ACLU: RI elementary schools promote gender stereotypes


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

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

acluDespite decades of progress toward gender equality, in Rhode Island today gender-exclusive student events that are specifically held for girls or boys with the active support of elementary schools help to perpetuate blatant gender stereotypes. Almost invariably, the girls’ events, organized by parent-teacher groups and publicized by the schools, are dances, with another gender-stereotyped event, like a pajama party, occasionally taking their place. By contrast, and just as invariably, the events arranged for boys involve almost anything but dancing, are wide-ranging, and focus on purportedly male-friendly activities like sports and arcade games.

That’s the finding of a report issued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, based on a survey of 40 elementary schools in 16 school districts. The report, “Girls Just Wanna Darn Socks,” states that the schools’ promotion of these parent teacher association (PTA) and parent teacher organization (PTO) activities reinforces outdated stereotypes of gender roles in Rhode Island’s youngest residents.

“Rhode Island girls, routinely sent to dances, are fed the same tired stereotype that they must look pretty and be social, while boys are given access to magic and science shows and physical activities – their own and others – like PawSox games and trampoline parks,” the report stated. Through open records requests, the ACLU found that during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, 80% of  “girls’ events” at the 40 elementary schools studied were dances. The few other events held for girls generally encompassed pajama parties, yoga nights, and blanket sewing. The activities for boys, on the other hand, were much more diverse, and included attendance at baseball and hockey games, science and magic shows, and outings for laser tag, bowling, and arcade games.

Although these extracurricular activities are hosted by PTAs and PTOs, the ACLU’s investigation found that the schools regularly promote these events in various ways, through posting on school websites, use of school listservs, and by otherwise offering the parent-teacher groups special access to school resources to promote the events. The report argues that the use of these school resources to support such stereotypical and discriminatory events undermines Title IX, the landmark anti-discrimination law that has helped break down the barriers between girls’ and boys’ education over the past four decades.

Great progress has been made by women in education in the years since Title IX’s passage, but girls and women continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. By supporting these gender-exclusive events, the ACLU report argues, “Rhode Island’s schools, however unintentionally, support the sort of stereotyping that helped discourage girls from those fields for so long.”

The report concludes:

In the 21st Century, however, it should be simply unacceptable for public schools to be fostering the notion that girls belong at formal dances, yoga or sewing while boys should be offered baseball games, bowling and science. Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella; many enjoy participating in and attending sports events and playing arcade games. Similarly, not every boy makes sports his obsessive pastime or cringes at the thought of going to a dance. Such gender-segregated programming – based on gender stereotypes about the talents, capacities and preferences of children – is harmful to boys and girls alike, and fails in any meaningful way to provide “reasonably comparable” experiences.

The report called on school equal opportunity officers to halt school support of these types of discriminatory extracurricular events, and instead discuss with PTO/PTAs the need to promote gender-inclusive activities. The ACLU also called on the state Department of Education to intervene by providing guidance to school districts on the illegal nature of their promotion of these gender-discriminatory activities. The General Assembly enacted a law in 2013 authorizing gender-exclusive extracurricular activities, but required them to be “reasonably comparable.” The ACLU and numerous women’s rights groups opposed the legislation.

 

PARCC as a high stakes test will spell disaster


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

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

dont test me bro

It is heartening to see a robust discussion on the imminent use of the PARCC test in Rhode Island’s public schools, but the state Department of Education seems to have made up its mind before the test has even gotten off the ground. It is already actively encouraging school districts to use the PARCC to penalize students as early as next year.

Before having any chance to meaningfully examine how this untried test is working, or to determine whether, like the NECAP, it will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on poor and minority children, English Language Learners and students with disabilities, Commissioner Deborah Gist has already advised school districts they may “use PARCC results as a component in determining students’ grades” beginning as early as the upcoming 2015-16 school year. The Commissioner, with the backing of the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, has also encouraged school districts to consider using the PARCC as a high stakes graduation requirement for the Class of 2017.

In light of this push by RIDE, the biggest concern isn’t necessarily whether testing should be delayed for a year or even whether children should be able to opt out – it is whether the test results should be used punitively against students rather than as a supportive accountability tool to help them and their schools succeed. RIDE likes to claim its goal is the latter, but as we know from the NECAP debacle, it operates more like the former.

RIDE’s desire to punish kids by allowing the test to be used in this high stakes fashion so quickly is extremely troubling, especially since education officials know full well the importance of time in getting a new test like this off the ground. Last August, before changing course, the Commissioner gave good reasons why PARCC should be used as a high stakes test beginning in 2020, not 2017. As she noted then:

“We need to make sure that everyone has adequate time to prepare for the implementation.  That means students having adequate support and time, families and teachers and school and district leaders need adequate time to make the changes to their support and interventions for individual students.”

By instead giving school districts the option to use the test results against students a year from now, RIDE is actually doing everything it can to make sure students are not fully prepared. To make matters worse, the local implementation of such testing places pressures on students of particular school districts who embrace PARCC in this fashion, while protecting students who happen to live in more skeptical school districts.

We all want students to succeed, but this approach spells disaster and will inevitably lead to a repeat of the fiasco surrounding the NECAP. Opting out of the PARCC test means little if students face a reduction in grades or denial of a diploma in a few years for failing to take it. Nor is it fair if students who opt in find their grades lowered because of their scores on the test. Whether one agrees or disagrees that PARCC can be a useful support tool, parents and others concerned about punitive standardized testing should be demanding first and foremost that this test not be used for high stakes graduation or grading decisions in the way that RIDE is, sadly, so hastily determined to use it.

Civil Rights-era activist Adele Bourne speaks against Raptakis highway protest bill


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

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

In my opinion Adele Bourne, speaking in front of the Senate Judiciary committee on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee in opposition to Senator Leo Raptakisbill to make blocking the highway during a political protest a felony, has put the last nail in the coffin of this ill considered legislative overreach.

“I would have a rap sheet a mile long if this were taking place in Webster Groves, Missouri in 1953,” said Bourne, who was a senior in high school at the time, “There were good reasons. I’m not a wild eyed pacifist or liberal but in 1953 in Webster Groves, Missouri, our religious leaders and our wonderful school teacher… black and white, they got us all together, the kids, and we got rid of a corrupt mayor. We opened up a new pool and recreation area, paid for by everybody, used only by whites: we changed that. So when school desegregation came three years later there was no problem whatsoever.”

Bourne spoke directly to the danger of passing laws that run contrary to civil rights, saying, “At the time there were real problems and my ministers and my teachers and I would have been put in jail because we had to cross a highway at one point or another.”

Webster Groves is only 14 miles from Ferguson.

Bourne brought up the case of Father Michael Doyle, a New Jersey priest arrested in 1971 as part of the Camden 28 for breaking into a draft office as part of a protest against the Vietnam War.  “I’m old enough that I have been able to know some of the leading people for political change and social change in this country. That’s one advantage of being so ancient. Father Michael Doyle of Camden, New Jersey would be behind bars under mandatory sentencing.”

Instead, Father Michael Doyle has spent that last four decades, “feeding, housing, and educating the poor.”

It’s important to remember that the people blocking the highways today are the Adele Bournes and Michael Doyles of the future. We cannot let ourselves become so fearful of change that we criminalize our best and brightest.

You can view the rest of last night’s testimony on the Raptakis’ highway bill here.

Patreon

ACLU successfully settles suit requiring DMV to establish regulations for database


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

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

acluIn response to a lawsuit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, the Division of Motor Vehicles agreed to the entry of a court order Friday that will require the agency to first adopt regulations through a public process before using a new database designed to identify and possibly take action against uninsured drivers.

