Steven Brown – Page 2

March 10, 2014

ACLU report shows record high racial disparities in school discipline rates

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A report issued by the ACLU of Rhode Island today shows that Rhode Island’s public schools last year disproportionately suspended black students at the highest rates in nine years, while white students were suspended at record low rates. Like black children, Hispanic students remained severely over-suspended, with these disparities reaching all the way to the lowest grades. In addition, students generally – including elementary school children – were given out-of-school suspensions at alarming rates for minor disciplinary infractions.

The report, “Blacklisted: An Update,” is a follow-up to one the ACLU issued last June, which examined eight previous years of suspension data. That report also documented and explored the dangers of out-of-school suspensions and the disproportionate impact of suspensions on black and Hispanic youth, but the latest statistics demonstrate that the inappropriate and discriminatory use of out-of-school suspensions – even at the elementary school level – continues unabated across Rhode Island.

Among the findings from a review of data from the 2012-2013 school year:

Black students were suspended from school 2.19 times as often as would be expected based on their school population. This is a record high suspension disparity for black students over the nine years the ACLU has studied. Hispanic students were suspended over one-and-a-half times as often as expected. White students, in contrast, were suspended just 0.64 times what would be expected, a record low.

Twenty-five school districts disproportionately suspended black students. Twenty-six school districts disproportionately suspended Hispanic students.

Suspensions remained endemic at the lowest grades, and continued to disproportionately affect minority students. Nearly 1,400 elementary school students – and 147 first grade students – were suspended last year, and black elementary school students were suspended more than three times as often as expected based on their representation.

Despite nationwide efforts to promote the use of out-of-school suspensions only in extreme circumstances, over 60 percent of the suspensions for Rhode Island students last year were for low-risk behavioral infractions.

One-third of all suspensions were served for the vague infractions of “Disorderly Conduct” and “Insubordination/Disrespect.” In fact, thousands more suspensions occurred for “Disorderly Conduct” and “Insubordination/ Disrespect” than for assault, bomb threats, breaking and entering, possession or use of controlled substances, fire regulation violations, fighting, gang activity, harassment, hate crimes, hazing, larceny, threats, trespassing, vandalism or weapon possession combined.
More than a quarter of elementary school suspensions were for “Disorderly Conduct” alone. Despite making up one-third of the elementary school population, black and Hispanic students constituted two-thirds of the elementary school students suspended for “Disorderly Conduct” or “Insubordination/Disrespect.”
Although the total number of suspensions overall was down from previous years, that reduction can be attributed almost exclusively to implementation of a law passed by the General Assembly in 2012 prohibiting out-of-school suspensions for attendance infractions. In fact, while overall suspensions decreased, the number of suspensions for low-risk behavioral infractions increased by more than 400.

The report concluded: “Rhode Island’s students deserve an education system that seeks to promote rather than punish them, and efforts by educators and the legislature in 2014 can make that possible. Swift action by Rhode Island’s leaders can ensure that another cohort of children does not find themselves the subject of increasingly grim statistics, and instead finds them granted all the educational opportunities we have to offer them.”

In finding little change from the eight years’ worth of statistics analyzed in its last report, the ACLU reiterated a series of recommendations for policy-makers to address this serious problem. Among the ACLU’s recommendations this year: the General Assembly should approve legislation limiting the use of out-of-school suspensions to serious offenses; school districts should examine annually their discipline rates for any racial or ethnic disparities, and identify ways to eliminate them; schools should ensure that punishments are clearly and evenly established for various offenses; and the state Department of Education should investigate and promote the use of alternative evidence-based disciplinary methods.

February 26, 2014

National experts testify in support of halting NECAP graduation requirement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

National education experts are now joining students, parents, education and advocacy groups and the RI ACLU in urging the Department of Education to end its mandate requiring students to pass the NECAP test in order to graduate.

Three national education experts are submitting written testimony to the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee today in support of legislation that would delay or halt the state’s “high stakes testing” requirement for high school seniors.

The experts say, among other things, that high stakes testing requirements increase dropout rates, narrow curriculum, and disproportionately impact minority students and students with disabilities. In fact, according to the latest RIDE statistics, almost 1,600 seniors remain at risk of not getting a diploma because of the testing requirement.

