Equal Doctrine Research Articles

The Echoes of History, a Personal Professional Meditation

CLA JOURNAL 141 The Echoes of History, a Personal Professional Meditation Therí A. Pickens Hello Therí. This is Jill Reich calling from Bates College. I’m very pleased to be calling and… and… uh perhaps you can think why and that is that we would very much like to have you to join us on the faculty here at Bates. So, I’m calling to talk about an offer. Um, it’s Tuesday afternoon about uh 5:30. I’ll be in the office for about another half hour. You can reach me tomorrow at uh 207-786-6066. I’m afraid I’m going to be at meetings most of the evening. Uh, but I’m going to send you an email and, uh, we really look forward to talking and hope that uh we can work something out so that you can join us here at Bates. Thanks, Therí, and I’ll talk to you soon. Bye-bye. This voicemail is from Tuesday, March 8, 2011. It was a moment of professional triumph. It was also a moment of fear. I had an offer for a tenure-track job, but I had to negotiate the parameters. I hasten to add that few of us know the art of negotiation and seldom do we learn in graduate school. Though I had great mentors (still do!), this process was daunting nevertheless. I needed to negotiate aspects of my career that most junior faculty think about: a base salary increase, course reduction for the first two years, start-up funds, teaching development, and a deeper reserve of conference travel funds. Books like The Academic Job Handbook advise job seekers on best practices in contract negotiation. Noticeably absent, for me at least, was advice on how best to negotiate aspects of my career related to my disability: digital access to my classroom so that I could teach remotely in case of illness, physical access to both my office and classrooms in case of inclement weather, accessible housing within scooter distance to the campus, increase in the yearly conference funding allowance because traveling with a disability is expensive. When Bates’ former Dean of Faculty Jill Reich called to “work something out,” I am certain that she knew she would need to consider my disability. Nonetheless, joining the faculty at Bates seemed like it would be an exercise in trying to create a separate but equal working space1 in a place where ableism was assumed to be a common denominator between employees. I am grateful that Drs. Dana Williams and Kendra R. Parker saw fit to include me in this necessary publication. I want to give a special thank you to Dr. Shanna Benjamin for her adroit assistance in helping me make this rage eloquent (pace Brittney Cooper). 1 The reference to Plessy v. Ferguson is very much intended. The separate but equal doctrine still exists as part of the de facto segregation for the disabled. 142 CLA JOURNAL Theri Pickens Though the conversations about my disability and my tenure-track life were supposedtobeseparate—thatis,mydiscussionswithadministratorsaboutcontract terms that were negotiable and our dialogues about disability accommodations that I was legally entitled to—they happened with the same parties during the same meetings. Simultaneously negotiating my contract perks and outlining disability needs risked conflating the two and negating the urgency of the latter. In other words, adding my needs for disability requests to the list of terms I was already negotiating could have been viewed as asking too much or understood as interchangeable with other requests. For example, could administrators read my desire for more conference funding as an exploitative move that was all about being able to travel more on Bates’ dime?2 The dean could have asked whether an increase in base salary meant that I could personally underwrite costs associated with creating accessible housing. Ultimately, in a town where most housing near the campus is owned by the college and none of it is accessible, the school had to create the parameters for me to be able to join the faculty and work at Bates. Plainly put, I cannot work where I cannot live.3 Further, these requests for access were not...

Waldron on the 'Basic Equality' of Hitler and Schweitzer: A Brief Refutation

The idea that all human beings have equal moral worth has been challenged by insisting that this is utterly counter-intuitive in the case of individuals like, for instance, Hitler on the one hand and Schweitzer on the other. This seems to be confirmed by a hypothetical in which one can only save one of the two: intuitively, one clearly should save Schweitzer, not Hitler, even if Hitler does not pose a threat anymore. The most natural interpretation of this intuition appeals to unequal moral worth. Jeremy Waldron has recently tried to meet this challenge by giving a different interpretation, thereby trying to explain away the counter-intuitive implications of the basic equality doctrine in this case, and by suggesting that the rejection of basic equality comes with counter-intuitive implications of its own. I shall argue that Waldron’s response to the challenge fails on both counts.