The ACLU of Rhode Island on Tuesday sued the DMV for implementing its Uninsured Motorists Identification Database without first establishing any regulations to prevent the improper disclosure of drivers’ personal information, avoid mistaken registration revocations, or to otherwise ensure that the program is properly administered by the private out-of-state vendor contracted to run the program. The database is designed to compile information from insurance companies about the identities of insured drivers and information from the DMV about registered motor vehicles. The vendor matches the information to identify and notify vehicle owners who do not appear to have insurance. The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Albin Moser, noted that insurance companies and the DMV had begun sending personal information about drivers to the vendor without any regulations whatsoever to address key issues over implementation of the database.

The ACLU’s successful settlement of this suit comes as the first wave of notices to drivers who purportedly didn’t have insurance was supposed to be sent out by the vendor. Residents must obtain or prove they have insurance within a specified period of time or else their registration will be revoked. Under this agreement, the DMV must now established regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act before any notifications are sent.

ACLU attorney Moser said: “Thanks to the ACLU’s analysis, the Superior Court and the DMV were made aware of several privacy and due process concerns that were best addressed by a public rulemaking process before the program’s implementation. The ACLU will be an active participant in that process in order to make sure that these concerns are adequately addressed.”

The lead plaintiff in the case, ACLU of RI policy associate Hillary Davis, added: “A number of questions remain about the implementation of the UMID, from ways to protect Rhode Islanders’ privacy to how drivers whose registrations are erroneously revoked may have them reinstated without punishment. We commend the DMV for recognizing the need to move forward on answering these questions, and look forward to testifying on the proposed rules.”

ACLU challenges implementation of uninsured motorist database in absence of regulations


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

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

acluThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Division of Motor Vehicles for implementing a database designed to identify uninsured motorists without first establishing any regulations to prevent the improper disclosure of drivers’ personal information, avoid mistaken registration revocations, or to otherwise ensure that the program is properly administered by the private out-of-state company contracted to run the program.

A state law enacted in 2013 established the database, designed to compile information from insurance companies about the identities of insured drivers and information from the DMV about registered motor vehicles. A third party vendor matches the information in order to identify and notify vehicle owners who do not appear to have insurance. Residents must obtain or prove they have insurance within a specified period of time or else their registration will be revoked. Despite being explicitly required to do so under the statute, however, the DMV has proposed no regulations whatsoever to address key issues over implementation of the database.

Today’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Albin Moser, notes that while insurance companies and the DMV are already sending personal information about Rhode Island drivers to the third party contractor, the DMV has yet to draft, publicly share, or hold a public hearing to discuss regulations establishing privacy safeguards, notification procedures, and other necessary procedures. The failure to establish these regulations is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and the state law that established the database, according to the complaint. The suit asks the court to stop the implementation of the Uninsured Motorists Identification Database until appropriate regulations are adopted with public input.

The ACLU will be seeking a temporary restraining order this week against implementation of the program, as the first wave of notices to drivers who purportedly don’t have insurance is supposed to be sent out by the contractor as soon as next week.

The lead plaintiff in the case is ACLU of RI policy associate Hillary Davis, who often testifies on state regulations and civil liberties issues relating to privacy and technology. She said: “Any use of personal information must be thoughtfully and publicly examined. That the DMV has failed to engage in a public rule making process about this database, flouting the responsibility put upon them by the General Assembly, is alarming in its carelessness. Though the impact on Rhode Island drivers can be tremendous, the only discussions as to the database’s use and security precautions have been between the DMV, the insurance companies, and the third-party vendor that stands to profit from the use of Rhode Islanders’ personal information. This oversight must be corrected before the program goes into effect, not after Rhode Islanders find their information compromised or their vehicle registrations revoked.”

ACLU attorney Moser added: “The DMV needs to explain to Rhode Island residents how it and the private contractor are going to keep residents’ personal information secure.  The DMV also needs to explain to how it and the contractor are going to manage the program so that it is accurate and does not result in residents’ motor vehicle registrations being jeopardized by administrative error.”

The ACLU’s concerns about implementing the program without any public standards are not without justification, as it has sued the DMV a number of times in the past over regulatory lapses that have adversely affected motorists. In 2012, for example, the ACLU successfully sued the DMV after it refused to reinstate a person’s driver’s license based on a “policy” that appeared nowhere in the agency’s rules and regulations. In 2010, the ACLU successfully settled another case after the DMV advised thousands of motorists that their license and registration would be suspended due to alleged unpaid fines that were the result of incidents occurring on “00/00/0000.”

Groups call for reversal of Dept. of Education high-stakes testing plans


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

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

DSC_0135A number of community and advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, are calling on the Council of Elementary and Secondary Education to promptly overturn guidance issued by Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist that advises school districts they can use the PARCC exam as a high-stakes test graduation requirement as early as 2017, three years before the 2020 starting date the Council had originally proposed.

The Commissioner issued this guidance in a “field memo” Friday despite the fact that just last week the Council tabled a RIDE proposal that would have given school districts the 2017 testing option. In addition, without any public discussion, the Commissioner’s field memo also told superintendents they could begin using students’ PARCC scores as a component of their school grades—and could do so starting in the next school year.

In a letter sent to the Council, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, R.I. Disability Law Center, R.I. Legal Services, R.I. Teachers of English Language Learners, and five other community organizations raised serious concerns about the guidance and urged the council to bar school districts from using PARCC as a high stakes testing requirement until 2020 and from using the test’s results as a factor in students’ grades.

Our letter stated: “We would expect that before allowing PARCC to be used for such consequential and punitive purposes, RIDE would be spending the coming five years monitoring the test’s implementation to ensure there was adequate teacher preparation and curriculum development, equitable computer training and access for all, and fair implementation for English Language Learners and students with disabilities. Instead, the Commissioner’s memo is encouraging school districts – many of whom, by RIDE’s own standards, failed to meet basic accountability standards with the NECAP – to be demanding accountability from the students (not themselves) on this new test in a manner that can only be described as exceedingly premature.”

We also noted that the Commissioner’s unilateral decision to allow school districts to establish their own high-stakes testing requirements for graduation and for grading is “extraordinarily significant” and creates a two-tiered system for students based solely on their address.

You can read the full letter here and learn more about high-stakes testing and students’ rights here.

PVD7: Interview with Ferguson protester Tess Brown-Lavoie


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

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

Tess Brown-LavoieTess Brown-Lavoie is one of the six people arrested November 25 for allegedly engaging in disorderly conduct on the highway during a Ferguson protest here in Providence. Brown-Lavoie is a farmer and writer in Providence. She serves on the board of the New England Farmers Union, the National Young Farmers Coalition and the Rhode Island Food Policy Council. She  coordinates the Young Farmer Network. This not being enough, she is also the drummer for Mother Tongue.

Though she wouldn’t talk about the details of her arrest, Brown-Lavoie agreed to talk to RI Future about why she was at the march and about her views on social justice, race and politics. I hope to have more interviews with some of the other arrested protesters over the next weeks.

RI Future: Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. So, why were you out protesting that night?

Brown-Lavoie: I went to the protest broadly to be in the street with other people. I went specifically because I was and am angry and frustrated that Mike Brown’s death will not be investigated in court, that Darren Wilson will not be tried, and that police violence against black people and people of color is rife and unchecked in this country.

After Prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s announcement of Wilson’s non-indictment—in which he challenged witnesses’ credibility more deeply than Wilson’s guilt, and exonerated all police force—I went down sort of a black hole, reading Darren Wilson’s blatantly racist testimony, other coverage of the circumstances surrounding Mike Brown’s death and various critiques. Twitter helped me identify sources I could trust, without the pervasive racism upon which the logic of mainstream media rests. But after a certain point, consuming articles and opinions in solitude can lead to a really dark place of anger and frustration. I went to the protest in order to physically be with people, and to be loud in the street demanding an end to the racism that undergirds the logic of policing.

