Vigorous Dialogue Around Education Framework Continues

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0700

The Lawyers' Committee, in collaboration with other national civil rights and education advocacy organizations, has released a Framework for Providing All Students an Opportunity to Learn through Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This Framework affirms that access to high-quality education is a fundamental civil right, and praises aspects of President Obama's proposed FY 2011 education budget and the Blueprint for Reform setting forth the Administration's priorities for reauthorization of ESEA. It also challenges the Administration to include more comprehensive reforms "necessary to build a future where equitable educational opportunity is the rule, not the exception". The release of this Framework and the attention it is receiving has placed the Lawyers' Committee at the center of this critical national dialogue.

This Washington Post posting provides an excellent overview: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/race-to-the-top/obama-education-civil-rights-a.html.

Hyperlink to any one of the six major reform principles and associated recommendations outlined in the report by clicking below.

Suit Against State Progresses

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Morgan Attacks Planned Online Ph.D. Program

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

This most recent attempt by the University of Maryland system to duplicate a program that already exists at Morgan State, an HBCU, is consistent with our plaintiffs' claims in Coalition for Equity and Excellence v. MHEC. The lawsuit seeks to remedy Maryland's failure to ensure its HBCUs are comparable and competitive with their peer institutions and to prevent any effects of Maryland's prior de jure segregated higher education system.
(Tricia Jefferson, Senior Counsel, Educational Opportunities Project). Click here for article.

Legal Battles Continue in Fight for Equity in Maryland Higher Education

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Tricia Jefferson, Senior Counsel for the Lawyers' Committee's Educational Opportunities Project, weighed in on this article commenting on the need for Maryland to fulfill its federal obligations and not discriminate against its Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

CITIZEN JOURNALISM: 'School-to-prison pipeline'

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Hartford celebrates Desegregation Anniversary

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Sound the Alarm ... Civil Rights, Still At Risk

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

With the historic election of Barack Obama as this nation's first African American president, we still are in a time where we must "sound the alarm" and heighten awareness of the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality across the country as never before. The racial contradictions in our society are in many ways peaking instead of waning. Nowhere is this truer than in this term of when the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear nine civil rights cases, almost a record number. All Americans, particularly minorities, must make their voices heard. The time to "sound the alarm" is long overdue as key voting rights, education and employment cases with far-reaching impact take center stage in the high court. The decisions, especially considering the conservative makeup of the court, most likely will significantly affect how federal discrimination and voting rights laws are applied in future cases.

Over more than four decades, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has been at the forefront of securing equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment discrimination, democracy and voting, educational opportunities and environmental justice.

We have been actively involved in many of the civil rights cases on the Supreme Court's docket this term, submitting amicus, "friends of the court," briefs in most.

Given the results of the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, the right-wing and anti-civil progress forces are concentrating upon the Supreme Court to further their agenda. Insulated from public pressure and dominated by conservatives the Supreme Court is the perfect branch of government for these forces to direct their messages of "white victimization", "reverse discrimination" and a "post-racial society." It's interesting that Texas attorney Gregory Coleman is the lead lawyer in both the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (MUD) and Ricci v. DeStefano cases. Having no shame, with Obama's election, some, such as Coleman attempt to turn this victory into defeat by asserting this as proof of a post-racial society where there is no continued need for protections under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965.

This backward right-wing anti-civil rights Court campaign is on a collision course with true change in our nation. It's commendable and significant that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., the nation's first African American to so serve, is defending the VRA and that President Obama has noted that despite progress since the VRA, "he does not presume that his election or those advancements have wiped out the need for laws that protect the voting rights of all Americans." The Lawyers' Committee is also pleased with the Senate's confirmation of Elena Kagan as the 45th solicitor general of the United States - and as the first woman to hold the position. It's truly meaningful to the civil rights community to have her as the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court.

Below is more detailed information on important cases in which the Lawyers' Committee is leading the charge in the areas of voting rights, employment and fair lending as well as what you can do to help. With all the gains our nation has made of the past several decades, now is no time to lose our focus on the struggle for racial equality.

Voting Rights
On March 18, 2009, the Lawyers' Committee, along with other civil rights organizations, filed a major brief before the U.S. Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The brief was filed on behalf of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and the Austin Branch of the NAACP to defend the voting rights of racial and language minorities and drafted in partnership with pro bono counsel from the Washington office of the law firm of WilmerHale.

Section 5, widely recognized as one of the most effective civil rights laws ever passed by Congress, requires federal review before new voting procedures can be used in states with histories of discriminatory voting practices. Section 5 was

one of the original provisions of the Voting Rights Act that Congress passed in 1965; since then, Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 1970, 1975, 1982 and most recently, with broad bipartisan support, in 2006. Days after Congress' 2006 reauthorization was signed into law by President Bush, advocates who intend to limit minority voting rights picked this little water district to challenge the constitutionality of this significant civil rights act.

