Obama's Civil Rights Appointment

It's hard to be upset at Obama given what he's up against and what he's done so far to restore the rule of law to this beleaguered country, but this was a bit disappointing.

The LA Times reports -- and the NY Times editorial page rues -- the fact that Obama bypassed Thomas Saenz, a prominent civil rights lawyer and the counsel to the Mayor of Los Angeles, for an appointment to the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice.

Saenz has been an important voice in the effort to make the rights of immigrants an important civil rights issue -- a frame for immigration policy that is sorely in need of development. In our policy debates, it is frustrating that immigration policy is so often discussed in terms of "homeland security" or law enforcement or border control or lots of other things that seem to involve weaponry. What's lost in all that discussion is the fact that immigrants, especially those who are undocumented, have basic human needs that don't always get met -- that is, immigration is a longstanding and pressing civil rights issue.

And framing really is everything here -- it shapes the way that we think about "The Problem," and it affects our view of the solutions. I remember feeling this most keenly when the INS got moved to the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of 9/11. My grandfather was an immigrant who worked in unsafe American coal mines and died of black lung. He and my grandmother were attacked by state troopers at the behest of mine owners when he tried to organize unions in those mines. They were happy to be in the US, grateful even. But in the aftermath of 9/11, they became national security threats!! My grandparents have both been dead for years, but it was an insult to their memory.

Saenz was their lawyer. He spent his career trying to address those problems. He has led the effort to protect immigrants from unwarranted police raids, and he's worked on trying to secure rights to social services for immigrant populations. But because of these efforts, he's been labeled as an extremist. Google his name and see all the hysterical right wing propaganda that bubbles up.

Obviously, we don't know for sure, but that right wing hysteria is probably what kept Obama from naming Saenz to this post. But Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) noted the irony for us: “In what other position do you find that your life experience, your educational knowledge and commitment to an issue actually hurts you?”

Don't get me wrong -- it's all an improvement over the past 8 nightmarish years. Still, I sense that there will be more disappointments like this along the way.

Using Your Head: Racism and the World Cup

Those of you who follow sports are most likely already familiar with the story: in the final game of this year’s World Cup, French footballer Zinedine Zidane delivered a staggering headbutt to Italian player Marco Materazzi following a brief spat of conversation between the two on the field. Zinedine was red-carded, and without their star player France lost to Italy. Naturally, people began to wonder – what did Materazzi say to Zidane? What was the incendiary comment that led the Frenchman to sacrifice his team’s star player at the very end of the most important match in soccer?

Speculation following the match fixated on the potentially racist nature of Materazzi’s comment. Zidane, born and raised in France, comes from an Algerian parentage – Kabyle, to be exact. But Zidane himself has said recently that while Materazzi had insulted his mother and sister, the Italian’s comments were in fact not of a racist nature. So why leap to the assumption that the comment had been racist? Racism is never very far from the topic of football in Europe. The FIFA (International Federation of Football Association) website expresses a clear concern for how racism manifests itself in the game throughout Europe; Sepp Blatter (the head of FIFA) has even said in the past that if crowds of fans continue to disturb players by chanting racist taunts from the sidelines, games could be called off.

While race and ethnicity has often become a contested subject in sports, both in the US and Europe, there may be something telling in how each conflict reflects a particular context – a specific web of privilege, power, cultural hegemony and politico-economic reality. The racial tension that manifests itself in European football today may embody the larger picture of racism in Europe. And I suggest that this particular manifestation, on the football field, may be worth studying. Why? I’m not entirely sure we, as social scientists, have thoroughly explored the concept of racism in Europe. As an American who researches Muslim legal mobilization in France, I’ve often used the term “racism” in describing certain activities of the far-right; but should I export my American understanding of racism to France? There’s a certain danger here, one that I’ve tried to be sensitive of, but do not have the tools to speak of accurately yet. So I have been asking myself:

1) Does racism come in different varieties? In other words, do different understandings of race and race relations vary from one national context to the next? It may all be the same monster in the end, but does it present itself differently?

2) What kind of analytical purchase would an understanding of racism that is more particular to, say, France, or Germany, give me in answering other questions about social movements? Or in doing comparative work in general? Does it matter that racism looks different, or is understood differently, in different parts of the world?