RI Future: What motivates you?

Brown-Lavoie: Anger and frustration motivate me in a visceral way, as does my privileged experience as a white person. New examples of oppressive violence—against woman, against people of color, against queer people—become details in an oppressive ethos that we already knew existed. But the details of each story—child victims, toy guns, unarmed, “It looked like a demon,” post-mortem character assassination—reveal horrific new dimensions about depth and flagrancy of institutional prejudice, especially by police.

These details are so audacious.

The police tactics and structural racism they reveal are unacceptable. The conditions they establish, under which we live, are intolerable. It is important to me to work to be a participant in the dismantling of these oppressive systems, and I think there are particular roles for white people in demanding justice. Silence from white communities is complicity, and that is motivation to show up, even while privilege allows for powerful inertia.

RI Future: What kind of history/education/experiences have you had that brought you out to the march/rally?

Brown-Lavoie: I was raised a Unitarian Universalist, going to First Parish in Cambridge. When I was in Sunday school the luminary minister at my church, Rev. Dr. Thomas Mikelson drove us around Georgia and Alabama to learn about the Civil Rights Movement and Unitarian involvement. We walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, saw the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, met with lawyers from the ACLU and visited lots of museums and memorial sites. Thomas spun this vivid narrative, about what it means and looks like to need justice so desperately that you’ll devote your life to it. I still turn to these examples of compassion, solidarity, devotion, and persistence, and am so grateful for that opportunity to learn about the role of spirituality in movements for justice.

I learned about the idea of intersectional oppression in a Black Feminisms course in college taught by Jennifer Morgan, who was another amazing teacher (and enormously patient as I read texts by people who fundamentally evolved the way I think about gender, race and equality—my learning curve was steep). I see that class as an intellectual turning point in my life that has helped me understand my experience of this oppressive society with other people’s experiences, without appropriating those stories or trying to universalize mine.

So many people in my community work towards a better world—as teachers, farmers, writers, lawyers, activists, artists—and my sense of obligation to those people brought me to the march. The dysfunctional nature of the American justice system demands nothing but outrage, and sometimes yelling in a crowd in the street, waking people up at night, is the only thing that feels like an appropriate response. My experience in American institutions and businesses—from schools, stores, restaurants, banks, airports, neighborhoods, not to mention police stations, my own home, the neighborhood I live in—is marked by my whiteness, and I felt like it was necessary to put my body in a crowd demonstrating against the status quo.

Steve Alquist is profiling people arrested at the November 25 BlackLivesMatter march that temporarily closed down Interstate 95 in Providence. Read the other interviews here:



Support Steve Ahlquist!




ACLU sues Providence Police again for violating protesters’ free speech rights


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

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

The recent protests in Providence and around the country should remind us all of the importance of our free speech rights and the power a community can have when it makes its collective voice heard. Taking to a public square to express one’s political opinion is a longstanding tradition in American society and is a fundamental right that must be respected. We have seen, however, that law enforcement officers at times unnecessarily restrict protests in ways that only serve to diminish protesters’ ability to share their message. As large-scale protests continue across the country, the ACLU of Rhode Island is again taking action against the Providence Police Department for violating the First Amendment rights of protesters.

Yesterday, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit against the Providence Police Department for violating the “clearly established” free speech rights of two protesters last year at a fundraiser in Roger Williams Park for then-Gubernatorial candidate, and now Governor-elect, Gina Raimondo. The suit alleges that the police department’s actions amounted to a “willful” violation of the “constitutionally protected right of people to peaceably assemble and demonstrate in public parks,” and seeks various court-imposed remedies, including monetary damages. The suit notes that only six months earlier in another ACLU case, a federal judge condemned the Providence police department’s practice of “clearing vast public spaces” of people engaged in free speech activity without legal cause.

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi on behalf of Shannah Kurland and Gladys Gould, stems from police actions outside a September 26, 2013 fundraiser for then-candidate Raimondo . Over 200 people, including Kurland and Gould, gathered in the park outside the Casino with signs to protest Raimondo’s controversial pension reform activities. During the course of the protest, the lawsuit claims, the two plaintiffs (along with the other demonstrators) were ordered by Providence police to move farther and farther away from the Casino, making it much more difficult for them to have their message seen and heard by individuals attending the event.

Separately, Kurland is legal counsel to five local Ferguson activists charged with trespassing for shutting down Interstate 95.

Even though she at no time obstructed traffic or foot movement, Gould was ordered to move farther away from the Casino three times. As a result, she was forced from protesting where she started, on a sidewalk within 50 feet of the Casino entrance, to an area that was about 285 feet away and also distant from the parking lot entrance. Gould reluctantly moved each time, but when Kurland refused to move to the farthest location, she was arrested for disorderly conduct, purportedly for obstructing traffic, even though she remained on the grass island at all times.

The lawsuit notes that parks and sidewalks “are quintessential public forums, and the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the right of demonstrators to use them,” and that a claim of “obstruction of traffic” is “not a talisman that can be employed to turn bedrock First Amendment protections to dust.” The suit further states that since the plaintiffs “were at all times either peaceably protesting on the sidewalk or the island and in no way interfering with the flow of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk or motor vehicle traffic in the street or ingress to and egress from the Casino, there was no legitimate governmental interest in relocating their protest on three different occasions.”

Pointing to the favorable court decision the ACLU had obtained only months earlier on behalf of a Providence resident, Judith Reilly, who had been barred by police from leafleting outside a venue where then-Mayor David Cicilline was speaking, the suit claims that Providence police officials should have been fully aware of the unconstitutional nature of their actions at the Casino. The City paid $75,000 last year to settle the Reilly case.

We’re asking the court to, among other remedies, declare the actions of the police a violation of Kurland and Gould’s First Amendment rights, require proper training and instruction of police on the First Amendment rights of demonstrators, rule that Kurland’s arrest violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and award compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

There is no excuse for the actions police officers took at this event, whose only purpose was to diminish the ability of protesters to get their message across. The time has long since passed for the Providence police to act as if the First Amendment were just a suggestion.

Plaintiff Kurland said: “It’s a shame that the City of Providence still doesn’t respect the Constitution. I sure hope it doesn’t take another arrest for them to learn that the First Amendment applies here too. If it does, I’m willing to oblige.”

ACLU attorney Sinapi added: “I sincerely hope and trust that, unlike his predecessors, Mayor-Elect Elorza, who has taught law school students about constitutional rights, will acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the free speech rights violated in this case, and will act with all deliberate speed to provide relief for the injuries committed and to prevent such violations from occurring in the future.  Failure of City elected leaders to take appropriate and decisive action to remedy and prevent such conduct is only going to continue to subject the City to repeated lawsuits, each of which will inevitably cost the City tens of thousands of dollars.”

Time will tell whether the new administration will take steps to resolve this matter quickly or instead seek to defend the actions of its officers in squelching free speech.

One week later, Ferguson protesters still marching in PVD streets


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

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

DSC_7984Yesterday’s “March Against Police Violence in Solidarity with Ferguson and Mexico” was altogether different from last Tuesday’s Ferguson protest in Providence.

The organizers, the response of the police, the extent of the press coverage and the racial makeup of the attendees was not the same as last week. Even some of the subtleties concerning the goals of the protest were different, though to be clear, the main goal was to challenge racism, racial profiling, militarized policing and police murder of people of color.