The New Jim Crow's Equal Protection Potential

In 1954, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education opinion relied on social science research to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate but equal doctrine. Since Brown, social science research has been considered by the Court in cases involving equal protection challenges to grand jury selection, death penalty sentences, and affirmative action. In 2016, Justice Sotomayor cited an influential piece of social science research, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, in her powerful Utah v. Strieff dissent. Sotomayor contended that the Court’s holding overlooked the unequal racial impact of suspicionless stops. Though the defendant in Strieff was white, Sotomayor emphasized that “it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny,” and mentioned The New Jim Crow in support of her conclusions about the role race plays in suspicionless stops. The New Jim Crow, published in 2010, has sold over 750,000 copies. It describes how the criminal justice system disproportionately targets and incarcerates black men. The book has inspired a popular movement to end mass incarceration and the racial caste system mass incarceration has created. In addition to its appearance in Strieff, The New Jim Crow was cited in United States v. Nesbeth, a well-publicized 2016 sentencing order from the Eastern District of New York in which the court imposed probation instead of the incarceration recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines. The New Jim Crow has also been cited to explain the unfair collateral consequences faced by those convicted of drug crimes, as well as convictions’ disproportionate racial impact. This essay is the first to study The New Jim Crow’s equal protection potential. The New Jim Crow’s presence in federal decisions is reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s citation to social science research in Brown v. Board of Education. This essay considers whether The New Jim Crow sits alongside canonical works of social science research considered by the Supreme Court in cases like Brown. It examines how The New Jim Crow is sometimes cited by the federal courts in passing, as a nod to a work that has infiltrated popular culture, but not always as evidence that influences case outcomes. Noting its appearance in Judge Scheindlin’s orders finding that the NYPD’s use of stop-and-frisk encouraged unconstitutional racial profiling, it questions whether The New Jim Crow could successfully support equal protection claims. It concludes that citations to The New Jim Crow represent soft law, albeit soft law with hard law potential.

Equality of Women's Economic Status? A Major Bone of Contention in the International Gender Politics Emerging During the Interwar Period

ABSTRACTThis study brings together the often disparate scholarship on the League of Nations and the ILO. It follows the interactions between the League, women internationalists, and the ILO, which evolved around the question of woman-specific labor legislation and the equality of women's status. These interactions resulted in a broadening mandate of international gender policies while deepening the institutional and legal distinction between women's ‘political and civil’ as opposed to their ‘economic’ status. The ILO insisted on certain forms of women-specific labor regulation as a means of conjoining progressive gender and class politics, and was anxious to ensure its competence in all matters concerning women's economic status. The gender equality doctrine gaining ground in the League was rooted in a liberal-feminist paradigm which rejected the association of gender politics with such class concerns, and indeed aimed to force back the ILO's politics of gender-specific international labor standards. As a result of the widening divide between the women's policies of the League and the ILO, the international networks of labor women reduced their engagement with women's activism at the League. The developments of the 1930s deepened the tension between liberal feminism and feminisms engaging with class inequalities, and would have problematic long-term consequences for international gender politics.

