JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
House Democrats Ride the $15/hr Wave into 2020
Brief #49—Economics
By Leo Elliot
With a Wink, Trump Guarantees Foreign Interference in 2020 US Elections
Brief #4—Technologys
By Charles A. Rubin
From Walls to Ceilings – Our Nation’s Budget Deficit Under Trump
Brief #48—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
Elizabeth Warren: The Woman with All the Plans
Competing House Resolutions Shine Light On Right To Boycott Under First Amendment
Brief #95—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
US Sanctions Myanmese Officials Responsible for Ethnic Cleansing of Rohingya
Brief #67—Foreign Policy
By Colin Shanley
EPA Admin Wheeler rejects scientific consensus and danger to public health
Brief #62—Environmental Policy
By Quixote Vassiliakis
What is Impeachment?
Investigating the President Blog
Post #4 What is Impeachment?
by Rudy Ralph Martinez July 31st, 2019
Disuse of “Black Identity Extremism” Category Creates New Problem For The FBI
Brief #94—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
President Disregards America’s Tradition of Offering Asylum
Brief #50—Immigration
Policy Summary
In accordance with the travel ban covered in Brief 46, Trump claims he wants to “ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.” Trump finds it absurd that the US offers refuge and asylum when “no other country” does it. In June 2018, Trump announced that it would order the US Immigration Courts to stop granting asylum to victims of domestic abuse and gang violence who come to the US seeking safety. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions backed this by saying survivors of “private crimes” were not eligible for asylum in the US.
There are over 100,000 people in line to be processed for resettlement in the US during this fiscal year. Many of them have already made it through the intense vetting process and have waited years only to be told they must endure another waiting period. Now, they must wait again. Upon leaving their home because of discrimination, a woman and her husband and 6 kids had fled Sudan to Jordan only to be rejected by the US. She went on to tell reporters, “to be discriminated by a nation we see our future in, is so disheartening.”
Analysis
The US has been a symbol of hope, equality and a light at the end of a tunnel since its founding; a nation built on immigrants through and through. The American Dream is well-known around the world for individuals who want to start a new life, grow their business, give their children a better life, and especially those in danger or escaping their homeland in search of refuge. Individuals such as the woman from Sudan who fled her homeland due to violent prejudices only to face more discrimination from the one nation she had laid all her hope in prove how strong the notion of the American Dream is. She endured so much in the hopes that an end to her struggles would be found in the sanctuary that is the US and to turn away individuals like her would be to bury the American Dream as it has become known to the world and discount how far our immigrant ancestors have come.
Resistance Resources
- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
- Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by Jose Fontano
Judge Demands Stalled Deportations and a Plan Amidst Chaotic Reunification Process
Brief #49—Immigration
Policy Summary
On August 16, Federal Judge Sabraw of San Diego extended a freeze on deportations of recently reunited families. Prior to the court ordered reunification of families who were separated at the US-Mexico Border in accordance with Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy, Judge Sabraw banned the deportation of parents who had children taken from them at the border and were being held in US Custody. Referring to Brief #47, the US Government still deported a sizable amount of parents without their children upon varying grounds. Sabraw and the ACLU – an organization that has remained a prevalent advocate for individuals seeking asylum and unaccompanied minors at the border – discussed the potential of bringing back deported parents who were forced to leave without their children to pursue asylum with them. ACLU representative, Lee Gelernt was a strong advocate for this and voiced that those who were deported should be allowed to return to accompany their children through the asylum process, especially those who were misled to believe that if they agreed to deportation they would be reunited with their children. In the week of frozen deportations, lawyers can make the trying decision of whether an adult should be deported with their child(s) or to allow a minor to remain in the US to pursue the possible right to stay.
Thus, the next day, on August 17, Judge Sabraw ordered that the government alongside the ACLU shall devise a structured plan to address the rights of parents and children who were separated at the southern US border. Claiming that delaying deportations does not “unfairly or unduly tax available government resources,” Sabraw believes it is the morally correct and just thing to do throughout this process as there are numerous families fleeing their homeland violence and thus should have their stories heard while they seek asylum. The government is opposed to delaying deportation because parents ‘waived’ the rights of their children to pursue asylum after the adults signed – many unknowingly and under duress – deportation forms.
