banner2e top

Taking Care of Those Who Take Care of Us

By Julianne Malveaux

malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Ai-Jen Poo leads the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and she is a powerful and passionate advocate for the rights of domestic workers.  Who are these folks?  They are the private household workers (maids) who propped up inept women in the movie The Help. They are the home health aides who take care of our elders when they are ill or disabled, bringing meals, bathing them, and accompanying them to medical appointments.  They are the nannies that care for children when parents are working.  In some ways, they are a backbone of our economy, and yet they often have neither voice nor money.

I am struck by the situation of domestic workers when I listen to Ai-Jen present at the National Council for Research on Women’s annual conference.  While some of us focus mostly on race, she is more likely to focus on class and the many ways that public policy is made from an extremely privileged perspective.  The women who stitch together a living by working two and three domestic jobs certainly don’t have the time to put their situation in context with public policy.  And those who make public policy have only limited exposure to those who have to live it.  Ai-Jen and the National Domestic Workers Alliance bridge that gap.

The organization started in 2007, and now has representation in more than twenty states.  In New York, NDWA was instrumental in the passage of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights that went into effect in November 2010.  It requires that people who work in other people’s homes for forty hours a week or more (except for relatives and casual employees like babysitters) must be paid the minimum wage, must receive overtime pay, vacation time, worker’s compensation and disability benefits.  One might assume that some of these benefits are already written into law, and in some ways they are.  But domestic workers are more likely to be treated as casual workers than as professionals, and if they are working full time, they must be treated as professionals.

Listening to Ai-Jen Poo was like a blast from the past for me.  My early academic work focused on private household workers.  Although the minim wage act was passed during the Depression, private household workers and farm workers were excluded form the legislation until 1974.  Even then, the law had so many loopholes that few adhered to it.  At the same time, failure to abide by the law has tanked many a nominee for a federal appointment.  Judge Kimball Wood comes to mind as a capable jurist who was snagged by her failure to take Social Security taxes out of the wages of her full-time housekeeper.

Ai-Jen’s presentation reminded me how little has changed for private household workers.  There are employers who deduct from low wages if there is breakage in their homes.  There are others that may deduct for meals.  Without intervention, the majority of 2.5 million workers take care of our most precious assets, our children and our parents, without being paid fairly.  They cook our food, and who wants someone who feels that they are being paid unfairly to cook their food?  After all, even the private household workers in the pre-civil rights South weren’t always benign.

In California, a piece of legislation that is similar to the New York bill is being considered.  Indeed, Assembly Bill 889 passed the lower house of the California State legislature, but the California State Senate is dragging its heels.  Indeed, some have so distorted the bill that they describe it as “the babysitter law”, even though those who do not work full time are specifically excluded from the legislation.  Those who oppose the bill talk about their free market rights, but have blinders on when it comes to the rights of others.  Unfortunately, while women are the majority of private household workers, it is also women who are the majority of those who hire, and often exploit, them.

It is amazing how stuck the feminist movement has become around issues of women on the bottom.  Twenty years ago there were passionate debates about housework pass along and the many ways that the women’s movement could be mutually supportive along class lines.  Now, though a passionate woman is fighting for domestic workers, she is not often joined by those who have greater voice, more power, and the ability to make a difference.

While domestic workers today are less likely to be African American than Latino, we in the African American community need to remember that the workplace has long been oppressive to those at the bottom.  In speaking up for domestic workers, we speak up for our mothers and grandmothers, but also for ourselves, no matter what our economic status.

Julianne Malveaux is a DC based economist and author.

HBCU 'Equality Lawsuit' Far From Over

By Alexis Taylor

law_gavel

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Both sides locked in a battle over proper funding for Maryland’s historical Black institutions (HBI) have retreated to their corners to regroup and prepare for the next phase of the case.

Lawyers for the Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education Inc., the plaintiff, and the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC), the defendant, submitted conclusions of law on June 6.

"The state is reviewing documents from the plaintiff's side and the plaintiffs are reviewing documents from the defendant's side," said Dr. Earl S. Richardson, president of Morgan State University from 1984 to 2010.

"It appears that the case is continuing on schedule and we hope that the lawyers on the plaintiff's side are persuasive enough in their arguments to convince the judge of the merit of this case."

The legal representation for both the Coalition and MHEC will have until July 13 to respond to each other’s submissions. Final oral arguments will be heard Oct. 19 of this year.

“The submissions are the first thing we've done since the case ended in February,”

said Kenneth Thompson of Venable LLP, lawyers representing the Maryland Higher Education Commission. “We have to file what we call replies, or rebuttals, this summer and we have closing arguments scheduled for Oct. 19.”