Teaching Collegiate Ethics in a Nation with Laws that Permit Mutilation of the Unborn

<p><em>The devaluing of life through abortion has a detrimental effect on the ethical decision-making processes of a nation of people. Encouraging college students to make ethical decisions in a nation with legalized abortion is challenging. Laws that permit women to have a voluntary abortion are in direct conflict with ethical decision-making. The consequences of decades of abortion in the United States are staggering. Approximately one abortion is performed for every five live births. Over 58,000,000 babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973, when the Supreme Court found that women have the “constitutional right” to have an abortion before “fetal” viability. The authors compared the current abortion law to other “black eyes” in the United States’ history including: slavery, the Separate But Equal doctrine, the treatment of Native Americans, and oppressive child labor. This paper then introduces a four-step ethical decision making model and a “toolbox” of questions that students may use when analyzing ethical issues. </em></p>

Brief of Professor Ryan M. Rodenberg as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party

Under PASPA, disfavored States are bereft of options to address sports gambling within their borders. States without sanctuary under PASPA’s grandfather clause can either (i) do nothing in a pressing area of concern or (ii) be susceptible to repeated regulatory litigation initiated by private actors. Such a Hobson’s choice is unconstitutional. The parties have positioned this case for resolution on anti-commandeering grounds under New York and Printz. Such positioning is misplaced. PASPA differs markedly from the statutes invalidated in New York and Printz. Through PASPA, Congress has directed States not to legislatively address sports gambling, while effectively leaving the regulatory enforcement of PASPA’s decree to self-interested private parties. Also, via a grandfather clause, PASPA mandates that its ban on sports gambling only applies to certain States. This type of “outsourced commandeering” that applies in some States, but not others, puts PASPA in an unconstitutional territory far removed from New York and Printz. Beyond PASPA’s two-pronged unconstitutionality under the equal sovereignty doctrine and the private nondelegation doctrine, the district court also erroneously granted injunctive relief to non-litigant third parties. The lower court’s misinterpretation of PASPA’s text presents the Court with a nonconstitutional option to resolve the case, as the underlying injunction should be vacated and the case remanded. Amicus curiae submits that these alternatives provide the Court with the framework for deciding this case.

GENDER, RELIGION AND PATRIARCHY: A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CATHOLICISM AND PENTECOSTALISM IN NIGERIA

ABSTRACT The paper interrogates the nexus between gender, religion and patriarchy in a context where the marginalization of the female gender is continuous in spite of the strides in female education. The tension between religion and gender equality is a pervasive problem for orthodox Christianity despite its cardinal doctrine of equality of all beings before God. From the theistic doctrine the female gender is considered unequal, inferior and subordinate to the male gender and this is demonstrated in the roles assigned to the female gender in orthodox denominations. For instance in Catholicism, women cannot aspire to the position of the clergy but can join the religious order as reverend sisters or nuns. However, Pentecostalism has shown a remarkable reformation from orthodoxy by elevating women to the clergy as pastors and even bishops. Using data generated from a total of 15 key informants and deploying Karl Marx's and Feminists postulations on religion the paper argues that Catholicism reinforces patriarchy through its role differentiation and complete closure to the female gender in the Church's hierarchy. Pentecostalism on the other hand encourages female participation as clergy but there exists subtle reinforcement of patriarchy as no woman has ever held the position of General overseer within the top Pentecostal Churches. Key Words: Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Patriarchy, Gender and Religion.

Learning Styles of African American Children: Instructional Implications

This article offers examples of valiant efforts to develop meaningful instructional implications from learning stylesscholarship. Additionally, an example is given of an advance in the public policy arena that merges the efforts ofpsychological scholars with that of lawmakers to apply their research to effect change for children. The Browndecision was a stellar example in which Lead Attorney Thurgood Marshall and his team were buffeted by thescholarship of Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark (1963, 1965). They provided empirical data that documented that theseparate but equal doctrine of education was psychologically devastating to Negro children. It is recommended thatcontemporary public policy architects follow in their footsteps.