Separating families in the first place violated their rights as a family, so Sabraw felt the need to reiterate his points, as he had already ordered a delay in deportations that was taken lightly. There are still around 70 children who were separated at the border that have not yet been reunited with their parents because they cannot be identified and/or located; 3 weeks after the court first ordered the US Government to reunite families.
Analysis
In many regards, the need for a structured plan to address the rights of parents and children is a necessary step regardless of any prior events. As the Trump Administration had already proven challenged in reuniting families for a multitude of reasons, as they struggled to meet their deadline(s). What is more disheartening is that Judge Sabraw, had to firmly reiterate his call for an extension of deportations as it was essentially ignored in his last Executive Order (a week before deportations and dates for reunification). In a nation that is built upon immigrants and stands for liberty and justice, Sabraw should not have had to explain the rationale for stalling deportations of parents with children who were still in Federal Custody, let alone, repeat himself. Separating families should not have been a matter of parties or a difference in withstanding political views, but that of a moral dilemma. As Sabraw said, “no matter how nice the environment is, it’s the act of separation from a parent, particularly with young children, that matters, and it’s time that is the issue.”
Resistance Resources
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights.
- Families Belong Together: an organization that has dedicated its mission to ensuring families are together, especially reuniting children with their families. This organization contributes all its efforts to counter Trump’s separation of children from their families.
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
Photo by tom coe
Who Should Decide Industry Standards For Privacy Recognition Software To Prevent Misuse and Abuse?
Brief #56—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: In July 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a blog post about the results of an experiment they conducted using Amazon.com’s facial recognition software known as “Rekognition.” The ACLU purchased the software directly from Amazon.com just as an ordinary purchaser would and then used Amazon’s recommended default settings to build a face database and search tool. The ACLU used a publicly available database of 25,000 arrest mugshots for its face database. The ACLU then scanned photos of every current Member of Congress. 28 Members of Congress were falsely identified as having previously committed a crime. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The results of the ACLU’s bold experiment appear to have set the stage for a battle on the future of facial recognition software. Amazon.com has been engaged in the testing, marketing and sale of its facial recognition software since late 2016 and since that time Congress had been reluctant to get involved in the policy discussion regarding the use of the technology tool. In response to the test conducted by the ACLU, Amazon.com released a statement that said, “The ACLU continues to distort the facts to suit [its] purposes.” The statement went on to list the successes the tool has had in helping to find missing children, fight human trafficking, fight financial fraud as well as a number of other incidents that contributed to public safety. On July 27, 2018, twenty – five Members of Congress co – signed a letter to Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos asking him to address the concerns of the software’s impact on communities of color. While Congress finally waded into the issue of facial recognition technology, although belatedly and only after being prodded by the ACLU’s test, it was Amazon.com’s response that caught everyone’s attention.
In a blog post, Amazon.com stated, “It is a very reasonable idea, however, for the government to weigh in and specify what temperature (or confidence levels) it wants law enforcement agencies to meet to assist in their public safety work.” This statement referred to the recommended confidence level setting that users of the software should use because the confidence level setting determines the rate of error. A higher setting should logically have a lower error rate while a lower setting increases the chances of false positive matches, as when the ACLU’s test (conducted at a lower setting) falsely identified members of Congress of having committed a crime. This is significant because Amazon.com was now stating that the government and law enforcement agencies alone should determine any standards for the proper use of the software. However, this is contrary to what Amazon had been doing when they had been marketing the software to law enforcement agencies. They had been recommending to the government the proper setting to use to prevent inaccurate face matches but now it was being forced to backtrack when Members of Congress were falsely identified. The contrary actions and statement by Amazon illustrate that the next stage in the future of facial recognition technology is going to be what standards will be implemented to prevent abuse and who will ultimately decide on those standards – the government or the tech companies themselves. The decision is far from settled and could have far reaching consequences. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – petition to try and persuade Amazon from selling the software.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation – non – profit group webpage on mass surveillance technology issues.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center – non – profit group webpage on domestic surveillance issues.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
Photo by Illia Cherednychenko
Income Inequality under Donald Trump Indicates Superficiality of Current Economic Growth
Brief #21—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
Throughout his time in office, Donald Trump has never shied away from touting the economic growth that the country has seen during his presidency. He’s boasted about job growth and the healthy stock market and G.D.P. It doesn’t stop there, though Trump has continuously touted the benefits of the global trade war brought on by his administration’s tariffs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The numbers and statistics that Trump hasn’t been touting, though, tell a different story. Income inequality, according to reports, has reached its highest point since the 1920’s. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank recently published a report that found that the CEO of a typical large American company is paid a salary roughly 312 times larger than that of its typical worker. While the average pay of the CEOs of the 350 largest firms in the U.S. increased by 17.6% this past year, that of their workers increased by only 0.3%.