The State’s defense opens summary of conclusion by stating “nothing in the Constitution or in federal law requires that the State provide HBIs with the enhanced funding plaintiffs seek.”

“Plaintiffs’ filing included testimony from the four HBCU presidents about the conditions at the HBCUs, including inadequate libraries, science labs, IT infrastructure, faculty salaries, financial aid and overall resources,” said Michael D. Jones, legal representative for the Coalition.

“The plaintiffs’ filing also focused on Maryland’s 2000 Agreement with the Office of Civil Rights where Maryland agreed to enhance the HBCUs to the point that they could compete with the Traditionally White Institutions.”

The State’s defense opens its summary of conclusion by stating “nothing in the Constitution or in federal law requires that the State provide HBIs with the enhanced funding plaintiffs seek.”

The document numbers 103 pages and gives numerous examples of students who graduated from alleged substandard conditions at historical black colleges and universities (HBCU) and later excelled.

The State’s submission also says that forced compensation for past unsavory classroom conditions heard in alumni testimony would be unjust because no “discrete personal injury” occurred.

“If merely showing past inequities were enough to trigger present-day remedies, there would have been no need for a trial in this case,” said the defense in its submission. “The question this court must answer in its threshold inquiry is whether current policies or practices are traceable to the de jure era.”

The document also argues the alumni testimonies heard throughout the trial about give no reason to award a judgment to schools today because students now learn in different settings unknown to alumni.

A decision in the landmark trial is expected from Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court after both sides give their rebuttal by July 13 and deliver oral arguments in October.

The case was originally filed in October of 2006, but took years to reach the trial phase that began on Jan. 3.

Alumni and current students from Bowie State University (BSU), Coppin State University (CSU), Morgan State University (MSU) and University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), the four HBCUs that filed the case, packed the court house for days to show support.

The institutions allege that by providing better funding and facilities to white schools and allowing the duplication of HBCUs specialty programs, the state of Maryland continued to perpetuate a system of de facto segregation, or segregation enforced by human behavior instead of law.

The HBCUs are asking the state for $2.1 billion in damages to help pay for upgrades and repairs to campuses.

Fla., Justice Dept. Set for Legal Battle Over Voter Purge

By Zenitha Prince
Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro-American Newspaper

voters1

(TriceEdneyWire.com) Florida’s wrangling with the Department of Justice over its systematic purge of suspected non-citizens from the voter rolls is heading to court.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit June 12 against the state and its chief elections official in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, seeking a court order to halt the state’s plan to remove more than 182,000 suspected noncitizens from the books.

The complaint alleges the state’s removal of names from the voter registration roll violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). That law requires all voter roll maintenance to be completed within 90 days of an election. Florida has blown the deadline, since it has a primary election scheduled for Aug. 14.

Additionally, the Justice Department claims, Florida’s use of “inaccurate and unreliable voter verification procedures violates the requirement [of the act] that any such program be uniform and nondiscriminatory.”

Florida’s Department of State, which is responsible for elections, cobbled the list together by matching voter registration files with driver’s license data.

“Congress enacted the NVRA against a historical backdrop in this country in which purge programs initiated close to elections prevented and deterred eligible citizens from casting ballots,” said Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

“The 90-day quiet period in the NVRA protects eligible voters from being dropped from the rolls right before an election. It appears that Florida has undertaken a new program for voter removal within this 90-day period that has critical imperfections, which lead to errors that harm and confuse eligible voters.”

Concerns about the purge—which was initiated by Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican—arose when a Miami Herald analysis revealed that minorities were being unfairly targeted.

Additionally, according to new reports, the initial list of 2,600 potentially ineligible voters contained the names of several U.S.-born and naturalized Americans.

Those mistakes occurred, state officials said, because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied them access to its database, which has more current immigration and citizenship information.

Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner filed suit against DHS June 11, saying the department had failed to meet its statutory obligation to provide access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program database to help ensure fair elections in the state.

"For nearly a year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has failed to meet its legal obligation to provide us the information necessary to identify and remove ineligible voters from Florida’s voter rolls,” said Secretary Detzner. “We can’t let the federal government delay our efforts to uphold the integrity of Florida elections any longer. We’ve filed a lawsuit to ensure the law is carried out and we are able to meet our obligation to keep the voter rolls accurate and current."