The Egyptian Coup, the United States, and a Call to Strengthen the Rule of Law and Diplomacy Rather than Military Counter-Terrorism

This article examines from a legal and historical perspective (a) the United States’ implicit ratification of the Egyptian military’s overthrow of the first fairly and freely elected Egyptian president and (b) how the perceived U.S. support for the coup contributes to Islamic terrorism. To guarantee that oil has been readily available (and during the Cold War to prevent the spread of communism), the U.S. has supported secular, authoritarian regimes in the Islamic world, including the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the Shah of Iran, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and, initially, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, not to mention autocratic leaders of the tiny, oil-rich Gulf states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. This history and the U.S.’s implicit ratification of the Egyptian coup and the military’s violent repression of the Muslim Brotherhood marginalize Islamic moderates, strengthen the extremists, and send the unmistakable message to Islamic fundamentalists that they cannot win by the ballot box, but only by violence. (Since the coup, terrorist acts in Egypt have increased exponentially.) Revolutionary developments in international law since the end of World War II may help guide the United States and its allies towards fashioning a counter-terrorism policy and practice relying less on armed force and more on diplomacy and law enforcement. After 1945, the international community has recognized human rights and outlawed torture; extrajudicial killing of a state’s own nationals; systematic racial, ethnic and religious discrimination; aggressive warfare; annexation; and a state’s acquisition of new colonies. The international community is now also moving to outlaw military overthrow of democratically elected leaders.What is usually left out of discussions on Islamic terrorism is that Russia and European nations colonized almost all Muslim countries. This colonization almost without exception led to exploitation of these countries, discrimination against Muslims, and to a conflict between secularists and Islamic fundamentalists. Although the U.S. had never colonized an Islamic nation, U.S. policies and practices since World War II, not to mention its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, led the U.S. in effect to assume the mantle of the former European colonial powers.Granted these examples of colonization and invidious discrimination generally took place before the international community declared them illegal, and international law applies only prospectively, not retrospectively. African-Americans, however, had suffered under the “separate but equal doctrine” before the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 declared the doctrine unconstitutional. Likewise, the pain, humiliation, and resentment engendered by conquest, colonization, and accompanying racial discrimination had been just as sharply felt by the people experiencing these practices before the international community formally outlawed them. Enlarging on the theme in my book, United States, International Law, and the Struggle against Terrorism (Routledge 2011), the article contends that Russia and the West (including Europe and the U.S.) have a moral, if not strictly legal, obligation to make reparation by fostering democratic institutions, the rule of law, and international human rights in the Islamic world. Implicitly ratifying the coup and the Egyptian military’s extreme violence in putting down protest eviscerates this final objective. If we are serious about reducing the threat of Islamic terrorism, we, with our European and other allies, have to stop applying a double standard to Arabs and Muslims, including their fundamentalists, and, instead, have to recognize and affirmatively address the suffering all peoples in the Middle East have experienced.

<em>Examining the Paradox between Dismantling</em> De Jure <em>Segregation and Affirmative Action: Implications from Contemporary Higher Education Case Law</em>