Further data published by the Bureau of Employment Statistics indicates that the past fiscal year has brought a clear slump in real wages for American workers. Between 2014 and 2015, during Barack Obama’s final years in office, wages rose considerably, a trend that continued through to 2016. Average inflation-adjusted hourly pay began to decrease early in Trump’s presidency, though and this past June saw wages hit their lowest point since 2013.
This data also indicated that the slight economic growth and decreasing unemployment rates have given rise to a slight increase in nominal wages, which have risen 2.7% during the past year. While it is not an inherently negative thing for them to have risen, it is not an indicator of sustainable economic growth, nor of future positive trends. Even with this increase, most American workers still are not receiving the share of economic output that they should be. It should also be noted that nominal wages by themselves cannot generate a higher standard of living for the workers receiving them. We are currently seeing the prices of goods and services rise at a higher rate than that of nominal wages, creating more problems for workers.
Analysis
All evidence and data presented by the EPI points to the conclusion that the increase in CEO pay is not due to an increase in productivity on the part of the executives benefitting. EPI co-founder and economist Robert Reich emphasizes this concept in his 2015 book Saving Capitalism, where he addresses the flawed concept that someone’s productivity level is dictated by their salary. Worker productivity may be increasing but if it is, American workers as a whole are not enjoying the benefits of the economic growth that they are helping generate but are being forced to watch excess profits be turned over to the CEOs of their companies. History has seen many policymakers, including those at the Federal Reserve, cite weak productivity as a primary reason for slow economic growth but considerable evidence points to the contrary, indicated that it is more likely due to the CEOs who use their power to set pay to grab more and more profits.
The central problem involving the slow growth of nominal wages is that when the prices of goods and services rise at a higher rate, workers have increasingly less buying power. The recent hike in prices is likely a further consequence of the trade war, which has resulted in the prices of many important goods being raised while more and more workers are laid off.
Furthermore, we have seen economic inflation give rise to a spike in oil prices which has only caused further problems for the workers whose wages aren’t rising quickly enough. The demand for oil continues to grow throughout the global economy, but the supply does not, primarily due to events in Russia, Venezuela and the Middle East. This hasn’t been helped by President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, which has led to further conflict and higher oil prices.
The current state of income inequality in the United States that has been dubbed the ‘Trump Slump’ can be summed up with a simple equation-when we combine an economy overwhelmed by steep inflation with nominal wages that are not rising quickly enough to keep pace, we are left with a workforce whose overall real wages are stagnate.
President Trump, so far, has implemented no policies to help spur wage growth or reduce inflation. All the while, corporations are gaining more and more power and influence while worker unions are losing theirs. All this points to the overwhelming conclusion that any economic growth that the United States has enjoyed Trump is not sustainable.
Resistance Resources
- The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal think tank that researches and analyzes economic policies and proposals.
- Strike Debt is an activist group that works to help citizens resist debt and fighting for economic justice.
- Fight For $15 is a union-led group dedicated to increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient Contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by Allef Vinicius
Check Your State: Register to Vote and Confirm or Change Registration
Register to Vote and Confirm or Change Registration
Learn if you’re eligible to vote, how to register, check, or update your information at USA.gov
Photo by annie bolin
California Wildfires Contend With Environmental Politics
Brief #39—Environment
Policy Summary
Northern California is on fire. Throughout the summer, over 500,000 acres of Northern California has been up in flames, and has so far amounted in at least eight fatalities. One of the three massive fires has since been contained, but two are still burning, and the smoke generated is looming even as far as Oregon and Ohio. Many homes, schools and other structures are also reported to have been destroyed and it is unclear when the fires will die down. Though, it is certain that wildfires are becoming a pattern in California; the state which still has not fully recovered from the 2017 wildfires that ripped apart Santa Rosa and wine country. And while the current fires may be contained soon, it is also uncertain whether or not this can be of any consolation to California residents and Americans at large, as more wildfires are predicted to hit the state in the coming years.
