In a courageous piece of advocacy, the Alameda County Homeless Action Center, argued that proposed cuts in the general assistance program would have a disparate impact upon African Americans in Alameda County. In support of their contention staff attorney, John Engstrom, crafted a Racial Impact Statement clearly demonstrating how the cuts would fall most heavily upon those in the African American community. He also challenged the “exemption process” that classified most unemployed African Americans as employable by describing the societal structures that prevented these recipients from accessing job opportunities. Kudos to Pattie Wall, John Engstrom and the clients of the Homeless Action Center for so effectively putting race on the table in their advocacy.

The Frameworks Institute recently completed a five year survey of default frames used by the public to understand matters of race in America. These dominant frames rise from deeply held American values but they are also reinforced/primed by the limited analytical framework used by the media. The FrameWorks staff thoughtfully suggest ways in which our advocacy can apply reframing principles to move the public towards more equitable policies on race in America. The FrameWorks message brief, Framing Race, summarizes their research on framing and provides practical pointers for facilitating transformative discussions of race in our communities. The full report, The Architecture of a New Racial Discourse, is also worth reading as it provides fascinating insight into the reactions of focus groups held throughout the United States on which frames work and which don’t.

On March 27, 2008 at 10:00 p.m. (after “Lost“) the Public Broadcasting Company will launch a four week series on racial/ethnic inequities in America’s health care system. The series, entitled Unnatural Causes: is Inequality Making us Sick, will unfold in four one hour presentations.

The makers of this documentary series ask some provocative questions. Why does the United States, one of the richest countries on the planet rank 29th in life expectancy, even worse than very poor countries like Costa Rica and Chile? How does lack of neighborhood infrastructure spread disease just as surely as germs and viruses? Why, at every level are communities of color worse off than their white counterparts?

The first installment, In Sickness and in Wealth, examines how socioeconomic status affects health.

In week two, When the Bough Breaks looks at the infant mortality rate among African-Americans, while Becoming American reveals asks why the health of poor Mexican American immigrants erodes when they come to America.

The third week presents Bad Sugar and Place Matters that asks how your surrounding built environment can get inside your body just like smog and toxic waste.

The series ends with two segments. Collateral Damage and Not Just a Paycheck demonstrate how a legacy of poverty affects health and the very direct impact that factory closures have on an individuals and community’s health.

See when your local station will broadcast the series.

On Sunday, the Associated Press reported on the current declining trend in African-American lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court. The article suggests several factors that may account for the growing paucity of minority lawyers at the nation’s highest court:

• continuing problems in recruiting and retaining blacks and other minorities at the top law firms;
• the rise of a small group of lawyers who focus on Supreme Court cases;
• the decline in civil rights cases that make it to the high court; and
• the court’s dwindling caseload.

No doubt, the loss of effective affirmative action policies at many law schools will exacerbate this trend.

The New York Times reports in Race Gap: Crime vs. Punishment on the arguments made before the Supreme Court last week which examined the legitimacy and mandatory nature of sentencing guidelines that result in racially disparate impact among those convicted of powder vs. crack cocaine offenses. In the 1987 McClesky decision, the Supreme Court took up a similar issue in the context of the administration of the death penalty. Some (most notably Brian Stevenson) have compared the Supreme Court’s decision in McClesky (dismissing demonstrated racial bias in death penalty sentencing) to the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson cases, which established and upheld the “separate but equal” doctrine. Without answering, the article asks to what degree the criminal justice system might be overtly racist and suggests that stereotypes and unconscious/unintentional discrimination may be at work.

The Harvard Project on Law and Mind Sciences recently examined the effect of stereotyping in the criminal justice system with reports on visual processing of African-American criminal suspects and defendants who look “deathworthy”.

A big thank you to Brian Lawlor who brought this article to our attention.

The Equal Justice Society today issued a report, “Framing Race and Class in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina: A Natural and Unnatural Disaster,” an examination of coverage by different kinds of media of this unique natural and unnatural disaster in an effort to understand how the story of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath were being presented to American audiences.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s school integration decision, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund has released “A Girl Like Me” a documentary by New York City high school student Kiri Davis. Davis replicates and captures on film Kenneth and Mamie Clark’s doll experiment (the study that undergirded Brown v. Board of Education) with what can only be described as heartbreaking results with respect to how deeply ingrained self-directed racial bias still is even among the youngest of African-American children. The silver lining: A reaffirmation that there are smart, passionate, dedicated young people like Davis to take on the mantle of a new civil rights movement.

Looking for the Media’s take on the Court’s recent school integration decision? We’ve put together a smattering of some of the best articles we’ve read today.

Justices limit use of race in placement of student (The New York Times)

Synopsis: The Supreme Court rejected two public school integration plans (one in Seattle and the other in Louisville, Kentucky). The Majority, however, left open the possibility of using race-based means to achieve diversity in public schools. As Justice Kennedy stated, “a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population
[and] race may be one component of that diversity.” Despite this allowance, the Court’s holding may halt similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide that use race to achieve diversity. The Mayor of Louisville’s expressed disappointment with the decision citing the Louisville plan’s success in breaking down racial barriers for over the last 30years.

Court limits schools on race (The San Francisco Chronicle - Associated Press)

Synopsis: Roberts, in the Majority opinion, stated, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” The Majority concluded that the two school plans violated the Equal Protection clause. Justice Breyer, in his dissent, stated Roberts’ opinion undermined the promise of integrated schools as provided in Brown v. Board of Education. Roberts countered that the courts decision was consistent with the Brown decision, to which dissenting Justice Stevens commented that Roberts’ reliance on Brown’s ruling against integration was “a cruel irony.”

Parsing the high court’s ruling on race and schools (National Public Radio)

Synopsis: This article both evaluates the Court’s ruling and the likely impacts of its holding. In addition, the article provides an insightful comparison of the decisions with other recent Supreme Court decisions regarding diversity and education.

The Supreme Court strikes down school integration policies (The Los Angeles Times)

Synopsis: This article explores the far-reaching implications of the Court’s decision and pays special attention to Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion. The piece also notes that the Court’s decision does not implicate affirmative action programs in public colleges & universities as it explicitly recognizes “the unique context of higher education.”

A big “thank you” to Gemma, a LSNC law clerk, for compiling this list.