The racial diversification of America's higher education system has been at the forefront of legal argument for the last seventy-five years. There have been landmark Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Gaines v. Canada, 1938; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 1950; Sweatt v. Painter, 1950) that would commence the argument and ultimately help to dismantle America's longstanding separate but equal doctrine, a legal doctrine in the United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). Those decisions would eventually give rise to more ground-breaking decisions that would birth the inclusion of affirmative action policies in higher education after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later challenge the utility and constitutionality of those very same policies (e.g., Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978). While many court challenges have occurred and, as a result, many laws have been implemented to facilitate the racial diversification of U.S. public colleges and universities, perhaps none has been more influential and controversial than the action brought about in Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which threatened to destroy, any and all, contemporary notions of diversity, fostered through affirmative action policies, in today's higher education landscape.Although many states have used affirmative action to diversify their college and university campuses, as these policies continue to be attacked and ultimately prohibited in some cases, many colleges are halting the use of race-sensitive admission practices. As such, the purpose of this research is to discuss a policy contradiction by which public postsecondary educational institutions are aiming to foster the racial diversity of their campuses. Nevertheless, their primary initiative (i.e., affirmative action) for achieving this goal has been consistently attacked legally and faces an uncertain future, causing many colleges to abandon the use of affirmative action because out of fear of litigation. Increasing the racial diversification of higher education is particularly important for colleges in states that have desegregation agreements with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). To help those colleges and universities in states where the use of affirmative action is permissible, but that are fearful of doing so because of litigation concerns, this article provides several recommendations that they may find helpful as they continue to seek ways to promote racial diversity on their campus. Before the recommendations, however, to provide context, the article will review several critical bodies of literature.First, this study will provide a historical overview of landmark decisions, pre- and post-Civil Rights Act of 1964, which have helped to shape contemporary notions of diversity in higher education. Finally, this article will summarize affirmative action policies and relevant case law. This summary will include a discussion on the racial diversification of higher education in states that have a desegregation agreement with OCR for operating policies traceable to de jure segregation, or those intentional actions by the state to enforce racial segregation (United States v. Fordice, 1992).Much like higher education research, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a diverse student body is critical to the educational objectives of colleges and universities across the nation (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). Colleges and universities must ensure that their students are prepared to engage, work and live in a global society, which requires understanding and accountability for what may be new or unfamiliar. Affirmative action programs are crucial to achieving that goal. In fact, such programs have resulted in doubling, or even tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities (National Conference of State Legislatures, NCSL, 2014). …

The (dis)establishment of gender: Care and gender roles in the family as a constitutional matter

This article reasons that for women, as constitutional subjects, the emancipatory promise of constitutionalism was—from its inception—fundamentally limited by the entrenchment of the separate spheres tradition. Focusing on evolving constitutional jurisprudence in the US, Germany and Italy, the article describes a gradual and still imperfect process of (dis)establishment of the originally enshrined gender order, as it has unfolded since the 1970s in US and European constitutionalism. It is argued that these processes have allowed the constitutional doctrine of sex equality to challenge the most forthright expressions of the separate spheres ideology, denying the possibility of according men and women a different legal status of rights and duties and keeping women away from the marketplace. In spite of this, to this day, the sex constitutional equality doctrine has been an inadequate tool to fully subvert the pre-established gender order in both its transatlantic iterations. In the US, we find assimilationist workerism with its anti-stereotyping conception of gender equality, providing no support for working women, and in Europe accommodationist workerism, wherein special measures are fostered at the risk of entrenching rather than subverting existing gender roles. The article then describes recent evolutions in constitutionalism pointing to a promising third way, with Nordic inspiration, which, challenging traditionally accepted notions of family privacy and foregrounding fatherhood as opposed to just motherhood, would allow us to retain the central importance attached to care and reproduction, but at the same time assist in the process of overcoming traditional gender assumptions and stereotypes built around them.

Preventing Balkanization or Facilitating Racial Domination? A Critique of the New Equal Protection

The Supreme Court requires that equal protection plaintiffs prove defendants acted with discriminatory intent. The intent rule has insulated from judicial invalidation numerous policies that harmfully impact racial and ethnic minorities. Court doctrine also mandates that state actors generally remain colorblind. The colorblindness doctrine has led to the judicial invalidation of policies designed to ameliorate the conditions of racial inequality. Taken together, these two equality doctrines facilitate racial domination. The Court justifies this outcome on the ground that the Constitution does not protect “group rights.”Constitutional law theorists have criticized these aspects of equal protection doctrine. Recently, however, some theorists have defended the Court’s discarding of group-based equal protection. They argue that social justice advocates should pursue redress for vulnerable groups by asserting dignity-based liberty claims under the Due Process Clause. In a widely cited article, Professor Kenji Yoshino argues, in fact, that dignity is the “New Equal Protection.” Applying insights from “social capital theory,” Yoshino contends that group-based equal protection causes “pluralism anxiety” — or a fear of “balkanization” among the justices. Dignity arguments, by contrast, do not present such concerns because they rest on appeals to universal justice.This Article contests the view that the Court should discontinue class-based equal protection in order to maintain social cohesion. Leading social capital theorists find that multiculturalism, though temporarily divisive (if at all), provides many long-term benefits. Also, numerous social psychology studies find that racial and ethnic inequality cause far more social disruption than group-based identities. This empirical research also demonstrates that the Court’s equality doctrine mirrors the views regarding race relations held by most whites, while contradicting the perspectives of most persons of color. The enforcement of white majoritarian viewpoints should not serve as the foundation for an equality doctrine. Anti-subordination theory, by contrast, would provide more egalitarian outcomes and should inform Court doctrine.