Analysis
Democratic governor Jerry Brown has begrudgingly called the growing intensity and frequency of California wildfires the state’s “new normal,” while president Trump has refused to acknowledge climate change as a factor in the wildfires, instead naming “bad environmental laws” the culprit. The President alleged that these laws “diverted” water to the Pacific ocean rather than to firefighters giving assistance. Firefighters have not reported any lack of water on the ground, rather “fire tornadoes.”
The scientific evidence put forth by various fire analysts and fire scientists argue that the warmer it gets, the more fires there are to be seen. Rising temperatures and prolonged heat waves are also a factor, scientists say. A signal of a shifting climate, they help set up the conditions that lead to more devastating fire seasons.
While California is currently experiencing some of the most devastating fires, with the one in Mendocino considered the fourth-worst in the state’s history, many other wildfires will strike other states in the United States and beyond should climate change worsen. And research suggests that as Republican community members begin to see more consequences in their own lives at the behest of climate change, their views on the issue will, too, follow. Whereas, Republican politicians do still appear beholden to fossil fuels, with the Trump administration just enforcing a clean energy rollback.
Hopefully right wing America will change their stance on climate change and what incites such wildfires to occur, because by NASA’s estimation, warmer temperatures are on the horizon, and it will scorch everyone.
Engagement Resources
- United Way of the Bay Area – Helps fire victims by creating funds for long-term needs, such as rebuilding homes.
- Direct Relief – Non-profit organization that dispatches medical aid of all kinds to disaster-stricken areas.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Facebook’s Business Model Does Not Encourage Protecting Personal Data
Brief #55—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: On April 21, 2010, Facebook launched Version 1.0 of the Graph API on its platform. This version remained in use on Facebook until it was closed on April 30, 2015. The Facebook Graph API worked at the application developer level which allowed third – party app developers “Extended Permissions” to a users personal data in order to build and tailor apps that may be of interest to users. Facebook subsequently entered into data sharing partnerships with as many as sixty companies including Apple, Amazon, Blackberry, Samsung, Huawei and a host of other companies. These agreements allowed the companies to harvest Facebook users personal data, by using the Graph API tool, and to use that info to integrate popular Facebook features on their hardware devices and own websites. Facebook later admitted in April 2018 that four Chinese companies were among the companies that they had entered data sharing partnership agreements. As of August 2018, Graph API 3.1 is the latest version available on Facebook. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: When the Graph API was first introduced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said “We are building a web where the default is social.” The use of Graph API Version 1.0 on Facebook as a developer tool has been highly controversial. One feature included in this version was its “Extended Permissions.” This allowed any third – party developer access to more than just the info of an original user. Since the Graph API categorized the characteristics of connected and multiple users into searchable data sets (hometown, games, religion, work history, relationships, etc.), a search of those data sets through the originating user would include all of their connections and their own personal data even though those connections did not consent or give access to the developer.
This has been the root of Facebook’s problem with data sharing and privacy. There does not seem to be a general interest in user privacy at the company despite Zuckerberg and Facebook’s claims to the contrary. The actions of Facebook have been to slowly move the needle towards the ease of sharing data and info and then to backtrack only when there is public outrage. The Graph API is evidence that the default of gathering info on anyone at anytime is preferable over keeping unwanted intruders at the door. And the data sharing agreements with the nearly sixty companies, including a foreign company with close ties to the Chinese government, shows that Facebook simply cannot comprehend the concept of data privacy.
If Mark Zuckerberg’s personal tendency for more “social experiences” and “sharing” does not align with the American public’s demand for more privacy and control over personal data, then maybe the time has come for Zuckerberg to relinquish control over Facebook and have the company run by a CEO who is more attune to what the public wants in terms of their social and digital media experiences. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – non – profit group’s webpage on Facebook privacy issues.
- Electronic Frontier Alliance (EFF) – non – profit group webpage on how to get involved to help educate people on their digital rights.
- Fight For The Future – non – profit group working to expand the Internet’s power for good.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Tim Bennett
President Trump Resorts To Bullying Tactics When Confronted With Racial Issues
Brief #54—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: On August 3, 2018, President Donald Trump remarked on his Twitter account that “Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made LeBron look smart which isn’t easy to do. I like Mike!” Don Lemon, a CNN broadcaster, and LeBron James, an NBA athlete, are both African – American.