N.C. Senate Republicans Block Payments to Sterilization Victims

State-Run Program Had Mostly Poor and Black Victims

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspaper

riddicks

Tony Riddick comforts his mother, Elaine Riddick during the Eugenics Task Force listening session in Raleigh, N.C. a year ago, June 22, 2011. Courtesy Photo

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The North Carolina Senate dashed the hopes for compensation to victims of a government program that, for nearly 50 years, sterilized its residents by passing a budget June 20 without funds to compensate victims.

Senate Republicans refused to support a measure cleared by state House members to earmark $10 million in the state budget that would have given sterilization victims $50,000 each, according to NewsObserver.com. The move would have made North Carolina the first state to compensate victims—most of them poor and Black-- of a state-run program to keep certain people from conceiving children.

From 1929 to 1974, nearly 7,600 people, mostly women, were sterilized in North Carolina, the last of more than 30 states to abandon the practice of selective breeding, known as eugenics, during the 20th century. In all, 65,000 Americans were sterilized before the last state program was shut down in the early 1980s.

Records indicate that as many as 1,800 victims are still living in North Carolina.

Even though Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) had the endorsement of the Republican speaker of the North Carolina House, she was unable to gain support from North Carolina Senate Republicans for giving money to the program’s victims. Opponents cited uncertainty about the potential cost and the precedent it could set for those seeking damages for past wrongs, according to the Associated Press.

“If you could lay the issue to rest, it might be one thing. But I’m not so sure it would lay the issue at rest because if you start compensating people who have been ‘victimized’ by past history, I don’t know where that would end,” Republican state Sen. Austin Allran said, according to Politico. He added that the state “has no money anyway.”

Compensation advocates in the House voiced dismay. “At this point, I have lost all hope,” Democratic state Rep. Earline Parmon said, according to the AP.

“I’m appalled that the North Carolina Senate today took no action to compensate the victims that we as a state robbed of their rights to reproduce and to have children,” she said.

Victims are even more disappointed, according to leaders of a state-funded advocacy program.

"Many are angry, many of them are just distraught and devastated," said Charmaine Fuller Cooper, executive director of the state-funded N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation. "Everyone had gotten their hopes up."

"It was never about money," she said. "It was about restoring dignity to people who had that dignity stripped away at a very young age." The organization has verified the claims of women throughout the state who were unwittingly sterilized after the state labeled them undesirable as mothers.

The lawyer for Elaine Riddick, 58, one of the victims who interviewed by ABC News, said his client wants justice. The victim of a rape at the age of 14, she was sterilized after a state social worker labeled her "promiscuous" and "feebleminded" at the hospital where the child that resulted from the rape was delivered, ABC News reported a year ago.

Riddick's attorney, Willie Gary, said Riddick was "hurt" and "in tears" after hearing the state senate's decision June 20 and plans to file a class action lawsuit seeking compensation from the state.

Opponents of funding for the compensation program said no amount of money would fix the wrongs committed by the eugenics program.

"We all agree with the fact that an apology is certainly appropriate," said Republican state Senator Chris Carney. "But I don't think that makes us any more sorry because we attach a dollar figure to it."

The Winston-Salem Journal first exposed North Carolina’s eugenics programs ten years ago in a investigative series.

For more information, people who believe they are victims of the sterilization program are urged to contact the state-funded victims’ foundation through an information hotline 877-550-6013 (toll-free) or 919-807-4270 (local) which operates Monday through Thursday from 10a.m. to 4p.m.

U. S. Rep. John Lewis is Grand Marshal for Lawyers’ Committee 50th Anniversary

lewis_john

WASHINGTON-The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a coalition of lawyers who fight for racial justice, has announced that civil rights icon Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.) will serve as grand marshal of the organization’s 50th Anniversary Campaign and National Advisory Commission, it was announced in a news release this week.

“We are delighted and honored to have John Lewis as Grand Marshal for our 50th anniversary,” said Lawyers’ Committee Executive Director Barbara Arnwine, in the statement. “His historic leadership in the civil rights movement and lifelong commitment to human rights, equality, and civil liberties continues to be instrumental in the pursuit of racial justice and equality.  With amazing dedication, he has remained at the vanguard of progressive social movements and the human rights struggle in the United States.”

Since 1986, Lewis has served as U.S. Representative of Georgia’s Fifth Congressional District and recently published a new book entitled Across That Bridge: Life Lessons and a Vision for Change (2012).   He has championed legislation and initiatives central to voting rights, equal employment and workers’ rights, education, housing and foreclosure, LGBT rights, and more.