60 Years after <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em>: Educational Advancement or Decline?

On May 17, 2014, the United States of America commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954), the Supreme Court's landmark decision that outlawed segregation according to race in public spaces throughout the nation (Zirkel & Cantor, 2004). The ruling became arguably the most influential legal decision of the 20th century (Benjamin & Crouse, 2002). It generated new momentum for the pursuit of racial justice and civil rights. It also represented the turning point for many African Americans throughout the nation. The Brown decision clearly reinforced the importance of education and its significance in advancing the larger society. The Supreme Court ruling also conveyed that access to an education is paramount and should be afforded to all American citizenry. Stated differently, Zirkel and Cantor (2004) wrote that the decision:highlighted the human suffering caused by racism and its correspondent racial segregation; it clarified that state sponsored segregation (and racism) were inherently more harmful than segregation that occurred without the force of law; it articulated the central role that education had come to play in modem life and concluded that opportunity for all required an end to racial segregation in education; and [it] provided the fuel and the encouragement necessary to further the civil rights work of the 1960s (p. 4).In essence, the Brown decision abolished the separate but equal doctrine previously upheld by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 (Groves, 1951), which maintained the constitutionality of racial segregation in public spaces. Without any doubt, advancement has been made 60 years after the Supreme Court ruled on Brown; however, much improvement is still needed throughout the American educational enterprise (Russo, Harris, & Sandidge, 1994). Access to a quality education remains a topic of concern (Moore & Lewis, 2012, 2014; Orfield & Eaton, 1996). Although some educational progress has been made, the same social and economic conditions outlined in Brown still persist for many African Americans (Cartledge, Gibson, & Keyes, 2012; Ford & Moore, 2013; Zirkel & Cantor, 2004). Too many African American students find themselves in failing educational systems (Kozol, 2005; Moore & Lewis, 2012), where they are unable to obtain the needed education to advance through society (Johnson, 2014; Lewis & Moore, 2008a, 2008b).Across the nation, African American students experience extreme levels of residential and school segregation (Acevedo-Garcia, Rosenfield, McArdle, & Osypuk, 2010). In such communities, they tend to endure high levels of poverty, where they encounter immense difficulty accessing meaningful opportunities in their neighborhoods (Kozol, 2005). Extant social science research highlights the blatant inequities found in communities with high-concentrations of poverty and African Americans (Acevedo-Garcia et al., 2010; Moore & Lewis, 2012). This body of research also draws attention to the huge disparities in the schools as well (Kozol, 2005; Lewis, Venzant Chambers, & Butler Ray, 2012; Miller, Wilkinson, Cummings, & Moore, 2014). With increasing residential segregation in the United States, African American students often find themselves trapped in struggling schools with meager resources (Moore & Lewis, 2008a, 2008b), high student-teacher ratios (Moore & Lewis, 2012), and less experienced teachers, school counselors, and administrators (Eaton, 2010; Kozol, 2005).Over the last 60 years, a plethora of publications have been devoted to examining the status of African American students at every juncture of their formal education (e.g., elementary, secondary, and postsecondary). Much of the literature base highlights the educational experiences and outcomes of African American students. Therefore, it is startling that many of the educational concerns presented prior to Brown still exist today. …

The Journey of an African American Teacher Before and After <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em>