DSC_7945The crowd started to build around 7pm at Burnside Park, with marchers working on their signs in the park with the materials provided by the organizers. There were less marchers this time and the crowd tended to be whiter, though there was substantial representation of people of color.

There was more of a police presence this time around. The police were never far away, and though they never interfered with the protesters, they made sure to let their presence be known.

Organizer Rebecca Nieves McGoldrick addressed the crowd in Burnside Park and said that given the events of last week, tonight was going to be a “pretty calm and peaceful protest,” by which I took her to mean that there were not going to be any arrests or provocative actions like flag burning or highway blocking. She was true to her word.

DSC_7972The plan was to rally at Burnside Park, march past the Providence Place Mall and to the steps of the State House, where there would be a four minute moment of silence for Mike Brown (one minute for every hour his body laid in the street) and then a “speak out” in which anyone could step forward and let loose whatever was on their mind.

DSC_7978The march through downtown and to the state house was guided by the police, whose red and blue lights provided an almost stereoscopic illumination. There were chants of “Hands up, don’t shoot” and “This is what democracy looks like” among others. There were many signs of support from passing motorists and mall patrons, but also one or two negative reactions.

Upon approaching the mall, I was amused to note that the police were blocking the highway on ramp, which I assume was meant to prevent protesters from storming up the ramp and blocking the highway a second time.

DSC_7989The big surprise of the evening was finding, upon our arrival at the State House, a phalanx of police officers standing at the top of the state house steps, protecting the building. It was an intimidating reminder of police power to have between 15 and 20 armed officers silently observe the protest from on high.

DSC_8005There was a solemn and somber four minutes of silence, interrupted only by the occasional chime of an unmuted cellphone, then the speak out began. I’ll have a rundown of what the speakers spoke about in a later post, after I’ve sorted out all the video, but for now let me present some highlights.

This march was organized to draw parallels and solidarity between what’s happening in the United States, where abuses of police power against black and brown people is a growing problem, and the terrible situation in Mexico, where the militarized drug war and an a destabilized government is resulting in the murder and disappearance of young protesters. Police forces in Iguala, Guerrero, Mexico murdered six people and “disappeared” 43 students from the Raúl Isidro Burgos Rural Teachers’ College of Ayotzinapa.

DSC_8009The growing militarization of police forces and the crackdown on human rights is world wide, from Hong Kong to Mexico to Ferguson.

The organizers of this protest put it succinctly:

“We are calling for the demilitarization of police. We are calling for police and government transparency and accountability. We are calling for an end to the drug war. We are calling for an end to neo-liberal policies that increase economic inequality and disenfranchise indigenous people and people of color. We are calling for an end to systems of institutionalized racial oppression. We are calling for justice.”

DSC_8013As the night wore on, and a light drizzle of rain and dropping temperatures thinned the crowd of protesters, over twenty people participated in the speak out. For the most part the listeners were polite and patient, and everyone who wanted to speak had their chance.

The last 20 or 30 protesters then turned to the silent police officers and handful of reporters who toughed it out to the end and waved farewell.

Like last week’s protest, this was a positive, cathartic experience, continuing the conversation around race and police violence. Legislators and elected officials take notice: things are changing.

DSC_7941

DSC_8016

DSC_8014

DSC_8012

DSC_8011

DSC_8010

DSC_8008

DSC_8006

DSC_8001

DSC_7997

DSC_7993

DSC_7991

DSC_7987

DSC_7986

DSC_7985

DSC_7978

DSC_7976

DSC_7969

DSC_7968

DSC_7966

DSC_7962

DSC_7953

DSC_7944

DSC_7942



Support Steve Ahlquist!





Tobin, Stenhouse backpeddle on ‘thorny cultural issues’


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

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

Is Bishop Tobin now doing the same thing he accused Gina Raimondo of?

TobinBishopThomasBishop Tobin, despite a lengthy career of advocating against abortion and marriage equality, has said that in the event of a constitutional convention being held in Rhode Island, he didn’t “think it would or should deal with cultural/moral/religious issues. These particular, discrete issues are better dealt with in the normal legislative process.”

The Bishop’s statement stands in stark contrast to his earlier statements regarding marriage equality, which he said should be placed on the ballot for a popular vote, “We will continue to oppose efforts to redefine the institution of marriage in Rhode Island… The citizens of Rhode Island have a right to vote on this crucial issue.’’

One wonders if Bishop Tobin’s backing off on the issue of abortion, as pertains to a ConCon, represents “an inexcusable lack of moral courage” and an abandonment of “teaching of the Church on the dignity of human life for the sake of self-serving political gain” as he recently said of Gina Raimondo when she announced her position on abortion.

Why would Tobin, so dedicated to changing the laws regarding abortion (and marriage equality) give up a potentially powerful tool that might help him accomplish his task? Does Tobin intend to go so far as to oppose any potential resolutions passed by a ConCon that sought to deal with “cultural/moral/religious” issues in a way the church favors? Can you imagine the Bishop taking a stand against an amendment limiting reproductive of LGBTQ rights if one were to make it through the ConCon?

I can’t.

017frontMeanwhile, Mike Stenhouse, of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a group devoted to crank economics, has pledged to not “support any amendment in a convention that would infringe on individual rights,” despite a line in the Center’s own report that said a ConCon could, “Resolve some thorny cultural issues – one way or another – through the mechanism that most clearly represents the will of the people.” (page six)

Stenhouse’s attack on Jim Vincent of the NAACP and Steve Brown of the ACLU for pointing out the actual words found in the Center’s report rings false. Stenhouse maintains that, “Any honest reading of this section clearly shows that the Center was not taking a position on those topics. Nor is the Center aware that any pro convention organization has publicly suggested that social or cultural issues should be a convention topic.”

So what does “resolve thorny cultural issues” mean to Stenhouse? It’s hard to know, but Stenhouse defender Justin Katz, in a piece entitled, If not on the Ballot, Where? attacks Vincent and defends the Center’s statement by saying, “Look, cultural issues have to be resolved.” In other words, thorny cultural issues are up for discussion in a ConCon, no matter what Stenhouse says.

Maybe the Center should get its messaging straight.

Whereas Tobin serves the Catholic God, Stenhouse serves the God of the Free Market, whose invisible hand makes the rich richer by picking the pockets of the poor. Stenhouse pledges not to support any amendments that might infringe on individual rights, but the term “individual rights” does not equate to civil rights or human rights. The term “individual rights” is much narrower than that.

Individual rights are not group rights. Individual rights are not environmental rights. Under this narrow conception of rights, corporations are individuals, unions are not. The concept of individual rights is often advanced as a way of avoiding the obligations our rights impose on us. Under this view, everybody is responsible for their own rights, not the rights of others.

Human rights, on the other hand, are understood to be “interrelated, interdependent and indivisible” and to apply to “individuals or groups.”  Stenhouse and the center are cautious to avoid terms like human rights and civil rights because these terms carry a moral, ethical and historical weight that is bigger and more expansive than the narrow limits the narcissistic, Objectivist term “individual rights” allow for.

Human rights are both rights and obligations. When we talk in terms of human rights, we call on the power of states to enforce and enhance those rights. Stenhouse and the Center prefer a world of limited government that is unconcerned with human rights and is concerned only with the narrow limits of individual rights. Civil rights legislation that forces bigoted shopkeepers to serve hated minorities are not allowed under this formulation.

Finally, it’s easy for Bishop Tobin, Mike Stenhouse and the members of Renew RI to pinky swear that they will not go after what they call “thorny cultural issues” because they don’t control all the forces in and out of Rhode Island that may involve themselves in the process. Further, their promise to not involve themselves in such issues are limited and conditional.

So it all comes down to this: Do you trust them?