“I am tremendously grateful for the opportunity to serve as Grand Marshal of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law’s 50th anniversary,” said Representative Lewis.  “This historic organization has been ‘Moving America Toward Justice’ by consistently and persistently confronting injustice and inequality that still plagues this nation. The Lawyers’ Committee is creatively addressing the problems of our time. They do not hesitate to ‘get in the way’ to demand that this democracy respects the dignity and the worth of every human being, especially those who are locked out and left behind.”

Over the past 50 years, America has made substantial strides in achieving racial justice and equal opportunity. Yet significant barriers remain which must continue to be addressed. The Lawyers’ Committee plans to honor that progress and celebrate the dynamic history of the Committee in working to help realize a society unhampered by discrimination. Simultaneously, the Committee endeavors to look toward the future by engaging and increasing civil rights activism in new generations, particularly within the legal community, in the ongoing struggle for all racial, social, and economic justice.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s 50th Anniversary Campaign officially kicked off June 21, exactly one year leading up to the organization’s 50th anniversary founding date of June 21, 2013.  Commemorative 50th anniversary events will be held now throughout 2013, such as the annual A. Leon Higginbotham Corporate Leadership Award Gala, which recognizes corporations for advancement of diversity and equality in the workplace. Congressman Lewis will work closely with the Committee in the development and execution of the gala, a major legal symposium and other events.

“Nearly 50 years ago President John F. Kennedy met with 244 leading American lawyers in the East Room of the White House to consider what role lawyers could and should play in the civil rights crisis,” added Arnwine.  “People all across the nation were shaken by the media coverage of the protracted confrontation in Birmingham, Alabama, where peaceful protesters, led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., were repeatedly attacked by police using batons, hoses and even dogs.  Shocking too was the spectacle of Governor George Wallace defiantly resisting a federal court order to admit black students to the University of Alabama, and the decision by the president and the attorney general to deploy the U.S. Army to enforce the order and the law.  And certainly the tragic assassination of Medgar Evers on June 12, 1963, just hours following President Kennedy's nationally televised civil rights speech, distraught many.”

Due to the silence of the private bar, Bernard Segal, chairman of the firm now known as Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis and  co-founding chair of the Lawyers' Committee, placed an ad in the Birmingham paper signed by other lawyers, decrying the defiance of the law by elected officials and calling instead for strong adherence to the rule of law.  This ad grabbed the attention of the attorney general and led him to persuade President Kennedy to issue a "Call to the Bar" for the now famous meeting on June 21, 1963.

During the meeting, President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy pointed to recent events in Birmingham and elsewhere as symptoms of a deepening crisis.  They recognized that because our constitutional system and the rule of law depends on peaceful obedience to court orders, official resistance requiring enforcement by armed force could lead to anarchy.  It was clear, they emphasized, that justifiable demands by blacks for equal access to public facilities, job opportunities, voting rights and other fundamental citizenship rights could no longer be denied.  Citing the unique role of lawyers within our constitutional system and the rule of law, the president, vice president and attorney general appealed to the assembled attorneys to mobilize the legal profession to support Black Americans in their struggle for justice.

As a result of the meeting, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was formed with the specific task of marshaling the resources of the private bar in the fight for racial equality.  Its members included former attorneys general, former presidents of the American Bar Association and local bar leaders from around the country.  No longer would the legal profession hold itself apart from the civil rights struggle.

Immediately, the Committee began to issue public statements calling for peaceful compliance with court orders and voluntary desegregation of public facilities.  In addition, the Committee sent volunteer lawyers to Mississippi to represent ministers who had engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations and had been charged with crimes.  In June of 1965 the Committee opened an office in Jackson, Mississippi which in its two decades of fearless advocacy contributed to the desegregation and transformation of that state including the election of its first African American congressman.

Now, almost a half century since the founding of the Lawyers’ Committee, after thousands of cases and public policy advocacy advancing racial equality for millions of clients, the organization continues to work with a significant network of legal volunteers to fight for racial equality and justice in the areas of employment discrimination, fair housing and lending, educational opportunities, voting rights, environmental justice and community development.  The modern context of this fight is more nuanced, more multicultural in perspective, but is still powerfully urgent as racial exclusion results in the denial for way too many to participate equally in the fulfillment of the American dream.

With great pride and gratitude the organization looks back across the history of the Lawyers' Committee and recognizes the impact of so many who have answered the call.  And it is with a sense of undiminished resolve and purpose that the Lawyers’ Committee will continue to engage legal professionals, along with society- at-large, in the struggle for racial justice and equal opportunity for all.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The principal mission of the Lawyers’ Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment discrimination, voting, education and environmental justice. For more information about the LCCRUL, visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

X