Here are brief excerpts from their written testimony:

Linda Darling-Hammond, professor of Education at Stanford University, director of the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, and education adviser to Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign:

“The preponderance of research indicates that test-based requirements for graduation do not generally improve achievement, but do increase dropout rates… Studies have raised concerns about reduced graduation rates, especially for African American and Latino students, English language learners, and students with disabilities; reduced incentives for struggling students to stay in school rather than drop out or pursue a GED; increased incentives for schools to encourage low-achieving students to leave school, especially when test scores are part of the state school accountability system, so as to improve the appearance of average school scores; narrowing of the curriculum and neglect of higher order performance skills where limited measures are used; and invalid judgments about student learning from reliance on a single set of test measures, a practice discouraged by professional testing experts.” (Full testimony)

Ron Wolk, founder of Education Week, the newspaper of record in American education:

“Despite hundreds of millions of dollars and countless hours spent on standards and testing over the past 25 years, student achievement has not significantly improved, and the gap that separates needy and minority students from more affluent white students persists. … [A recent RIDE report] reveals that over the past five years, reading and math scores in the 4th, 6th, and 8th grades have increased by about 4 percent—about 0.8 percent a year. Eleventh grade scores in both reading and math increased by an impressive 8 percent over the past five years. Since more than 25 percent of all Rhode Island students score below proficient in reading, however, and about 40 percent score below proficient in math, it could take roughly 25 more years to get all students to proficiency in reading at the current rate of progress, and as many as 40 years to get all students to proficiency in math. Most importantly, it is a serious mistake to equate test scores with learning. Studies have shown that intense test preparation can raise scores, but the ‘learning’ is often transitory and temporary.” (Full testimony)

Lisa Guisbond, policy analyst for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest):

“The ‘model’ exit exam state, Massachusetts, still has persistent, unacceptably large gaps in educational opportunity and achievement… In Massachusetts, disparities in dropout rates persist more than 10 years after the state adopted MCAS high school graduation tests. Latino and African-American students drop out at rates three to four times that of white students, and 11th and 12th graders who have not passed MCAS are more than 13 times more likely to drop out of school than those who have passed . . . Students with disabilities have been hit particularly hard and make up a steadily growing portion of Massachusetts students who don’t graduate because of the MCAS graduation test. Students receiving special education were five times more likely to fail MCAS in 2002-03; by 2011-12, they were 15 times more likely to fail.” (Full testimony)

The RI ACLU is also testifying in support of these bills and will continue to work towards the elimination of standardized test results as a graduation requirement.

June 19, 2013June 20, 2013

New voter ID bill not a ‘freeze’ of current law

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In 2011, the General Assembly passed a controversial voter ID law over the objections of many civil rights, community, labor and open government groups concerned about its impact on voting rights for the poor, the elderly, racial minorities and other vulnerable groups. In seeking to mitigate the potential harm of this law, a House committee yesterday passed a “reform” bill, H-5776A, that could potentially leave even more Rhode Islanders unable to vote in the next election.

The 2011 law established a two-step process: a variety of photo and non-photo IDs would be considered acceptable identification in 2012, but more stringent photo-ID-only requirements would take effect for elections in 2014. This year, Rep. Larry Valencia introduced a bill to repeal the statute in its entirety. Instead, House Judiciary Committee approved a “compromise” purportedly designed to “freeze” the law in its 2012 form so that qualified voters would not be disenfranchised by implementation of the stricter photo ID requirement next year.

While less than ideal, passage of such a bill would have been an important and positive step. Unfortunately, that is not what the approved bill does.

The law approved two years ago specified certain forms of acceptable ID, but also granted the Board of Elections the ability to adopt regulations adding other forms of ID to the list. This legislation eliminates that authorization, and instead allows only three forms of non-photo ID – a birth certificate, social security card or government medical card – and seven specified forms of photo ID. This actually reduces the number of IDs that would be acceptable in 2014 under the current law and regulations. For example, the Board’s list includes employee photo IDs, public housing IDs, and current utility bills as acceptable documents. Though commonly accepted in the voter ID laws of other states, they would no longer be allowed under this bill.