3) How would I seek to classify or understand “ideal types” of racism, or is that even the approach I would want to use? Might studying one specific area where racism manifests itself – like around football – help me to gain a richer understanding of racism within a particular context?

What are your thoughts on this subject? We’re so careful as scholars to specify the differences between, say, the “political left” in Italy and the US; between “secularism” in France and the US; might “racism” require a more thorough contextualization? Has this already been done, and/or there references out there to help us in doing this or starting such a project?

Activist Administrators and Public Sociologies

There are at least two stories in this morning’s NYT that readers of this blog might find interesting. On the cover is a piece entitled, “Drugs, Politics and the F.D.A.” (which is, interestingly enough, not the title of the online story) that continues on p. 13. The focus is on the recent announcement by Lester M. Crawford, the food and drug commissioner, that “he would indefinitely postpone a ruling on Plan B, the morning-after pill …” The journalist, Gardiner Harris, goes on to state that by law, Crawford and the FDA must make a decision. Debate about abortion politics’, and other politically sensitive areas’, influence upon administrative decision-making in the FDA make up the balance of the article. In this state of political-issue-in-a-box period (that is, just add water, money, and marketing and, poof, an issue is there – important or not), I find it interesting how much media surrounds the performances and critiques of activist judges without acknowledging the partisan-influenced activism of the executive branch administrators. I realize that in some circles, ‘activist administrators’ could be seen as an oxymoron. Still …

The second article is on page 10 and is entitled, “How Photos Became Icon of Civil Rights Movement.” Some readers may not feel that this belongs under the “law” side of this blog, but I would argue that it most certainly does. The focus is the Jet’s use of the photographs of Emmett Till during the funeral ceremony. For those who have seen Eyes on the Prize, you should know exactly what is being referred. For those who have not seen these photographs, I urge you to do so. In any case, the article, authored by Shaila Dewan, correctly emphasizes the impact of Jet’s courage to publish the photographs and its impact upon the Civil Rights Movements. In our current cry for public sociologies, Jet’s endeavors, the activism that occurred afterward, and the ability to question justice then and more recently definitely exemplifies the want and necessity of public sociologies. And, in relation to law and social movements, it could be argued that the seeds of understanding and questioning justice were watered by Emmett’s Mother’s demands for an open-casket funeral, the thousands who attended, Jet’s photographs, and the tears they produced. Today is the fiftieth anniversary of Emmett’s death.

"The Revolution Will Not Be Copyrighted"

This is the title of a presentation by FreeCulture.org at the upcoming DefCon, roughly seen as a conference for hackers. What's the big deal? FreeCulture is becoming more than just website. It is a self-identified student movement found on over ten universities and colleges across the country.

The Free Culture Movement's manifesto highlights their case against the homogenization of culture through extensions of copyright and intellectual property rights. Sound familiar? I wonder if they have a spine-broken Marcuse in their back pocket? Maybe not, but try Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture", the text after which the group named themselves. Lessig has been the voice for a few years now, even assisting in the Creative Commons distribution system, an alternative to protectionist system currently used by corporations. I use the term distribution specifically, given Free Culture's reference to the landlord-tenant relationship that our culture has produced within consumerism.

Outside the apparent connections between law and social movements, there two other notions worth exploring. First, recall James Scott's discussion on hidden transcripts as acts of resistance. Under strict limitations of normative structures (including those reflecting legislative structures), individuals who are oppressed will develop individual and group acts of resistance that the oppressor may or may not recognized. The importance is the self-empowerment of the oppressed individual and resistance as the communicative act of empathy and sympathy with others who are oppressed. If I recall correctly, Scott provided a range of examples, from spitting on the sidewalk to African slaves mocking white owners voting. Consider downloading a Metallica song through a napster knockoff, such as a Grokster-type software. Remix it and share it and the original, for free, to thousands of others. Is this an act of resistance? For those protesting Metallica, it probably is. Is a rejection of purchasing music at the high prices on an industry gone awry an act of protest? To some. Are people downloading ("stealing") just to be downloading? Probably. What ever forms of protest or acts, these actions are revolutionizing thoughts toward copyrights and distribution because of their impact in both technology and pocket-books.