Judge: RI’s ban on anonymous political literature is unconstitutional


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

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

federalist papersRhode Islanders no longer need to worry about facing prison for exercising their free speech rights now that an outdated law that banned the distribution of anonymous political literature has been ruled unconstitutional.

Ruling in an ACLU lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge William Smith on Tuesday struck down a state law that makes it a crime to circulate anonymous political literature, including unsigned newspaper editorials. The ACLU of Rhode Island sued over the legality of the statute earlier this year to halt the Town of Smithfield’s stated plans to enforce it. The statute, which carries a potential one-year prison sentence, bars the distribution of any anonymous political literature that relates to ballot questions or that criticizes a political candidate’s “personal character or political action.”

The U.S. Supreme Court had previously declared an almost identical Ohio statute unconstitutional, and called anonymous pamphleteering “an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent” designed to “protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” That 1995 ruling cited a long history of anonymous political literature in this country, including the Federalist Papers.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, last year the Smithfield Police Department arrested a political consultant for purportedly violating the state law. The Attorney General’s office later dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court case. In January, the ACLU wrote town officials to seek assurances that Smithfield police would no longer enforce the statute. The ACLU received no response; instead, news stories quoted town officials as calling the ACLU request “absolute nonsense” and stating that they intended to continue initiating criminal complaints under the statute.

This prompted the ACLU’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Mark W. Freel. In a written filing with the court, the Attorney General’s office essentially agreed with the ACLU and acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the statute.

In a four-page decision, Judge Smith said it was “hard to imagine what the Rhode Island General Assembly was thinking when it passed this law . . . [but it] must be invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment.”

The plaintiff in the suit was Smithfield resident John Blakeslee, who has disseminated written political materials over the years that could be deemed to violate the statute’s requirements.

ACLU attorney Freel said: “There is a long tradition of anonymous pamphleteering on matters of public interest in this country, and that right is embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today the court struck down a long-standing Rhode Island law that was entirely at odds with that right. It is a victory for free speech and expression.”

In an attempt to mitigate the time and expense of defending the lawsuit, the House had passed a bill this session to repeal the statute, but the bill died in the Senate. As a result of the court decision, the defendants will pay $4,000 in attorneys’ fees in response to the successful challenge to the statute.

Although anonymous literature that criticizes candidates for public office is a criminal offense under the statute, literature that supports or praises a candidate is not. The court’s decision formally makes the statute legally unenforceable.

Trivia night with the ACLU


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

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

aclu triviaThis Wednesday marks the 227th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 delegates of U.S. Constitutional Convention and the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is celebrating with a trivia night for civil libertarians.

Test your knowledge of the Bill of Rights by joining us Wednesday, September 17, at The Salon in Providence at 7 p.m. for a night of friendly competition featuring general knowledge, civil liberties, and Rhode Island trivia. Even if you don’t think you’ll take home the top prize, this is a great opportunity to meet fellow Rhode Islanders who share your interests.

It’s free to play and open to everybody 21 or older so bring a team of friends or come on your own.

Here are the details:

Trivia Night with the ACLU

Wednesday, September 17, at 7 p.m.

The Salon, 57 Eddy St in Downtown Providence

Free to play. 21+.

I hope to see you there!

Open gov’t groups blast Kilmartin on public records law


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

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

Peter KilmartinCalling it “a new low” in the state’s enforcement of the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), five open government groups blasted an opinion issued by the Attorney General’s office which held that public bodies can charge members of the public for the time it takes to compose a letter denying an open records request.

That interpretation of the law was embodied in an AG advisory opinion, Clark v. Department of Public Safety, issued yesterday. It arose in the context of a Rhode Islander who had sought BCI and personnel records for an individual in the State Fire Marshal’s office. When the requester was denied access to the records on the grounds that they were confidential by law, he was charged a $15 fee. He then filed an appeal with the AG, leading to yesterday’s opinion. (The complaint raised a number of other APRA objections, which were also rejected in the opinion.)

APRA allows public bodies to charge for the “search and retrieval” of public records. The opinion appears to argue that because the time spent redacting records has been held to constitute “search and retrieval” time, then the time spent composing a letter to deny access can be charged as well. The portion of the opinion addressing this issue is on Pages 6 and 7.

Below are quotes denouncing the decision from representatives of Common Cause RI, ACCESS/RI, the ACLU of Rhode Island, the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, and the New England First Amendment Coalition.

Rosanna Cavanagh, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition:

“The legislative intent of the statute is thwarted by the Attorney General’s new interpretation which in effect replaces the clear meaning of ‘search and retrieval’ with the opposite meaning of ‘search and denial.’ If this interpretation takes hold it would make Rhode Island the least access friendly state in New England in this regard.”

John Marion, executive director, Common Cause Rhode Island:

“By upholding the DPS’s decision to charge a citizen the costs associated with composing a letter denying their request, the Attorney General’s office has provided a blueprint for government officials to discourage public records requests.”

League of Women Voters of Rhode Island President Jane Koster:

“Too many public bodies already treat the open records statute like a series of recommended guidelines instead of a law that must be followed.  This opinion only exacerbates the many problems the public already has gaining access to information.”

Linda Levin, chair of the open government group ACCESS/RI:

“We call on the Attorney General to reverse this position in future decisions. If the office does not, ACCESS/RI stands ready to seek legislation that would establish into law that the public cannot be charged in any way when records are denied.”

Here’s my statement, as the executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island:

“Allowing agencies to charge people for the privilege of having their request for records denied makes no sense, has no basis in the statute, and represents a new low in interpreting the open records law. It adds insult to injury, and is like sending a ‘Dear John’ letter postage due.”

New immigration detainer policy protects fundamental rights


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

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

scomm5_0The policy of “detain first, investigate later” practiced by federal immigration officials no longer applies in Rhode Island now that the state Department of Corrections must stop honoring immigration detainers issued without probable cause.

In a significant victory for the rights of immigrants and the due process rights of all Rhode Islanders, Governor Chafee on Thursday issued a new policy stopping the DOC from relying on immigration detainers to hold people who otherwise should be released. These detainers requested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement are generally issued with no judicial oversight and keep people in jail simply because the agency wants to investigate them.

Now, ICE must abide by the same rules as any other law enforcement agency and obtain a warrant if it wants the state to detain someone in jail.

This welcomed policy shift is in recognition of a federal court ruling in which U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. found that holding individuals in jail based on these detainers is likely unconstitutional. That ruling was issued in an ACLU case on behalf of Rhode Island resident Ada Morales who, despite being a U.S. citizen, was twice unlawfully held in jail on the basis of erroneous immigration detainers.

Unfortunately, Ms. Morales is not the only person to be wrongly detained nationwide, but since Judge McConnell’s decision, other courts have issued similar rulings and over 130 local and state governments across the country have voluntarily adopted policies, like the new Rhode Island policy, of no longer honoring ICE detainers that are issued without judicial authorization.

By becoming the latest state to reject ICE’s indiscriminate detainer practices, Rhode Island has stood up for its residents and ensured they are secure in their fundamental right to live free from the fear of unwarranted detention.

ACLU raises concern about pension settlement voting


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

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

acluWith the first round of voting in the controversial pension reform settlement set to conclude today, the ACLU of Rhode Island has announced plans to submit testimony at an anticipated “fairness hearing,” if one occurs, in order to raise concerns about the settlement’s opt-out voting process.