More concretely, here are the numbers: In 2012, voters could present 23 forms of identification at the polling place. In 2014, if “photo ID” took effect, 13 forms of identification would be acceptable. Under this bill, however, only 10 forms of identification will be acceptable in 2014. In terms of the documents accepted, this would make Rhode Island one of the most restrictive states among those with non-photo voter ID laws.

In short, the bill is not a “freeze” of the current law; it instead eliminates numerous forms of ID that were accepted in 2012. The bill is thus likely to have little positive impact on the people and groups facing the greatest possibility of disenfranchisement next year, and may negatively impact others whose currently legitimate forms of ID, photo and non-photo, will now be deemed invalid.

However inadvertently, this bill appears to do the opposite of what was intended. We fervently hope that, in accordance with the vast majority of other states with non-photo ID laws, the House will instead amend the bill to allow the use of IDs that were acceptable in 2012 and avoid the unnecessary disenfranchisement of qualified voters in 2014.

June 12, 2013June 13, 2013

Bill would let state officials track your phone

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Yesterday, the ACLU filed a major federal lawsuit in response to last week’s chilling disclosure that the federal government obtained millions of phone call information records from Verizon as a routine matter. Despite the enormous privacy concerns raised by this unprecedented data-mining collaboration, the General Assembly is poised to pass a bill that would specifically allow both federal and state officials to similarly obtain the location tracking information of any Rhode Island cell phone subscriber for any reason and at any time.

The authorization to do so is contained in an otherwise non-controversial bill known as the “Kelsey Smith Act,” which is designed to help police more quickly locate individuals who are missing or are being kidnapped. (H-5456, S-284)

Although the bill provides for the release of cell phone tracking information to police upon request in certain emergency situations, a separate section of the bill goes further to broadly provide that:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, nothing in this section prohibits a wireless telecommunications carrier from establishing protocols by which the carrier could voluntarily disclose device location information.”

In other words, voluntary disclosure of tracking information is not, in fact, limited to emergencies.

The geographic location of cell phones is tracked whenever the devices are turned on, and the information is often retained by phone companies for at least a year. This can reveal strikingly personal information. As a federal judge wrote, a person’s location data might disclose “whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.” In short, phone metadata can sometimes reveal almost as much as the content of the phone calls themselves.

The goal of the Kelsey Smith bill is a laudable one. But it is one thing for phone companies and police to share private location tracking information when an individual is at risk of serious harm, and another matter entirely to give them carte blanche authority to share that information about anyone for any reason. Yet this bill is quietly making its way through the legislative process with virtually no objection.

The revelations this past week about the secret tracking of phone calls by the federal government should give us all pause. It would be extremely unfortunate if, despite these revelations, Rhode Island actually gave the government the formal authority to do the same thing for cell phone tracking records. General Assembly members should be strongly urged to eliminate this dangerous provision from the bill before its passage.

May 31, 2013May 31, 2013

Is Rhode Island going to start drug testing?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The General Assembly is giving serious consideration to passage of legislation (S-843/H-5696) that would mark a major step backwards in Rhode Island’s longtime efforts to protect privacy rights in the workplace. The bill would subject undefined “highway industry” employees to random and standardless drug testing procedures.

For almost 30 years, Rhode Island law has greatly restricted the use of this degrading and intrusive practice. The state has recognized that random drug testing in employment is unreliable, ineffective, a significant invasion of privacy, and an extremely poor way to treat employees or determine their job performance.

In creating an exemption from the law’s current ban on random drug testing, the bill would allow any employer “in the highway maintenance industry” to engage in suspicionless drug testing of any and every employee – the secretary, the building janitor, and the IT staff.

Just as disturbing, the bill exempts these employers from complying with any provision of the drug testing law, including such important procedures as requiring confirmation of results by scientifically accurate means and retesting of positive results in order to reduce errors; requiring referral to substance abuse counseling for first violators; and keeping test results confidential.

It’s worth emphasizing that the law has always allowed employers to drug test an employee when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the employee’s use of controlled substances is impairing his or her ability on the job. That is how it should be. The law has also allowed random drug testing of employees, like those with commercial driver’s licenses, who are subject to such testing under federal law.

