Monday, November 8, 2010
The Need for Strong Legal Protections for Patients’ Rights
An important lesson that emerges from the history of forced sterilization of women in Puerto Rico is the necessity of strong legal protections for patients’ rights to insure that patients, and not doctors, determine what medical procedures patients do and don’t have. As with the eugenic program in Nazi Germany, the policy of forced sterilization in Puerto Rico could not have been carried out without the complicity of the medical profession. Unfortunately, history has repeatedly demonstrated that the medical profession cannot be relied upon to protect patients against government policies that intrude upon bodily integrity and self-determination. Whether by actively persuading women to agree to sterilization in exchange for longer stays in the hospital after childbirth, making it appear that sterilization was medically necessary, telling women that sterilization was their only choice for birth control, or failing to tell women that sterilization involved a surgical procedure that it was irreversible, too many doctors were more than willing to be the instruments of and mouthpieces for the policy of forced sterilization in their everyday interactions with patients and take advantage of the power imbalance that is inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. The deeply troubling history of the involuntary sterilization of women in Puerto Rico reminds us once again of the crucial role that patients’ right to bodily integrity and the law of informed consent play in preventing the medical profession from becoming an instrument of intrusive and repressive governmental policies.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Law Students for Reproductive's Reaction to CLORE's Showing of "La Operacion"
On page 12 of the September/October, 2010 issue of Mother Jones, an inset feature called “Conspiracy Watch” details the efforts of various pro-life groups to propagate a commonsense understanding that abortion is a racist genocidal plot. This is, sadly, not a belief confined to the lunatic fringe of a shadowy misogynist far-right coalition. Unfortunately, there is a very real and unsettling history of reproductive injustices that range from Planned Parenthood’s early ties to eugenics movements to the Supreme Court’s notorious holding in Buck v. Bell (upholding the forced sterilization of a woman said to be mentally retarded, an opinion in which Justice Holmes famously wrote “Three generations of imbeciles is enough”). If these tactics were embraced by pro-choice movements today, it would legitimately be seen as a dangerous movement, circumscribing the rights of populations of women who are (predictably) poor people of color. But it is much worse than misleading to imply that the pro-choice movement continues to hew to such ideals.
The brutal reality is that many people, governments, and social movements have used (and continue to use) technology and medical treatments in ways antithetical to human dignity, and such treatment is certainly not limited to women. The Tuskegee Experiments, during which black sharecroppers were unknowingly infected with syphilis, is one of the most well-known examples of clinical misuse of human subjects. Recently, a similar situation was uncovered in Guatemala. But it is emphatically not the project of the reproductive justice movement to limit women's choices about their own lives and bodies. Women have been systematically deprived of the right to make decisions about their own bodies and those deprivations have come from many sources. Whether that means they have been denied their ability to have children, or their right to choose not to have children, the larger struggle of the reproductive justice movement is a struggle for complete self-determination. Forced reproductive “choices” of any kind must be resisted. We can only accomplish this by coming together in solidarity to protect each woman’s individual preferences and choices about her intimate activities and the life-shaping decisions she makes. The notion that the pro-choice movement is genocidal, or similar in any way to forced sterilization, is of course false. This argument is a mechanism for dividing women in order to diminish their potential collective political power. To combat these strategies, women of all ages and backgrounds need to listen to each others' stories – the good stories and the tragic. The CUNY chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice is proud to co-sponsor CLORE in their presentation of La Operacion, a documentary film detailing the appalling government sanctioned forced sterilization of Puerto Rican women in the 1970s.