A master's degree student posed the following question to our Professional Development in Teaching class: Did anyone in class have an African American teacher during any of their PK-12 years? Only two raised their hands: the African American female student posing the question, and I, a middle-aged, female, Caucasian professor. The class discussion revolved around the topic of the relatively few teachers of color who grace our public schools. It also left me with lingering questions of how and why an educated and talented African American teacher had taught me in eighth grade in my predominantly European American community on the northern edge of Appalachia during my school years in the 1960s and 1970s.-Martha Lash, Associate Professor, Kent State UniversityAs my early childhood professor introduced herself to me and my cohort, she shared past teaching experiences and mentioned that she was originally from Wheeling, West Virginia. I was excited to learn this because I travel from my inner-city Cleveland home to annual family reunions in Wheeling, where my grandmother lives. As a first-generation African American university student, I participated in the McNair Scholars program that semester and needed a faculty mentor. By the end of class that first day, I decided to ask Dr. Lash to be my mentor. Dr. Lash agreed if I would join her in a study to learn about one of her former teachers-an African American female who taught her in the 1970s in the town that we both call home-Wheeling. I agreed.-Monica Ratcliffe, McNair Scholar, Kent State UniversityAnd so began our journey on what came to be an oral history of the life and times of Miss Eileen Miller, a well-educated, highly competent, African American teacher who taught before and after school desegregation. The memory of Miss Miller (January 12, 1921-April 4, 2010) is in our minds and hearts, and fortunately, in our classrooms as we teach today.-Martha Lash and Monica RatcliffeRecognizing that most U.S. students have not had many African American teachers throughout their educational experiences raises concern when one considers the racial composition of public schools (Ladson-Billings, 2009; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2010; National Education Association, 2001). A review of the literature shows 50% of all African American professionals were teachers (Foster, 1996) in the 1950s, but during the second half of the century and into the 21st century, these numbers significantly decreased (Irvine, 1988). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the racial/ethnic distribution of full time public school teachers included 83% White, 7% Black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% other (NCES, 2010). Black students in pre-K-12 accounted for 15% of all students, but only 7% of the American pre-K-12 teaching force identified as African American. Ironically, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas (1954) is believed to be one of the major reasons for the declining numbers of African American teachers (Karpinski, 2006; Patterson, 2001; Place, 1996). Brown, a judicial decision made regarding race and educational opportunities, declared that the de jure segregation of students in public schools based on race deprived minority students of equal educational opportunity as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling reversed the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which legalized the then existing Jim Crow laws and de jure segregation in southern states and parts of border states and de facto segregation in northern states (Patterson, 2001).Our nation's history made one more curious and so these authors decided to delve further into the literature for a deeper understanding of the time period. What was learned in the literature gave a more complete picture that was outlined. Next excerpts from the interview with Miss Miller about her educational journey are shared.REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE AND CONTEXTUALIZING HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVESThe decline in the percentage of African American educators in the U. …

TENAGA KERJA WANITA DALAM PERSPEKTIF ISLAM

Islam as a rahmatan lil ‘alamin religion (as a mercy for all creatures), gives genuine recognition and high appreciation of human equality. All human beings are equal, because they come from the same source, Allah Almighty. Human being can be distinguished to another by the level of his obidence and complience. As a logical consequence, each person (read: male or female) has the same obligations and responsibilty to fulfill and have the same rights to accept. Unfortunately, the essence of the equality doctrine is often biased when the understanding of Islam has been contaminated by the patriarchal mindset so that there are many different views about women’s status and position, which are considered as inferior to men. On the other hand, women who are initially claimed to occupy only domestic or household jobs, for example, they now have started reaching the public domain which was originally considered an unusual thing, consequently they must perform the dual roles as housewives and as workers. Along with the rise of the controvercy over women in these dual roles, this paper will attempt to review those roles of women from the religion’s point of view, especially how Islam regards the presence of female workers.