The second notion to be considered (and I take caution with sharing this given that it is my dissertation topic ... but isn't sharing the new ethic in the deliberative turn?) is the buying and selling of social movements. What are the proprietary rights of movement organizations? Just go ask the Truth campaign what they think about the public relations firms they hire. The twenty-first century will be marked by remixing new social movements into copyrighted brands of identity funneled through mediated filters of consumption. Rank and file of organizations will have to be granted permission to use brand identities in their marches or otherwise be sued or denied legitimacy (the latter is the negative option). From now on there will be a limited number of growth models for movement organizations in post-fordist societies: co-opted by the culture industry or remixed in hopes of escaping homogenization. Is this some fictionalized account of dsytopian movement stories? My dissertation has yet to be finished, so the suspense will have to go on; however, consider the links between tobacco industry, tobacco control, government agencies, and public relations firms. In these links are the buying and selling of social movements and the hiring of "movement engineers" to create what is not there. No, I'm not kidding.

The grazing of neoliberalism

One of the characteristics of neoliberalism is the shifting of government roles, from regulating to de-regulating. In a LA Times article last week (found here), scientists speak out against a Bureau of Land Management Report on grazing's impact on public land, which led to President Bush "relaxing" regulations on the length of time in which animals may graze.

According to the National Wilflife Federation, grazing on federal lands by livestock uses more public land than any other commercial endeavor. Whereas President Clinton established policies within the BLM to safeguard the lands and repair damage done by over-grazing ("polluted watershed, ruined, despoiled riverbanks, damaged wildlife habitat, and destroyed archaeological sites"), the new regulations will "gut these reforms," reward livestock owners, and limit the public's role in decision-making.

The livestock industry is directly impacted by the efforts of various environmental justice groups. Lobbying efforts or campaign contributions by livestock groups, such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, attempt to push back reforms, allowing them to maximize profits while ignoring a stewardship role. PACs for livestock groups provided a little under $700,000 in the 2004 election cycle, 79% went to the Republican party. Still, some argue that ranchers with herds that graze not only financially contribute to the maintenance of public land but also contribute labor toward upkeep. Today's Farmer reported on Jim Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, highlighting the benefits that ranchers contribute to the environment. These views are typically found in the Wise Use Movement, a counter-movement to the environmental movement that focuses on states' rights and industry firms (descriptions are found here, here, and here). In contrast, the Center for Biological Diversity presents a different picture on grazing. Here is the press release from the Center.

NAACP's Legal Defense Fund on University of Michigan ruling

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has recently issued a report arguing that more needs to be done to help "close the gap" in racial opportunities to education. This report indicates that a group of anti-affirmative action challengers have been undermining the University of Michigan ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (allowing race-conscious admissions). Much like the widespread resistance to the Brown decision 50 years ago, universities are facing increased opposition. A mixed message exists: universities are legally allowed to use race-conscious admissions policies, yet the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is engaged (willingly or not) in the opposition group's strategies to circumvent the law. Read more here.

According to an article in today's Chronicle of Higher Education, the OCR is being staffed by members of these opposition groups, and that oppositions groups are asking the OCR to investigate universities about policies and programs for minority students. So, even when universities are engaged in legal admissions practices, the strategy of filing complaints with the OCR and the OCR investigation serves to intimidate.

ACLU v. Citizens Flag Alliance

The Jurist reported this morning that the US House of Representatives will be voting on a flag desecration amendment today. In fact, they are debating this topic as I write. Though this isn't the first vote for the restriction/protection, the report notes that some are concerned this time around because of the conservative leanings in the Senate. Two organizations have been highlighted as the main voices in this exhaustive battle. On the one side, Citizens Flag Alliance is supporting the amendment while ACLU is calling for efforts to vote against the amenment. The CFA could be seen as the Kevin Bacon of right-side-of-the-aisle interest groups. The list of member organizations range from conservative family organizations to marketing and financial agencies. It would be interesting to compare campaign contributions on this vote with the CFA organizations.