In the past month, the RI ACLU has received dozens of complaints from union members and retirees about the settlement’s “opt-out” voting process, which counts all unreturned ballots as votes in support of the settlement. In a letter to the complainants, the ACLU acknowledged the legitimacy of those concerns, noting that:

  • Although opt-out voting is a common practice in class-action litigation, such a procedure occurs after a class has been approved, not before.
  • An opt-out process fails to give voters the opportunity to abstain or otherwise remain neutral. “The opportunity to take no position on this agreement is one that current union members and retirees should have, and that a normal voting process would allow,” the ACLU letter states.
  • Referring to reports of qualified individuals who did not receive ballots, and noting other reasons why some voting members might be unable to return theirs, the letter said that “the inadvertent loss of a right to vote is worrisome enough, but the problem is compounded if the loss of that vote actually counts as a vote in one – and only one – particular way.”

A fairness hearing, in which the court decides whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable, will only be held if none of the designated “classes” of voters reject the proposal during the two rounds of voting that will take place.

While planning to submit testimony at that hearing, the ACLU advised complainants it would not be taking any independent legal action. The letter concluded by emphasizing that while the ACLU did not “question the good faith of all the parties who have been involved in this intricate litigation . . . an opt-in process is the only fair way to conduct a vote like this.”

SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling further erodes US democracy


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

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

JusticeNot since Roe v. Wade has a  U.S. Supreme Court decision permeated the public consciousness quite like the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case. In 2010, the nation’s highest court opened the campaign finance floodgates when – in a 5-4 decision – they sided with lawyers for the anti- Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC) Citizens United who argued that PACs not be required to disclose their donors identities or the amounts of money they had contributed.

Bold and continuing campaign finance reform in our nations capitol began in Washington, D.C., in 1971 and continued until 2002. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act required the disclosure of donors’ identities and the amounts they contributed to federal election campaigns.

A little known Supreme Court decision that, at its heart, concluded that the spending of money equals free speech was handed down in 1976. A Supreme Court majority held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, which limited expenditure on election campaigns was “unconstitutional”, and contrary to the First Amendment.

The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political “speech” which could not be restricted due to the First Amendment. The only interest was in preventing “corruption or its appearance”, and only personal contributions should be targeted because of the danger of “quid pro quo” exchanges.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – better known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the bill’s primary sponsors, Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – strengthened restrictions, but did nothing to challenge or reverse the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

Essentially, the Citizens United case boiled down to this.

According to the U.S. Constitution, corporations are afforded the same rights as people, and therefore should be given the same protections as individuals when it comes to political donations. This decision, by correlation, asserted that the spending of money equates to the exercise of our First Amendment rights to free speech. While the Supreme Court’s decision may be true to the letter of U.S. law, it raised a widespread concern amongst Americans as to whether corporations should, in fact and practice, be afforded the same rights as people, and whether the spending of money constituted free speech.

[vsw id=”xQqzhjstb7E” source=”youtube” width=”550″ height=”400″ autoplay=”no”]

Just this week, the Supreme Court dealt another blow to campaign finance reform advocates in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. In essence, the decision did not affect federal campaign finance laws, save for one small factor. Prior to the decision, individuals and PACs were forced to abide by a hard-and-fast limit on aggregated donations to political candidates or PACs in support or opposition to particular legislation or candidates.

Let’s look at it this way.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, there was a limit as to what I could donate to any and all political campaigns within an election cycle. That cap was $123,200. I could spend that total in any way I saw fit, as long as  I abided by current FEC guidelines of  $2,600 per federal candidate in each primary and general election or $32,400 per PAC in each cycle.

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not eliminate the $2,600 or $32,400 guidelines, it did declare the cap of $123,200 unconstitutional. This means I can donate $2,600 to any candidate in any state, and $32,400 to any PAC in any state, without restrictions, up to infinity dollars.

If I had the money to do this, I would, but therein lies the rub.

I don’t.

You don’t.

98 percent of the people in the U.S. don’t.

The McCutcheon decision has basically told big time donors that they can start buying candidates and PACs throughout the country, and in turn buy legislative influence.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has rightly ruled in both of these cases. As they stand, the only way to rescind these decisions is to amend the U.S. Constitution to say plainly that corporations are not people, and spending money is not free speech. This is where the nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is no small task. 38 of the 50 states must ratify an amendment. Our first step in Rhode Island is to amend our own constitution. As it stands, the Rhode Island chapter of the Move(ment) to Amend has bills before both the R.I. Senate and House. On their face, these bills do nothing, but when combined with bills in other states, we send a loud and clear message to the U.S. Supreme Court, and our legislators in Washington.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FREE SPEECH.

Please, for the sake of our country, and our children and grandchildren, sign the petition to amend our Constitution today.

Sen. Whitehouse and how to deal with prison reform in America


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

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

sheldon-whitehouseOn Monday a group of people will sit down at Open Doors and talk about Senator Whitehouse’s bill to create a federal parole system.

The bill is hailed as a “prison reform bill,” and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee; a clear indication of the shifting tide on political ideology over the past few years.  This ebbing of the ‘Tough on Crime’ rhetoric includes many people who were bipartisan architects of the prison industry itself, and jibes with Attorney General Eric Holder’s public desire to make the system “more just.”  Of course, this indicates he believes it is currently less just than it should be.  The voices you have heard over the past several years talking “reform” are the result of those of us who have been peeing in the pool long enough to warm it up so everybody can get in.  Even if just a toe, they’re getting in.

lockedup_pieThis prison reform bill is quite overstated however, and falls well short of what the public is truly calling for- something Senator Whitehouse appeared to be going for with his former bill to create a commission of experts that would propose a national overhaul.  The Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2014 will have no impact on state prisoners, where six times more men, women and children are serving prison terms than under federal law.  Furthermore, it will have no impact on the 722,000 people currently sitting in a local jail- a snapshot of the 12 million who cycle through that system.  Its not easy for the feds to control state crime and punishment under the law, but like anything else: the feds could put strings attached to all the financial subsidies of a bursting prison industry.

What’s in it for Rhode Island?

The bill will impact a few Rhode Islanders and tens of thousands of people nationally who will now gain an opportunity at parole, but what the bill deems “Prerelease Custody.”  They can do this by engaging in what we once considered educational and rehabilitative programming, but the bill deems “Recidivism Reduction” programming.  This wordsmithing is no different than calling oneself a “Pre-Owned Car Dealer” (which is what they do, these days).  To assess the merits, it is important not to be distracted by shiny new things.

The Good Time credits earned by federal inmates are not for everybody, and they are not time off one’s sentence the way they commonly are applied to state custody.  Furthermore, parolees in halfway houses and on electronic monitoring pay for their own incarceration, sometimes to their own financial ruin.  Thus, this is not a handout by any means yet does pose a possibility for the prison system to generate additional revenues from the predominantly low-income and struggling families trying to rebuild a life after prison.

Slavery by another name: Prison Labor

The bill prioritizes an expansion of prison labor, viewed as a form of rehabilitation and method of reducing recidivism.  It is impossible to discount the value of having a prison job for the prisoner, even at 12 cents per hour of income.  However, it is difficult not to think of one ominous phrase “Arbeit Macht Frei” infamously posted over Camp Auschwitz.  Work makes you free.  A prison worker gets time off their sentence, and this bill calls for the Bureau of Prisons to review in what ways the prison labor force can be used to make goods currently manufactured overseas, so as not to cut into the free labor pool.

The use of prison labor is controversial, to say the least.  Some critics have called for a repeal of the 13th Amendment, which provides for slavery of anyone convicted of a crime.  This provision allowed for the massive “convict lease labor” that built a considerable amount of American infrastructure after slavery was abolished.  The legal framework that is said to have freed Black America also allowed for people to be rounded up and placed, fundamentally, back where, essentially, Black America had been liberated from.