At the urging of these right-wing advocates, the utility district, located in Travis County, Texas, sought to be exempted from Section 5 coverage via the so-called "bailout" provision of the Voting Rights Act, or, in the alternative, to have the reauthorized Section 5 declared unconstitutional. The Texas State Conference of the NAACP and Austin Branch of the NAACP intervened in the case as defendants, along with other interested organizations. A three-judge panel dismissed the utility district's case, ruling last year that the district was ineligible to "bail out" from Section 5 coverage, and more importantly, that Section 5 remains constitutional. The utility district then directly appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Lawyers' Committee/WilmerHale brief, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, explains the critical role that Section 5 has played since 1965 in allowing minority voters to enter the political process after decades of discrimination and exclusion, and the wide variety of evidence supporting Congress' conclusion that those gains would be undone if Section 5 expired. Because Section 5 enforces both the Fifteenth Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination in voting and the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination, Congress acts at the height of its powers when it decides what legislation is needed to remedy and deter such discrimination.

The case will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 29, 2009, and a decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in June.

Anxiety and anticipation regarding the MUD case is heightened by the Supreme Court's negative opinion, decided March 9, 2009, in Bartlett v. Strickland, which held (5-4 decision) that a requirement in a minority vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a numerical majority in a single-member district. As a result, minority voters will not be protected under Section 2 in future redistrictings unless they can make up a majority of voters in a district.

Employment

The case of Ricci v. DeStefano was argued before the court on April 22, 2009. 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 sought to explore less discriminatory alternatives, in keeping with its obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, this case has become a "cause celebre" of the right and has been repeatedly misrepresented in the media as a "reverse discrimination" case where innocent white firefighters were denied promotions because of their race.

A joint brief of the Lawyers' Committee, NAACP, National Urban League and the Equal Justice Society filed in this case urged the Court to uphold the Second Circuit's decision in favor of the city, arguing that the city's actions were entirely consistent with its obligations to provide equal employment opportunity and to refrain from discrimination under both Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Questions asked by the members of the Court showed a deep division between the conservative justices who clung to the "reverse discrimination" arguments and the more liberal justices who contended this case was about voluntary non-discrimination efforts.

Afterwards, African American firefighters from throughout the nation rallied at the Supreme Court in protest of the injustices that could be wrought by an unfavorable decision.

Fair Lending

Besides the key voting and employment cases which the Court is considering this term, attention must be paid to the fair lending case which was argued on April 28th. Again, the Lawyers' Committee and two other national civil rights organizations, the National Fair Housing Alliance and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., filed an amicus curiae, "friend of the court," brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cuomo v. The Clearing House Association, L.L.C. The brief supports the New York Attorney General's continued efforts to enforce state fair lending laws against national banks and asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling halting such enforcement. This case questions if New York and other states should investigate racial and ethnic disparities in the mortgage rates charged by national banks, or if only the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have that power. A holdover from the anti-civil rights regime of the Bush Administration, this case is still proceeding under the new Administration.

For more information about the other leading civil rights pending before the Supreme Court this term which also may significantly impact racial and ethnic justice, click here.

Although our nation has made tremendous progress in eradicating racial and ethnic discrimination in voting, employment and housing since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, these gains are fragile and unfinished. Unless the courts, Congress and the President continue to enforce civil rights, there is risk that those opposed to equality for all could revert to old practices of discrimination or as we have seen with recent voting suppression techniques, create new ones.

Therefore, alarms, bells and whistles need to be sounded across the country at the highest possible decibels. Civil rights of minorities continue to be threatened at disturbing rates. Let your voices, and your alarms be heard!

What You Can Do

Attend or encourage friends in the Washington, D.C. area to attend the April 29th VRA Rally being sponsored by the NAACP at the Supreme Court.
Spread awareness of the threat to the VRA and prepare for a new legislative fight in the Congress.
Following the end of the Supreme Court's term, urge Congress to consider corrective legislation to address the Bartlett decision.
Visit the Lawyers' Committee's Web site for updates, www.lawyerscommittee.org.

Click here to download this as a PDF.

20-Year Battle for 20 Magnet Schools

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The 20th Anniversary of the Sheff v. O'Neill Lawsuit

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The 20th Anniversary of the Sheff versus O'Neill Lawsuit

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Orange Schools' Biracial-Panel Gaffe May Keep Feds' Oversight

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Education Project - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - News Feed

Vigorous Dialogue Around Education Framework Continues

Suit Against State Progresses

Morgan Attacks Planned Online Ph.D. Program

Legal Battles Continue in Fight for Equity in Maryland Higher Education

CITIZEN JOURNALISM: 'School-to-prison pipeline'

Hartford celebrates Desegregation Anniversary

Sound the Alarm ... Civil Rights, Still At Risk

20-Year Battle for 20 Magnet Schools

The 20th Anniversary of the Sheff v. O'Neill Lawsuit

The 20th Anniversary of the Sheff versus O'Neill Lawsuit

Orange Schools' Biracial-Panel Gaffe May Keep Feds' Oversight