunt’s newly opened ice cream shop were decimated. Detroit took more than 20 years to recover, and the whole country suffered a tremendous blow to race relations. After the riot, race relations became crystal-clear and the struggle for equal treatment became my reality. I realized then that our presence at glitzy steak houses was verboten and my grandmother’s insistence on sitting at the front of the bus was a bold move. We have come a long way since 1967, but as we celebrate Black history and the achievements of Blacks, let’s also learn from our past to continue to improve our future. Rhonda Shaw is the Legislative Administrative Manager for the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU, a position she has held for eight years. This blog post is one of several personal testimonials written by ACLU staff members to commemorate Black History Month. Do you know who’s pictured in our Celebrate Black History logo? Clockwise from top right: Martin Luther King, Jr.; Malcolm X; Sojourner Truth and Rosa Parks. Learn more about racial justice: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Celebrate Black History |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