The timing of the bill’s consideration is ironic. Unlike many other drugs, the metabolites from marijuana can stay in one’s system for weeks after it has been ingested. Harder drugs, like cocaine, on the other hand, generally are flushed out of one’s system within 48 hours and are less likely to be caught by a drug test. Just last month, Rhode Island decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Implementation of this bill, then, is most likely to target and ferret out individuals who are using a decriminalized drug that is less harmful than many prescription drugs, and who are using it off-duty when it would not in any way interfere with their job responsibilities.

No less than the police officers, firefighters, teachers and other public servants protected by the current law, these employees deserve a right to be free from the intrusion of random drug testing. It would be unfortunate if the legislature instead decided they should be forced to pull down their pants and pee on command as a condition of keeping their job.

May 30, 2013

School secrecy bills would stifle public information

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The General Assembly is poised to pass a series of very troubling bills that will keep parents, teachers and the public in total darkness when it comes to issues surrounding school safety. The proposed legislation (S-369A, S-801A, H-5941A), supported by the Governor and legislative leaders, would make secret all school committee discussions, and all school district documents, regarding school safety plans.

The enactment of these bills – which has been vigorously opposed by the ACLU, the R.I. Press Association, the New England First Amendment Coalition, and Common Cause Rhode Island – would be a major step backward for parental involvement in critical school matters and for the public’s right to know.

To appreciate just how far-reaching this legislation is, consider the following:

A school committee could discuss and decide in complete secrecy whether to have armed guards or other armed staff in their schools.
Parents wishing to learn a school’s plans for contacting them in the event of an emergency would be denied the ability their ability to get that information.
A concerned PTO interested in finding out how well the school district has complied with state department of education school safety standards would be told they have no right to know.

This extraordinary legislative response to tragedies like Newtown is likely to have precisely the opposite effect of what is intended. Rather than making parents feel safer, this blanket secrecy can only make parents feel more insecure and anxious about whether their children will be safe during an emergency.

Ultimately, the legislation is based on an element of hubris — that only school officials know the best way to protect students. The bills eliminate the ability of parents and the community to respond to the appropriateness of a school district’s safety plan, or to point out possible flaws that could be corrected or strengthened, or to hold school officials accountable if their standards, or implementation of those standards, fall short.

Just as we have seen on so many other matters post-9/11, governmental concerns about the need for secrecy in order to promote “security” or “safety” often serve no purpose other to prevent any meaningful public oversight.

In fact, there have recently been unrelated lockdowns in various schools around the state. It is becoming common for parents and the public to be given vague, and ultimately useless, hints about the reasons for these lockdowns, and thus no reason to know whether the threat was serious, or whether schools are engaging in vast, routine and unnecessary over-reactions that only perpetuate a climate of fear detracting from schools’ educational mission.

Obviously, specific types of security-related school information deserve confidentiality, but a complete ban on accessing any school safety policies, or being able to hear the reasons for their adoption, promotes the sort of secrecy that is truly harmful in a democratic society.

In other contexts, the Governor has talked about his administration’s efforts “to provide the public with an increased level of information regarding the operation and management of government.” Passage of this legislation does the opposite and, more ominously, sets the stage for further government attempts to keep all of us in the dark on important matters, all in the guise of doing it for our own good.

May 22, 2013

ACLU, others highly opposed to high stakes tests

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

More than two dozen community organizations, including the ACLU of Rhode Island, have this week formally asked the Rhode Island Board of Education to rescind the regulation that conditions the receipt of a high school diploma on passing a “high stakes test.” Although the groups have diverse reasons for opposing the measure, they all agree that the mandate is poor policy and will likely have devastating effects for thousands of students who deserve a diploma.

In the letter sent on Monday to the state Board of Education, the groups stated:

“As a result of that high-stakes test requirement, 40% of the Class of 2014 — more than 4,000 students — are at risk of not graduating next year. Immediate action is critical in order to address the uncertainty and anxiety facing these students and their families.”

“Before the fate of these students is sealed, we wanted to make sure you were aware of the impact of high stakes testing, and urge you to find more effective strategies for education reform. Your newly constituted Board has not had the opportunity to consider the full consequences of this previously adopted mandate but, in light of its potentially devastating impact, we believe it is incumbent upon you to do so.”