On Friday, August 10, 2018, the President used his Twitter account to again attack and mock African – American NFL players and the decision by individual players to engage in a form of silent protest during the playing of the national anthem before the game. The President stated “Numerous players, from different teams, wanted to show their “outrage” at something that most of them are unable to define.” Most of the players who have engaged in a form of silent protest before the national anthem are African – American. A number of African – American players demonstrated before the start of some of the NFL’s 2018 pre-season games. The NFL had crafted a national anthem policy that would have been in place for the 2018 season but that policy was put on hold indefinitely after the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) filed a grievance that, as of August 2018, had not yet been heard.
On August 14, 2018, President Trump issued a statement regarding former White House aide Omarosa Manigault – Newman. He said “When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!” Ms. Manigault – Newman is an African – American woman who had worked with President Trump on two reality television shows and in the White House as Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison. She was later fired from the White House position and just released a book on her time working for the Trump Administration. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: The latest remarks from President Trump towards African – American public figures is another illustration of the President’s tactics when confronted with uncomfortable racial issues. The underlying theme in both incidents is how the President attacks the public personalities. Instead of addressing the merits of the message of NFL protests, LeBron’s interview or Ms. Manigault – Newman’s tell – all book, the President issued a remark that implied that the African – American people involved are not smart or stable enough to know what they are talking about or know what they are doing. His decision to attack the intelligence and knowledge of African – Americans and equate one African – American woman as no better than an animal is nothing more than an attempt to revive tired and disgusting stereotypes that African – Americans are an inferior race or closer to an animal and less than a full human being.
Finally, the President’s comment on the ongoing NFL protests is simply wrong. The players knew full well that their protests were about the systemic oppression against people of color and minorities, police brutality and the inequalities of the criminal justice system. For President Trump to state that the players are unable to define their protest is categorically false. The implied racial insults and casual degradation of people of color without addressing the merits of their message is just another way for the President to try and belittle his critics without actually confronting the uncomfortable truth of what these American citizens have to say. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE\
Engagement Resources:
- kaepernick7 – former NFL player Colin Kaepernick’s foundation website promoting education and social activism to fight global oppression.
- Malcolm Jenkins Foundation – NFL player’s foundation committed to youth development in underserved communities.
- EricReid35 – NFL player’s infopage on how to get involved and make an impact in your community.
- LeBron James Family Foundation – NBA player’s foundation to positively affect children and young adults through educational programs.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Adrian Curiel
Affirmative Action Challenged in Suit Against Harvard’s Admission Policies
Brief #25—Education
Read Part 1: The Problem of Reverse Discrimination Cases Against Whites and Affirmative Action Cases
Policy Summary
An ongoing lawsuit alleging systematic discrimination against Asian-Americans applicants by Harvard, originally filed by Students For Fair Admissions (SSFA) in November 2014, has a trial date set for October this year. In the original complaint, SSFA claims that Harvard’s race-conscious holistic admissions policy violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a failed attempt to dismantle affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, SFFA founder Edward Blum is leading the current lawsuit and has actively recruited Asian-American to be plaintiffs. Additionally, many right-wing organizations and political leaders expressed support of the goal to eliminate race-based admission policies.