The brutal reality is that many people, governments, and social movements have used (and continue to use) technology and medical treatments in ways antithetical to human dignity, and such treatment is certainly not limited to women. The Tuskegee Experiments, during which black sharecroppers were unknowingly infected with syphilis, is one of the most well-known examples of clinical misuse of human subjects. Recently, a similar situation was uncovered in Guatemala. But it is emphatically not the project of the reproductive justice movement to limit women's choices about their own lives and bodies. Women have been systematically deprived of the right to make decisions about their own bodies and those deprivations have come from many sources. Whether that means they have been denied their ability to have children, or their right to choose not to have children, the larger struggle of the reproductive justice movement is a struggle for complete self-determination. Forced reproductive “choices” of any kind must be resisted. We can only accomplish this by coming together in solidarity to protect each woman’s individual preferences and choices about her intimate activities and the life-shaping decisions she makes. The notion that the pro-choice movement is genocidal, or similar in any way to forced sterilization, is of course false. This argument is a mechanism for dividing women in order to diminish their potential collective political power. To combat these strategies, women of all ages and backgrounds need to listen to each others' stories – the good stories and the tragic. The CUNY chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice is proud to co-sponsor CLORE in their presentation of La Operacion, a documentary film detailing the appalling government sanctioned forced sterilization of Puerto Rican women in the 1970s.
Sterilization of Women in Puerto Rico
I am grateful to CLORE for inviting me to submit brief comments in anticipation of its showing of the film La Operacion on Monday, November 8.
In 1937, contraception was legalized in Puerto Rico. Nick Thimmesch, Birth Control in Puerto Rico, 30 Family Planning and Fertility Control 252, (1968). Before and after passage of this legislation, the Catholic Church waged strong opposition to the availability of birth control. Id. at 258. At the other extreme, in the wake of the 1937 law, hospitals strongly pushed sterilization of women as the primary means of controlling fertility. Id. at 256; Charles W. Warren, et al., Contraceptive Sterilization in Puerto Rico, 23 Demography 351, 352 (1986). In fact, the statute authorized the Commissioner of Health to “issue a license to teach and practice eugenic principles [to qualified doctors and nurses] in public institutions and centers.” Thimmesch, supra, at 255.
Puerto Rican women were thus yanked in opposite directions: by the Catholic Church to bear large families, and by a new campaign not only to limit childbearing but to relinquish altogether their ability to procreate. The same law that legalized contraception also imposed heavy punishments for abortion. Id. Given the harshness of these penalties, one wonders whether some women felt compelled to undergo sterilization as the surest means to avoid unintended pregnancy. Cultural norms favoring male virility, id. at 256, may also have made it unlikely that male partners would participate in, or tolerate their partners’ use of, non-permanent methods of contraception. Industrialization and the increased movement of women into the workforce also played a role in the prevalence of sterilization. Harriet B. Presser & Sunita Kishor, Economic Development and Occupational Sex Segregation in Puerto Rico: 1950-80, 17 Population and Development Review 53, 61 (1991).
The social and political forces underlying Puerto Rico’s remarkably high sterilization rate among women from the late 1930s to the mid-1960s and beyond are undoubtedly complex and multi-faceted. The bare fact remains, however, that during this period mass numbers of Puerto Rican women were sterilized. In fact, data from a 1965 survey showed that “31.9 percent of all ever-married women 20-49 years of age were sterilized.” Warren, et al., supra, at 352. As late as 1986, one article pointed out that “for at least the past 20 years, Puerto Rico has had the highest prevalence rate of contraceptive sterilization in the world.” Id at 351. The sheer numbers raise questions as to how well-informed women were about the procedure and its alternatives, and the extent to which they felt coerced to undergo “la operacion.”
The complex history of the regulation of female fertility in Puerto Rico echoes a pervasive tendency of government and other third parties to try to control women’s reproductive choices. This tendency is especially acute when it comes to women of color. Sterilization, in particular, is a procedure that has been the subject of horrific eugenic programs intended to limit childbearing among “undesirable” populations, including women of color.
Two Supreme Court decisions have addressed examples of eugenic programs. In Buck v. Bell, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck, a woman alleged to be “feeble minded.” In a now-famous, chilling passage, Justice Holmes proclaimed, “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927). In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Court invalidated an Oklahoma law that provided for the sterilization of “habitual criminals,” which it defined as persons sentenced to imprisonment after having been convicted at least twice for “felonies involving moral turpitude.” 316 U.S. 535, 356 (1942). The Court noted, “The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.” Id. at 541.