“…There are other research-proven strategies to improve student outcomes that should be the focus of educational reform efforts. We also take issue with the notion that retests and ‘alternative’ testing will adequately address this problem. In addition, last-minute attempts at remediation by school districts are ‘too little, too late.’ We strongly urge you to reexamine this issue at the earliest possible opportunity before too much more damage is done to our students and our educational system.”

Other signatories to the letter include The Autism Project, College Visions, the George Wiley Center, the NAACP, Providence Student Union, Providence Youth Student Movement, Rhode Island Legal Services, Tides Family Services, and the Urban League of Rhode Island.

March 12, 2013March 12, 2013

Schools Censor Internet From Students, Teachers

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If a school administrator claimed the right to censor a teacher’s work plan on a regular basis, there would be an outcry over such a blatant attack on academic freedom. In fact, this scenario plays out in our public schools every day. The censorship occurs in the context of Internet access by students, and it should be no more tolerated than it would be for a teacher’s offline lessons.

Every school uses Internet filtering software to bar student access to a wide range of websites. A report the ACLU of RI has just issued demonstrates just how pervasive, flawed and inappropriate the use of that software is. It’s not just that students – and teachers – find themselves barred from accessing. To give just a few examples, the websites of PBS Kids and National Stop Bullying Day, or a video clip of the Nutcracker ballet, or a website on global warming, or sites that include information about “anti-government groups.” That is bad enough.

What is worse is that when a teacher seeks to have one of these websites unblocked so their students can make use of it during a lesson plan, administrators often exercise unbridled discretion in deciding whether to accede to the teacher’s request. The effect of this regime of censorship is to significantly hinder teachers from making full use of the Internet to educate students, and to significantly hamper students from accessing relevant information in the classroom.

The ACLU report recommends a number of actions to address the serious impact that use of these filters has on students and teachers’ First Amendment rights and on their right to access information at school. Once they recognize how problematic the use of this software is, we are sure those concerned about education will demand changes in school policies and help free both students and teachers from the shackles that this privately-created software imposes. I encourage everybody to read our findings and help us take action.

Link to news release and report: http://www.riaclu.org/20130311.htm

February 22, 2013February 22, 2013

New Open Records Law Needs Enforcement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

mike field — Mike Field, of the Attorney General’s office, testifies at a hearing on a proposal to update Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act in 2012. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Between 1999 and June 2012, the Attorney General’s office filed lawsuits against public bodies for violating the state’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) on only six occasions, less than 4% of the time after finding that violations of the law had been committed. That is one of the findings of a report issued today by the ACLU of Rhode Island, which examines past enforcement of the open records law by the AG’s office and urges stronger enforcement in the future.

In June 2012, the General Assembly enacted comprehensive amendments to APRA, and expanded the circumstances for imposing penalties against public bodies that violate the Act. This prompted the ACLU to examine how APRA had been enforced by the Attorney General’s office, the state agency explicitly given enforcement powers under APRA, prior to those amendments.

In addition to the lack of litigation by that office to address violations, we found other discouraging patterns. Among them:

Violations of uncomplicated aspects of the law — such as responding to an open records request within the required time period, notifying requesters of their appeal rights, and not charging unreasonable fees for the inspection and copying of records — occurred repeatedly.

Even the most blatant violations of the statute rarely led to legal action by the Attorney General. In one recent instance, the same public body – the Town of North Providence – was found to have violated APRA six separate times within a two-year period, yet even after the sixth violation, the Attorney General refused to find that the Town had engaged in a “knowing and willful” violation that warranted seeking penalties under the law.

It should be noted that the AG’s failure to pursue vigorous APRA enforcement occurred regardless of who had been in office during the time period studied. And it must be acknowledged that until the 2012 amendments were adopted, the Attorney General faced a high standard – a finding of a “knowing and willful” violation of the law – in order to obtain financial penalties against a public body. But since so many of the violations have been so clear, even this standard should have led to a much stronger track record in pursuing legal action and thereby helping to deter future violations by public bodies.

