Category: Uncategorized

The international press is carrying the story of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., but they usually fail to give his full title: Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University.

According to the AFP report: “Gates was seen by a passing woman to be attempting entry to the front door of his house — which was damaged — along with another black man, according to the police report from July 16.”

When police questioned Gates at his own home, he reportedly told them “this is what happens to black men in America.” He was arrested at his own home for allegedly being “loud and tumultuous” in his denunciations.

Has a person no right to protest?

The story of Gates’ arrest follows news about one imprisoned immigrant in South Texas who was indicted after being roughed up by authorities (see Nick Braune’s story below.)

We draw a comparison between what was done to Gates and Rama Carty. In both cases free expression was countered by official misuse of power. These two cases become the latest symptoms of a systemic disease.

As we watch for developments in both cases we also keep our watchwords close at hand. Today we take our watchwords from “Living Morally: A Psychology of Moral Character,” by Laurence Thomas.

“the desire not to be wronged by others is the most minimal attitude of positive regard that a self-respecting individual can have toward herself or himself.”

These two cases of official retaliation against Gates and Carty are obstructions to the right to be a self-respecting individual in America today. –gm

Here is an excerpt from Gates’ attorney as posted at The Root:

When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

See Also: Statement from Gates’ Attorney and link to police report at The Root.

Editor’s Note: Some good friends of the Texas Civil Rights Review have turned their focus to USA ratification of the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC). The following media advisory has been circulated to traditional press reps, but the group would also like to encourage coverage in the blogosphere.–gm

Why hasn’t the US ratified UN Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC)?

Media Advisory

AUSTIN TX–November 20 marks the 20th anniversary of the most universally ratified of all UN human rights treaties with 193 members. Two UN member nations have abstained from ratification to date: the United States and the failed state of Somalia. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice has recently broached the subject of U.S. ratification, and Congressman John Lewis (D-Georgia) has introduced H.R. 416 which presses several human-rights issues, among them Senate ratification of Rights of the Child. It is time to correct this failure.

Rights of the Child USA is a coalition of organizations representing the interests of religious, education, health care, humanitarian, labor, legal, and social service communities nationwide with a focus on this single goal. Their activities will be reported at www.rightsofthechild.com.

But the story we highlight today is the reality behind our national failure to join the world community of good will in this action. It is this story that we ask you, the press, to highlight over the coming weeks. It encompasses complex issues, each deserving critical attention to help the American people understand their responsibility to act.

A few political organizations have succeeded in portraying the CRC as a threat to our families and our national sovereignty. Two decades of a Republican Congress, inspired by the largesse of such organizations as the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the National Center for Home Education, have effectively prevented the U.S. from joining — indeed, leading — the rest of the world in this essential initiative.

CRC simply provides guidelines to establish the basic respect a child deserves from all adults, whether relatives, teachers, or strangers. It has no power to require parents to alter their own beliefs; rather it seeks to create a climate in which any child can achieve his/her potential through a loving society. Because the treaty has been operational in most nations since 1990, a wealth of information is available to show its effect on participants (see links below).

We invite you, the Fourth Estate, to make November 2009 a special month for the child. Below are some questions we ask you to explore, with research links. We thank you for honoring your essential role by addressing the understandable fears of some Americans, thus lighting our path toward this important decision and helping us to reimagine our country’s priorities about childhood.

Questions:

What is the history and background of the Convention of the Rights of the Child?

FAQ from UN

AP article with comprehensive background info

UNICEF on CRC

How has CRC impacted countries that have adopted it?

Australia: A nation tending toward conservative leadership shows itself quite comfortable with the positive results from and lack of coercion exacted by CRC.

Child Rights Club in Zambia [pdf format]

And even in Hanoi!

How do children fare in the U.S.?

American Humane Assn: Annotated statistical summary of child life in America (2006).

Deportation by the U.S. government of some 90,000 unaccompanied Mexican children, dumped on border.

Pennsylvania judges charged with accepting $2.8 in kickbacks to send youths to private detention centers. AP October 30, 2009

Texas: 1201 deaths from child abuse 2001-07, other stats

How are our children doing compared with those of other countries?