Today, prison labor exploiters capitalize upon incarcerated people’s desire to stay busy rather than sit on a bunk all day.  This sort of macro-management does not take into account the relevance of a worker’s feelings.  People in the system are treated with the callousness of lab rats, which may be all fine in the punishment phase, yet counterproductive when doing anti-recidivism, rehabilitative, or reentry programming.  Does Johnny have a job, a home, or health care?  Check.  The assessments never ask if Johnny is happy.

Reentry programming still being run by those who have never reentered

The Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act also focuses on reviewing current reentry programs and developing federal pilot programs based on the best practices.  This is an admirable goal and an obvious step to take.  The challenge is to correctly assess best practices, and then implement what might feel controversial.  For example, many policies prevent formerly incarcerated people (FIP) from affiliating with one another, and yet this bill references mentorships.  It is likely that the drafters visualized a well-intentioned citizen with no criminal involvement and demonstrated success showing the way to someone getting out of prison.  Yet such a person has very little to offer in the sense of mentorship.  An FIP often grows frustrated with social workers, mentors, and probation officers who feign to understand the pressures of post-prison life.  The best mentors are role models, and in this scenario will be FIPs.

This legislation also puts a considerable focus on risk assessment models, as though they are a new pathway to success.  However, these tools have been in use for decades, and nowhere in the bill is there a call to study their individual accuracies.  Rhode Island, for example, uses the LSI-R scoring system.  The irony of in-custody assessments, that take all of forty five minutes to conduct, then a few minutes per year to update, are how a high-risk prisoner can be a low-risk free person.  Conformity in prison does not translate to the attributes required for successful living in free society.  Furthermore, an antagonistic interviewer will likely invoke anti-social responses from a someone, thus along with their past criminal activity, setting the foundation for an entire course of reentry opportunity.

The fundamental flaw in many prison-related programs, particularly after the Bush Administration’s Second Chance Act, is the lack of involvement of affected people.  The roundtable at Open Doors consists of their director Sol Rodriguez, DOC Director A.T. Wall, chiefs of the Providence and State police forces, the federal and state public defenders, Crossroads (a homeless shelter), and possibly someone(s) that Open Doors has been working with.   The stakeholder list is upside down.  Law enforcement does not have a stake in my successful reentry.  In fact, they have a stake in my failed reentry- so yes, they are a stakeholder, but in a perverse manner.  After being punished by a group of people, be it months or decades, there is no trust in place for the punisher to then be the healer.  For the government to believe otherwise only underscores these misconceptions and miscommunications of trying to reposition the pawns on the board.

The second class citizens

The public defender and Open Doors are not run by people who have “been there, done that.”  When efforts like this use those agencies to speak for a disempowered population, it only further delegitimizes people with criminal histories, only furthers the second-class citizenship, and continues to render us without a voice.  Rather than confronting any counter-narrative an FIP presents to policy reform, we are often disregarded as unruly, unmanageable, or uncivilized.  Yet we are the ones seeing our selves and our family members dropping off the map, figuratively and literally, every day.  Reducing recidivism and increasing public safety can only be done by a full restoration of people to being equal and valued members of society, especially the overwhelming number who are (on paper) “citizens” of America.

Efforts like these are akin to watching someone fish without bait.  As expensive a boat, pole, and hook they use… they just don’t realize why the fish don’t simply leap onto the hook.

The Roundtable will be held at 10:30-11:30 am at Open Doors, 485 Plainfield St., in Providence.  There is no open mic, but interested community members might find ways to urge Senator Whitehouse to become even more bold on the Senate floor. 

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

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

seattle-test-boycottNational 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.

Possible vs. probable


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

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

excludeIn my last post, I talked about Clarence Thomas and his truly remarkable rise to a position that his father could never, ever have achieved. Indeed, even a slightly older Mr. Thomas would probably not been able to attain such a truly lofty height.

This all sort of gets to the idea of social mobility. If someone were born into conditions like those into which Mr. Thomas was born, how likely is it for that person to improve his level of economic security? Or, how likely is it for someone born into the upper echelons, such as Mr. Thomas’ children (does he have any?) to fall out of the exalted perch onto which she was born?

America has long perpetuated the ideal that everyone can improve their status. This is still true. It is still possible. But how likely is it? Or, how probable is it? And here, I use ‘probable’ in the technical sense of “Probability and Statistics”, the name of a book on my shelf. “Possible” and “Probable” are two very different words, with enormously different implications. The right wing continues to flog the notion of possibility. Sure, it’s possible. It’s possible that I can throw a ball through a solid wall, too. Or that all the air molecules in a room will suddenly rush into one corner and leave the rest of the room airless. But are these events likely to happen? No. According to the technical definition, that means, that they have an extremely low probability of occurring. Could a high school basketball team beat the Celtics? I suppose it’s possible. But the probability of this occurring is darn close to zero. It may not be exactly zero, but it’s probably (!) close enough to be considered zero in any real-world scenario.

Let’s set this up. Suppose you have been put into a situation in which you must choose one of two balls. One is yellow; the other is green. If you choose the correct ball, you will be given $100 million. If you choose the wrong one, you will have to spend the rest of your days working at a minimum wage job. Of course, you don’t know which ball gives the desired outcome, so you have to guess. And hope. And, as any fool knows, you have a 50/50 chance of getting it right. And an equal chance of getting it wrong. In other words, it’s a coin flip.

But let’s say we change the scenario, and introduce a blue ball. But even given the extra ball, there is still only one ‘correct’ choice. One ball will get you the $100M; either of the other two will get you consigned to the minimum wage. What has happened to your chance of success? It has been diminished. It has gone from 1 in 2, to 1 in 3. That is, rather than a 50% likelihood of success, you have a 33% chance.

For the next iteration, we’re back to two colors, red and green. The red ball gets you the $100M; the green results in the minimum wage job. But you have to pick either of the two balls out of a basket in absolute darkness, so you can’t see which ball is which. We’re back to 50/50. But let’s start adding green balls. If we add two more green balls, for a  total of three green, one red, your chance of success has been cut in half. It’s now 1 in 4, or a 25% chance of success. Starting to look grim, isn’t it? Now let’s bring the total of green balls up to ten. This is a 1 in 11 chance, and suddenly your chances of success drop below 10%.

This is what tax cuts, cutbacks in social spending, cuts in education have been doing: they have been adding green balls into the system. At least, they’ve been adding green balls into the basket from which those on the lower end of the scale have to choose. At the same time, these policy choices—tax cuts, cuts in social spending, cuts to education—have been adding red balls into the basket from which those born into the upper echelon get to choose. In other words, we’ve been increasing the odds against success for those in the bottom half, while increasing them for those at the top. Put another way, we’ve been rigging the game in favor of those at the top. How would you feel about entering the game with the odds of success sitting at 11 to 1 against you? Would you want to take a chance on winning the $100M if there were a 9o% chance of being consigned to the ranks of minimum wage workers?  Kinda stinks, doesn’t it?

This is what I meant in my previous post about my good fortune. I got to pick from a basket that was probably 75% red (good) balls. Yes, I could have failed, made a lot of bad choices, and ended up dropping. But the game was rigged in my favor from the start. Yes, I had to work for what I got, but that does not change the fact that I had an enormous head start over a lot of people.