Disparity implications of the Medicare medication therapy management eligibility criteria: a literature review

The emphasis on eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare has received national attention, with various policy initiatives addressing this problem and proposing solutions. However, in the current economic era requiring tight monetary constraints, emphasis is increasingly being placed on economic efficiency, which often conflicts with the equality doctrine upon which many policies have been framed. The authors’ review aims to highlight the disparity implications of one such policy provision – the predominantly utilization-based eligibility criteria for medication therapy management services under Medicare Part D – by identifying studies that have documented racial and ethnic disparities in health status and the use of and spending on prescription medications. Future design and evaluation of various regulations and legislations employing utilization-based eligibility criteria must use caution in order to strike an equity–efficiency balance.

Ties That Bind: Walter Rauschenbusch, Reinhold Niebuhr, and the Quest for Economic Justice

Ties That Bind: Walter Rauschenbusch, Reinhold Niebuhr, and the Quest for Economic Justice

Conceptualizing the Carceral Turn: Neoliberalism, Racism, and Violation

This article considers the turn to punishment in neoliberalism, and the hardening it marks in the criminal justice system, education, and public life. Examining tensions between neoliberalism’s doctrine of equality before the market and its actual reproduction of racial disparities, I specify a concept of violation, as a principle of both material and symbolic domination, that can respond to these tensions. Considering influential analyses of the turn toward punishment, I argue that the historic legacy of racism is a crucial determinant of the excesses of current regimes of penality, and that racialized repression figures in a contemporary recomposition of political economy. Furthermore, in the neoliberal moment the disciplinary repertoire of racism is extrapolated to new populations and terrains. I recontextualize the current carceral turn within a broader logic of violation that links moments of social production and decomposition, and fuses processes of material exploitation with racialized injury and subjection.

Feminist Legal Scholarship: A History through the Lens of the California Law Review

This Essay describes the evolution of feminist legal scholarship, using six articles published by the California Law Review as exemplars. This short history provides a window on the most important contributions of feminist scholarship to understandings about gender and law. It explores alternative formulations of equality, and the competing assumptions, ideals, and implications of these formulations. It describes frameworks of thought intended to compensate for the limitations of equality doctrine, including critical legal feminism, different voice theory, and nonsubordination theory, and the relationships between these frameworks. Finally, it identifies feminist legal scholarship that has crossed the disciplinary boundaries of law. Among its conclusions, the Essay points out that as feminist scholarship has become more mainstream, its assumptions and methods are less distinct. It observes that even as feminist legal scholarship has generated important, insightful critiques of equality doctrine, it remains committed to the concept of equality, as continually revised and refined. The Essay also highlights the importance of feminist activism and practice in sharpening and refining feminist legal scholarship.

UNINHABITED AERIAL VEHICLES AND THE ASYMMETRY OBJECTION: A RESPONSE TO STRAWSER

The debate about the ethics of uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) is failing to keep pace with the rise of the technology. Therefore, all the key players, including ethicists, lawyers, and roboticists, are keen to offer their views on the use of these drone aircraft. Some are opposed to their use, citing a range of ethical, legal and operational issues, while others argue for their ethically mandated use. B.J. Strawser fits into this latter category. He develops a principle of ‘unnecessary risk’, from which he argues that we have an ethical obligation to employ UAVs if we can do so without incurring a loss of capability. Strawser defends his argument against a number of potential objections, most questionably, the argument that the use of distance weaponry such as drones, against another state without distance weaponry, crosses some moral threshold that makes the combat immoral. Utilising Jeff McMahan's work on the inequality of combatants, Strawser essentially argues that there are no grounds for a ‘fair fight’. However, this paper will argue that it is not so easy to overturn the doctrine of the moral equality of combatants, nor dismiss the problem with asymmetry. It will demonstrate that if the asymmetry reaches a certain level, the justification for resorting to war may be removed and some sort of policing action may remain the only option.