In an analysis of more than 160,000 records, the plaintiffs contend that Harvard imposes an unlawful quota of “racial balancing” keeping numbers of Asian-American students artificially low while advancing less qualified White, Black, and Hispanic applicants. For instance, Asian-American applicants are rated lower than any other race on subjective traits like “courage, likability and kindness” significantly decreasing applicants’ chances despite the fact that such students scored higher on test scores, grades, and extracurricular activities. In 2013, Harvard’s own researchers found bias against Asian-American applicants in a series of internal reports that were never publicly released. The coalition further noted the failure of affirmative action policies to address the issue of poverty in secondary education, historically benefiting privileged groups of middle-class Black and Hispanic as well as international students over low-income, minority students. LEARN MORE
John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), sharply cautioned that the strategy led by Edward Blum would overwhelmingly benefit white applicants above any group and stated that “Asian-Americans are not a wedge in this issue.” The organization recently filed a brief, on behalf of a diverse group of students including Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, in support of race-conscious admissions at Harvard. AAJC has strongly stated that this lawsuit is not about Asian-Americans but about “using Asian-Americans as cover for Edward Blum’s crusade to force every institution of higher education to ignore the reality of systemic racism and segregation that infects every aspect of our lives. Holistic race-conscious admissions is necessary to address that reality and ensure meaningful access and opportunity for all communities.” LEARN MORE
AAJC helped sponsor a 2016 national poll that found 64% of Asian-Americans favored efforts to ensure that people of all races and ethnicities could access higher education. Some students at Harvard have stated that their school has yet to reach the level of diversity necessary to fully realize its benefits and that any supposedly race-neutral alternative decreasing diversity would be devastating to the educational environment and racial climate at Harvard. However, students emphasized that their support of affirmative action does not necessarily mean that they believe Harvard is doing enough to truly increase the diversity of its student body through innovative means. LEARN MORE
Analysis
A study found that “eliminating African American and Latino applicants from the Harvard admissions pool only increases admissions chances of Asian American students by 1%, making it quite unlikely that rejected Asian American applicants would be admitted even under a system that does not consider race.” In fact, discrepancies are largely due to a white advantages – with white women being the greatest benefactors of affirmative action and hidden factors, such as legacies and “Z-list”, conferring advantages to VIP white and wealthy applicants. Affirmative action policies are only one step forward in higher education’s transformative efforts to promote equity and justice. U.S. educational institutions still have a long way to go in improving representation from many unseen and underrepresented groups, such as Southeast Asians, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders as well as low-income students. Despite numerous university diversity sessions (few which actually present a challenge to normative worldviews), most students graduate with the same assumptions that they entered with: the widespread belief that dominance of certain groups in college, in leadership and among elite ranks is natural. Most students – not just white students – believe that advancement and opportunity is primarily based on merit, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. LEARN MORE
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court upheld consideration of race in college admissions but banned racial quotas. In his opinion, Justice Powell Jr. cited Harvard’s program as a model stating that, if Harvard is to continue to offer a first-rate education, minority representation in the student body can no longer be ignored. Furthermore, the Supreme Court unambiguously held that consideration of race can be factored in admissions decisions but it cannot be the only factor. As established in Johnson v. California (2005), facially discriminatory laws based on race or national origin must undergo a “strict scrutiny” test, in which there must be a compelling governmental interest independent of the race classification and the categorization of race must be narrowly tailored to that particular interest. The Court has held that governmental interest is compelling in order to remedy the effects of intentional discrimination and to obtain a diverse student body in higher education.
AAJC President John Yang accurately assessed that an insidious background crusade by SFFA and right-wing organizations to eliminate affirmative action policies by pitting Asian Americans against other racial groups is a “classic divide-and-conquer strategy with echoes of colonial paternalism.” In The New Jim Crow, legal scholar Michelle Alexander describes a deeply embedded racial caste system in our society which has shaped U.S. policies, laws, and statutes. Our racial divide influences where we live, who we interact with, and how we are educated – with our educational institutions often reflecting and maintaining these same racial hierarchies. Yet, democratic education is based on challenging our basic assumptions and fostering critical thinking skills through exposure to novel ideas, perspectives, and life experiences profoundly different from our own. In the 1960-80s, mere rhetoric of diversity was not the goal of student activists who strongly pushed for ethnic studies departments, student centers and increased recruitment and retention efforts focused on racially minoritized students, faculty members and staff members. Prior generations of activists hoped to inspire institutional transformation through the presence of a critical mass of people of color. It seems profoundly necessary and advantageous to put together young individuals who are diverse on many dimensions – including one of the most fundamental aspects of identity – to prepare them for engaged citizenship and leadership roles, to break down harmful stereotypes, and to increase cross-cultural understanding and friendships in an increasingly pluralistic society. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Asian Americans Advancing Justice – National affiliation of five leading organizations advocating for the civil and human rights of Asian Americans and other underserved communities to promote a fair and equitable society for all.
- Inside Higher Ed – Leading digital media company serving the higher education space.
- Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund (AALDEF)– Nonprofit FAQ page on affirmative action and Fisher v. University of Texas case from a community point of view.
- American Association for Access Equity and Diversity (AAAED) – National not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)– Nonprofit group webpage on affirmative action.
- Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)– Nonprofit group promoting equal justice and equal opportunity.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee. Contact: Tina@usresistnews.org
Photo by Nicole Honeywill
Trump Administration Announces Sanctions Targeting Iran and Russia
Brief #47—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
The Trump administration has responded to perceived transgressions by Russia and Iran with two new sets of sanctions this past month. Following through on the cancellation of the Iran deal, Trump has announced that, starting August 7th, restrictions will be placed on the Iranian government’s ability to purchase or acquire US dollar banknotes, trade in gold and precious metals, sell or transfer to or from Iran of graphite and metals – such as aluminum and steel- or conduct unspecified transactions relating to the Iranian currency, the Rial. Tariffs will also be placed on Iran’s automotive sector, Iranians will no longer be able to purchase US passenger aircrafts, and the US will no longer import Iranian carpets or certain foods. This November, additional sanctions will be placed on Iranian oil/energy imports, as well as financial institutions.
The stated goal is to cripple the Iranian economy to the point that the regime must end what the Trump administration calls its support for terrorism, and negotiate an end to its nuclear energy program. Trump said that the Iranian government “faces a choice: Either change its threatening, destabilizing behavior and reintegrate with the global economy, or continue down a path of economic isolation”. Mike Pompeo outlined American expectations for negotiations, demanding that “Iran end all nuclear enrichment and development of nuclear-capable missiles; release all American citizens end its support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Houthi militias; and withdraw its forces from Syria”. Woody Johnson, the American Ambassador to the UK, threatened “serious consequences” for businesses that continue to deal with Iran.
The Trump administration also announced sanctions on Russian exports in response to accusations that Moscow was behind the chemical attack in Britain last March, which targeted a former Russian spy. Immediately following the incident, the UK, US, and several other countries expelled over 100 Russian diplomats. These sanctions are legally justified under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, which requires the US to impose sanctions on any foreign power determined to have used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law within 60 days of assigning blame, a deadline now missed by over a month.
The first set of sanctions, due to take effect on August 22nd, will restrict exports to Russia for the purchase of items which could have military uses, such as gas turbine engines and calibration equipment. Russia also now has 90 days to provide assurances that they will allow inspections to placate fears of any future chemical attacks. If Russia does not comply, the Trump administration will impose a second set of sanctions, restricting bank assistance, exports and imports, air carrier landing rights, and US bank loans to Russia, as well as downgrading diplomatic relations. The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, supported by a bipartisan group of senators, has the potential to further destabilize the Russian economy. If passed, it would freeze all dollar operations of Russian state banks. In response to this recent set of sanctions, the Ruble fell to its lowest value in two years.
Analysis
The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing the destruction of the Iran deal, one of the most important pieces of Obama’s legacy, is that Iran has not violated the deal in any way. This fact has been confirmed by international inspectors. The European Union, Britain, France, and Germany have issued a statement saying that “The JCPOA [Iran Deal] is working and delivering on its goal, namely to ensure that the Iranian programme remains exclusively peaceful. Iran’s nuclear program has the stated purpose of building a foundation of cheap energy which would allow Iranian oil to be sold overseas. The enactment of the Iran deal in 2015 allowed Iran to recover from a disastrous economic recession. Like the most recent set, Obama’s 2010 sanctions were described as “smart sanctions”, designed to target the elite of the country rather than the innocent greater population. In reality, there was no such precision of consequence, with the percentage of Iranian families living in poverty almost doubling, and millions being left without access to essential medical treatment. Since the announcement of these newest sanctions, the Rial has dropped by 80%, causing protests around the country. These new protests will only further harm the middle and lower classes, creating hunger and unemployment.. Trump is not trying to simply coerce the Iranians into returning to the table to enact a newer, stronger Iran deal. Iran has no reason to expend the time and political capital to restart this arduous process. Iranian voters have less reason to support friendlier relations with America now, and Iran won’t want to make a new deal when the last one was cancelled through no fault of their own. What the Trump administration wants is further unrest, driven by the lower and middle classes, which could create an opening for an American-led regime change.
The Russian sanctions, while more justifiable, will contribute to similarly harmful conditions for many civilians who have had no part in the sinister actions of their oligarchy. The Defending American Security Act, if passed, would force Russia into an ultimatum which may not go the way Trump hopes. Either Russia will back down, or the oligarchy will be given a political mandate to act even more aggressively against the West.
Resistance Resources
- Human Rights Watch – An organization dedicated to fighting oppression from a global perspective
- Beyond the Bomb – An activist group looking to reduce the danger of nuclear war around the world.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org