And that, I think, is the clearest difference between a liberal and a conservative. A liberal recognizes—or never forgets—where she or he started. A liberal is aware that there were, there are always extenuating circumstances. Had Clarence Thomas worked twice as hard, but lived in the wrong place or time, all his effort may have been in vain. A conservative, from what I see, becomes convinced that they made it solely on their own merits. They fail to contextualize their success. They remember the work they put in to getting where they are, and nothing else.  Yes, this is not the whole story of the differences between the two, but I think that it may be the single key difference. Clarence Thomas, or Rush Limbaugh, or—the golden example—George W Bush are all convinced that they did it on their own. No one helped them. They don’t think that the stable family environment, or the genes or temperament that put the grit into their belly to succeed was an advantage that, perhaps, other people don’t have. They don’t see that being in a semi-decent school with semi-decent parents who instill values gives them a big leg up on a lot of other people. They forget that they happened to be born at a good time, or a good place.

So conservatives don’t see why other people might need help. Perhaps growing up they did not have the advantage of government assistance (but they did; they just fail to recognize this, or to acknowledge this), so why should other people get this help? So we continue with the aforementioned policy choices—tax cuts, cuts in social spending, cuts to education— and what we’re doing is increasing the number of people who have to choose from the basket of mostly green (bad) balls. Each cut to Head Start, or SNAP, or job training, or education, we’re both adding to the number of green balls and increasing the number of people choosing from this basket. In other words, we’re stacking the deck against them. Such behavior would get you shot in a lot of gambling establishments. Ask Wild Bill Hickok.

If you don’t believe me, here’s some evidence.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/PEW_Upward%20EM%2014.pdf

Take a look at the chart on page 10 of the report at the link. For someone born into the bottom income quintile, there is more than a 33% chance that they will end up there. For someone born into the top quintile, the odds are over 37% in favor of them remaining. But it’s worse than that. There is a cumulative probability of 60 percent that someone born in the bottom quintile will stay in one of the bottom two quintiles. That is, they will never be above what the lowest 40% of the country makes. That is, they only have a 40% chance of making it to middle class.

BUT: for each percentage point you move up in the scale, your chances of remaining in the top levels goes up. That is, someone born in the 95th percentile, their chances of staying there are about 75%.

As for where the most people make it, or remain stuck where they are, check out the second link.

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

What you find is that the places with single-digit movement from the bottom to the top are largely in the South. You know, the area of the country where low taxes, low union density and small-but-business-friendly government is attracting lots of Good Jobs. Just gobs and oodles of them! Charlotte, North Carolina is a great example of how this works. Remember, MetLife was planning to move several hundred jobs from RI, and a thousand (or more) from the Northeast to Charlotte, that land of opportunity. See! Charlotte attracts Good Jobs! But, per the second link, of the top 50 metropolitan areas in the US, Charlotte is #49 in inter-generational upward mobility. There, only 4% of those born in the bottom quintile can be reasonably expected to reach the top quintile. And note, that means the 81st percentile. Admission to this is a salary of about $78k per year. We’re not talking about top-flight surgeons, or anything such. We’re talking a solid job, something around what a teacher with ten years experience makes here. So the chance of someone being born into the bottom quintile of ending up with a job with a teacher’s salary is less than 5%, or 1 chance in 20. How would you like to pick from that basket?

As for the idea of talent, well, it ain’t what it used to be. An average student born into a family in the top quintile is several times more likely to graduate college than a bright student born into the bottom three quintiles.  What this means is that the uninspired student from wealth is picking from a basket with lots of red (good) balls in it. And even if someone from the bottom 40% does beat the odds and finish college, that’s not the guarantee of success it once was. Average wages for college grads have been falling over the past 10 years, so I don’t want any nonsense about how all people have to do is pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work their way through college, blah, blah, blah.

Is this the kind of country we want? Where most people are pretty much destined to fail?

 

Last one in shut the door


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

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

excludeA few weeks ago, my church had a Sunday sermon devoted to stewardship. Translated, that means how much are you going to pledge to donate to the church for the coming year? This year, the priest asked people in the congregation to stand up and explain why they gave. Now, I was a coward and did not speak in public. But I had thought of something that I thought clever, and that’s why I didn’t say it out loud: cleverness often comes across as something unpleasant.

My point was that I give to a church because I can. As a friend of mine describes it, I hit the cosmic lottery. Of all the places and times I could have been born into, I had the supreme good fortune to be born at a time, in a place, and to a family that gave me an enormous chance at being successful. In fact, the odds were stacked so far in my favor that I more or less succeeded despite my best efforts to screw it up. I have attained a level of physical comfort that 99% of the people who ever lived–royalty included–could only have dreamed about attaining.

That’s rather appropriate for a post-Thanksgiving thought. I am darn grateful for this opportunity. I’ve been on the underbelly of prosperity. I won’t say I was poor, because I wasn’t. But I was in a situation where money was in short supply, even if my basic needs were always met.

But the point. I was skimming a blog that has a strong right-wing bias. One of the entries was a review of a book about Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice who also has a decidedly right-wing bias. Apparently, Thomas spent a childhood of difficult poverty, and difficult family circumstances. Yet, he overcame these to become a member of SCOTUS. That is one huge accomplishment. It’s difficult enough for a child of privilege and opportunity to attain such a height, let alone someone from a background like the one Thomas had.

Now, of course, Thomas is convinced that he made this on his own efforts. Be if far from me to disparage or belittle what Thomas has achieved. And yet…time and circumstances matter. Had Thomas been born as few as ten years earlier than he was, and certainly had he been born twenty years sooner, no amount of Herculean effort would have gotten him to where he is. He could have worked twice as hard and been lucky to get half as far.

Thomas benefited, to an enormous degree, from the era in which he was born. He reached the peak of his career when the idea of an African-American Justice was not an alien, or a laughable, concept. He became a member of SCOTUS in 1991. In 1981, I think it would be highly doubtful that he would have been nominated. This was Reagan’s first year in office; would he have nominated Thomas? Would Reagan have made Thomas his first appointment? Probably not. And too, let’s face it, the country was not ready for someone as conservative as Thomas is. Now, this last statement is a matter of my opinion, but it took a long time for the right wing to gain the control it did. We were just coming out of the 70s; hedonism was still cool and it seemed like marijuana legalization was going to happen.  And if he had been at the same point in his career in 1971, there is virtually no chance that he would have been considered for such a post. Thurgood Marshall was on the Court; another African-American would have been out of the question for any Republican president, let alone someone like Nixon.

And yet, he and the right wing would have us believe that the people at the top made it solely on their own efforts. Their own effort is certainly a necessary condition, but it’s nowhere near enough. Effort has to be matched with time and circumstance. The conditions that made it possible for Thomas to reach the pinnacle that he did are the same ones derided as giving Sonia Sotomayor an unfair advantage. Thomas made it on merits; Obama was a creation of affirmative action.

Do we see the hypocrisy?

Again, I do not mean to detract from Thomas’ accomplishment. I disagree with the man about 95% of the time, and I sincerely wish he was not on the Court, but that he has overcome obstacles he has is truly impressive. I only wish he would realize that he did not do it on his own, that the time and circumstances under which he came of age had an enormously beneficial effect on his efforts. More, I wish he would stand up for those who still languish under horrific impediments to accomplishment. I wish he would not continue to boast of his achievements while standing on the heads of those who would follow him.

More, I wish the entire right-wing apparatus would stop pretending that anyone and everyone who tries can “make it”. Yes, it’s possible for every child born in this country to become president, or a CEO, or whatever. It’s possible. A lot of things are possible. But difficult circumstances are holding a lot of people back. And not just from rising to become a member of SCOTUS. But from simply rising into–or staying in–the middle class. Thomas and his right-wing cronies are standing on people’s heads, or even their necks, holding them down, destroying the sorts of opportunities that Thomas and the rest of them enjoyed. They hold Thomas out as an example of what can be, even when they’re trying to ensure that there won’t be any more like him.

I applaud Thomas for doing what he has done. I strenuously object to the way he is trying to pull up the ladder behind him.


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