Among the 30 member countries of the U.N. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we’ve been rated 23rd in material well being, 24th in health and safety, and 25th in education [pdf format].

U.S. ranks number one for teen-age births?[pdf format]

How do the family values of anti-ROC organizations resonate with public policy?

Texas Freedom Network

For further research

US govt: America’s Children at a Glance

U. WS. DHHS Administration for Children and Families

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Defense Fund

The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Amnesty International on CRC

CONTACT: Rights of the Child USA, Jay Johnson Castro, 830 734 8636, jay at villadelrio dot com

The weekly meeting of the Texas Workforce Commission turned into an emergency room for unemployment benefits on Tuesday morning.

The best overview of the “sit-yi-ashun” comes out of the Waco Tribune in today’s editorial titled, “Get with It.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram offers good coverage in a news story by Dave Montgomery and a column by Mitchell Schnurman.

Here at TCRR we have been watching the Governor’s dogmatic attachment to supply-side economics since he presented the Laffer Report last Fall. The Laffer model has worked well as a campaign platform in ordinary times. But these are no ordinary times.

According to figures released last week by the National Employment Law Project, large numbers of jobless Texans will begin exhausting their 33 weeks of federal unemployment benefits. About 47,000 will hit the end of that lifeline in September, with the number growing to nearly 80,000 by the year-end holidays.

Texas is one of four states (all from the former Confederacy) that rejected a 20-week extension of those federal benefits, and so far most Texans agree that the state did the right thing. –gm

By Elliot Cole
Community Relations
Texas Civil Rights Project

Each year, roughly three million students graduate from US high schools. Some students enter the workforce directly, while others opt for the armed services. Many, however, choose to go college, developing their potential through academics.

However, 65,000 graduates will never have that option, including tens of thousands in Texas. They are prom queens, honor students, and athletes. They are tutors, class representatives, and valedictorians. Nonetheless, no matter their ability, they will be denied the ability to become doctors, teachers, or to pursue a law degree.

Though they have lived in the US for almost all of their lives, these students have inherited the label of undocumented immigrant, and for that will not be able to pursue upper education. Simply because they were born in another country they are treated as second-class citizens, disallowed from pursuing their respective dreams. This is counter-productive, foolish, and unwarrantable.

On March 26, 2009, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in Congress to give those dreams back. The proposed law provides a six-year conditional residency during which undocumented graduates can pursue a two-year degree, attend two years of a four-year degree, or serve two years in the military. An immigrant who completes any of those three conditions and is otherwise in good legal standing at the time will earn a well-deserved permanent residency. Immigrants would not be eligible for federal college grants, but would be able to apply for student loans and work study.

With the support of President Obama and senators and Congress members on all sides of the political landscape, the DREAM Act is as an opportunity. It’s a chance to be fair and to readjust our attitude toward students who have done nothing but strive toward becoming contributing members of society.

The students affected by the DREAM Act have not committed a crime against our country, as some will argue. They are simply the children of illegal immigrants. They know no home other than the United States. It is time we embrace them rather than act as if they did not exist. This is their community, and they will be able to contribute to our society with a college education.

In the current economic struggle, passing the DREAM Act makes even more sense. By introducing an educated group to the workforce, more taxes will be paid, more jobs created, more goods purchased, and more businesses founded. Every year we turn away thousands of students graduating from our high schools who could contribute to this economy. It’s contradictory and senseless.

Some may argue that the influx of these new students to the state colleges would somehow make state universities suffer. In truth, the state school system will benefit from the new student pool, and the bill already has support from university presidents nationwide.

The DREAM Act is an investment in our country’s collective future. With passage of the bill, dedicated graduates will not be barred from an education; they will be able to help their communities — and society as a whole — grow and flourish.

The DREAM Act has backing from all sectors of society, from religious leaders to universities. It has bipartisan backing from coast-to-coast. With the advantages it will provide our state, it should have the support of Texans as well.

* * * * *

The Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit foundation, promotes civil rights and economic and racial justice throughout Texas, attempting to bring about systemic change through education and litigation.