Under last year’s amendments to the law, a public body can now be subject to financial penalties for “reckless” violations of the law as well as “knowing and willful” ones, which means the complainant need no longer prove that the violation was done with deliberate knowledge of its illegality. In order to promote respect for, and compliance with, the law, it is essential that the AG make use of the statute’s strengthened penalty provisions to seek fines against public bodies that engage in clear violations of APRA’s requirements. It is insufficient to issue findings of APRA violations with no further repercussions when the violations should never have occurred in the first place. A more vigorous response is necessary in order to help reverse a culture of secrecy that seems to pervade too many government agencies.

If little changes, however, the General Assembly should further strengthen the penalty sections of the law by significantly increasing the fines that can be imposed to encourage enforcement by private parties. The General Assembly should also consider whether another state agency should be tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the statute if the AG’s office does not increase its pursuit of violations against recalcitrant agencies. The public’s right to know demands nothing less.

February 1, 2013February 1, 2013

‘Loving Story’ Marriage Equality Movie on Monday

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As the struggle for marriage equality in Rhode Island continues, and as the state Coalition Against Racial Profiling prepares for the reintroduction next week of its anti-racial profiling bill, the story of Mildred and Richard Loving is more timely than ever.

You can come watch the movie with the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU Monday at 6:00 PM, in the RIC  Student Union Ballroom. You can also watch the trailer here:

The Lovings were an interracial couple arrested for miscegenation in 1958 and exiled from Virginia. With the help of the ACLU, they took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1967 – finally — struck down these discriminatory laws across the nation.

Last September, the RI ACLU hosted a packed screening of “The Loving Story,” an award-winning HBO documentary about the case, at the Cable Car. On Monday, to kick off African-American history month, the ACLU and the Unity Center at Rhode Island College are planning to hold another free screening of this film at RIC to which the public is invited.

Tracing the history of the case, the film provides a compelling parallel to the contemporary issue of marriage equality, while also documenting the deep-seated nature of racial discrimination that still permeates our society.

We encourage you to attend, as it can only fuel the sense of urgency behind having 2013 finally be the year that the Rhode Island legislature both approves marriage equality for same-sex couples and enacts measures designed to reduce the unconscionable level of racial profiling that still exists on the streets and highways of Rhode Island.

June 23, 2012June 24, 2012

Chafee Should Veto Woonsocket Cross Bills

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

At 2:30 AM on the morning of June 13th, an hour before adjourning for the year, the General Assembly approved two outlandish companion bills, H-8143A and S 3035 as amended. In direct contrast to the principles that animated the founding of our state, these bills establish a government commission with the blatantly inappropriate and unconstitutional role of deciding for religious faiths which symbols of theirs are religious and which ones aren’t. As a long-time and staunch supporter of separation of church and state, Governor Chafee should veto this ill- advised legislation.

The bills were prompted by the on-going controversy surrounding a town-maintained Latin cross in front of a Woonsocket fire station. But whatever one’s views of that monument’s constitutional validity, this legislation crosses a line that the First Amendment cannot tolerate. It not only extensively entangles government in religious matters, it epitomizes the worst fears of the founders of the Constitution, who believed that separation of church and state was needed as much, if not more, to protect religion from the state as to protect the state from religion. This bill would allow government officials to declare that even a sacred religious symbol, icon, inscription, or statue has attained a secular value. Thus, government could attack religion in the guise of protecting it, by degrading, minimizing and politicizing the sacred nature of religious symbols in order to “protect” them from those advocating separation of church and state. No government commission should be permitted to decree that a religious symbol no longer has a religious meaning or that it has become predominantly secular.

Further, rather than resolve disputes over government sponsorship of religious symbols, the establishment of a commission like this will only magnify them and politicize religion to an extremely uncomfortable degree. It is ironic that those who claim a desire to protect religion would promote a bill that essentially gives a state commission the power to strip religious symbols of their sectarian meaning.

Passage of this bill is even more ironic when one considers the attacks that Governor Chafee was subjected to from the right last December when, in line with his Republican predecessor, he referred to the State House “holiday tree” instead of calling it a Christmas tree. Yet many of those same people have rallied around a bill that now establishes a government commission whose stated purpose is to declare religious symbols secular! We are hopeful that Governor Chafee will see this legislation for the politically mischievous and constitutionally problematic bill it is and give it a well-deserved veto.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387