In her book, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty (1997), Dorothy Roberts documents the history of the eugenics movement in the United States and in particular its focus on limiting childbearing among women of color. Id. at 56-103. Even today, the United State is not free of governmental impulses to prevent women of color from bearing children. Roberts’ book discusses the numerous ways in which recent and current welfare and criminal law policies have targeted women of color by penalizing or attempting to prevent their childbearing.
Sterilization is an important means of controlling fertility, and is an option that should be available to all women. As with all reproductive choices, however, it must be one that women are able to choose without coercion from their partners, the government, religious authorities, or other outside forces. La Operacion thus serves as an important reminder of the critical and continuing importance of reproductive freedom in all of its dimensions.
--Caitlin Borgmann
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The Supreme Court Strips Miranda Rights to Bare Bones
Most people know or have heard of the Fourth Amendment right to remain silent that was espoused in Miranda v. Arizona. The right to remain silent is a vital component of liberty. It is one of the few rights individuals have to protect themselves from unwanted intrusions by law enforcement. It also gives us some power and leverage against the considerable power of the police.
The Supreme Court’s narrow holding in Berghius v. Thomkins eradicates years of precedent in one fell swoop by requiring that a person who wishes to remain silent “unambiguously and equivocally” invoke that right. No definition is given to what unambiguous means or who decides whether an invocation is equivocal. Instead it gives great deference to the police in deciding whether an individual has succinctly invoked his/her rights. This is a troubling holding because it places a large amount of trust in the police. What will prevent police from neglecting to clarify an ambiguous statement?
Justice Sotomayor has these same questions and further criticizes the foundations upon which the court makes it decision:
“Police may well prefer not to seek clarification of an ambiguous statement out of fear that a suspect will invoke his rights. But “our system of justice is not founded on a fear that a suspect will exercise his rights. ‘If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system.” Berghius v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2277 (2010).
Justice Sotomayor’s statement raises another question for me. What if a person attempts to invoke her right to remain silent in another language or broken English? What then? Is this an ambiguous invocation or are the police required to bring a translator? I know police are required to provide the accused with their rights in their native language in, but what happens after? Or what about a young offender, or a person with mental illness what standard should we place upon them to invoke their rights? Is there only one standard? These questions are left unanswered. All that we are left with is this:
“A requirement of an unambiguous invocation of Miranda . . .“avoid[s] difficulties of proof and ... provide[s] guidance to officers” on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. . . Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ (citation omitted). Id. at 2260.
In this case the defendant had been silent for 2 hours and 45minutes while the police continued to question him. His choice to remain silent was not enough for the justices to find he had invoked his right.
The questions left open by this decision are ripe for discussion and we will be tackling some these issue on Thursday, we ask that you also share your ideas an analysis here as part of an ongoing discussion.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Immigration and Immigrant Defense
This Thursday, September 23, 2010, CLORE will be co-hosting an event, where there will be a review of select cases from the Supreme Court’s 2009-2010 term and their impact on the Latino community and practitioners. Immigration and immigrant defense will be a topic of interest at this discussion. Manuel D. Vargas, Senior Counsel with the Immigrant Defense Project, will discuss Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010) and Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). Mr. Vargas is a nationally known expert on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.
In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, the Court held that a “second or subsequent conviction on a simple drug possession charge is not an aggravated felony” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The statute makes clear that an “aggravated felony” is a conviction for “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” Carachuri-Rosendo’s possession offense did not “fit easily into the ‘everyday understanding’ of those terms.” Unfortunately, before this, the definition of “aggravated felony” was expanding to punish immigrants convicted of crimes and was the cause of deportation of many non-citizens. In fact, in this case, the Board of Immigration Appeals claimed Carachuri-Rosendo was ineligible for cancellation of removal because there was a possibility that his conduct, coupled with facts outside of the record of conviction, could have authorized a felony conviction under federal law. The Court set the record straight saying “we are to look to the conviction itself as our starting point, not to what might have or could have been charged.”
There are many who say that non-citizens who commit crimes are a growing threat to public safety and national security, as well as a drain on our scarce criminal justice resources. I understand that administering justice to criminal aliens costs taxpayers. However, justice should be administered to all. Stretching statutory language to find any way to deport non-citizens is unfair. Carachuri-Rosendo is a legal permanent resident of the United States and should be not have been disregarded in the way he was. The outcome of his case brings great news for non-citizens or those working with non-citizens placed in removal proceedings based on criminal charges.
In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Court ruled that criminal defense attorneys have an obligation to inform their clients if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation. Here, Padilla was working as a commercial truck driver when he was arrested in Kentucky for transporting marijuana. His lawyer advised him that there would be no negative consequences for his immigration status if he accepted a plea bargain in the drug case, and so he did. However, this advice was incorrect, and Padilla was subject to deportation because of his guilty plea. Padilla then filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had gotten bad advice from his attorney.
I feel the Supreme Court should not have had to make this clear. It should be a matter of basic ethics for a defense attorney, or any attorney for that matter, to notify their clients correctly about consequences. We are taught in law school to be advocates for our clients. Shouldn’t this fall in the scope of the client’s best interests? I’m glad this landmark case clarified and gave attorneys around the nation a reality check!
It will be interesting to hear Mr. Vargas’ thoughts on immigration-related decisions issued during the last term and immigration-related certiorari grants to be argued during the 2010-2011 term.
For more information about Thursday’s event please visit the CLORE Facebook page at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122869794964
Friday, April 16, 2010
Latino and Asian low wage workers - together in struggle
In anticipation of CLORE's event next week on the rights, struggles and solidarity movement of Latino and Asian low wage workers, particularly in the garment industry, here are some links to discussions and scholarship to whet our appetite.
1. ¡YA BASTA! Reflections on Asian and Latino Workers in the Immigrant Rights Movement - http://jalanjournal.org/2008/03/latino-asian-solidarity/
2. Study: Asian American Low-Wage Workers Often Cheated of their Wages - http://www.apimovement.com/chicago/study-asian-american-low-wage-workers-often-cheated-their-wages
3. Chinese and Latino Garment Workers Announce Filing of Lawsuit Against ‘Cache’ - http://www.nmass.org/nmass/news/02112010%20Cache%20Press%20Conference.htm
Some questions to consider as well:
- What has been the most successful direct action techniques that have worked to secure low wage workers, particularly immigrants, rights?
- What can other social justice movements learn from the solidarity work of these two communities?
- What has been most challenging in alliance building for low wage workers' rights?
- Where have we seen reform work compromise the movement?
La lucha continua....
1. ¡YA BASTA! Reflections on Asian and Latino Workers in the Immigrant Rights Movement - http://jalanjournal.org/2008/03/latino-asian-solidarity/
2. Study: Asian American Low-Wage Workers Often Cheated of their Wages - http://www.apimovement.com/chicago/study-asian-american-low-wage-workers-often-cheated-their-wages
3. Chinese and Latino Garment Workers Announce Filing of Lawsuit Against ‘Cache’ - http://www.nmass.org/nmass/news/02112010%20Cache%20Press%20Conference.htm
Some questions to consider as well:
- What has been the most successful direct action techniques that have worked to secure low wage workers, particularly immigrants, rights?
- What can other social justice movements learn from the solidarity work of these two communities?
- What has been most challenging in alliance building for low wage workers' rights?
- Where have we seen reform work compromise the movement?
La lucha continua....
Monday, April 12, 2010
Toxic Colonialism: Vieques and US Military Policy post-event discussion
After a stimulating conversation on the role of the U.S. Navy on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico - where it used the island as a bombing range and to test out biochemical warfare - there were many questions and points that I realized we never got to address and that left me wanting to share more. Among them include:
- A further discussion and critique of the role racism plays in colonialism and in particular the use of Puerto Rico as a location to practice biochemical warfare on people of color
- The long-term health and environmental hazards as a result of the Navy's practices and how those can be measured and accounted for, including in the form of compensation. For example, how can we determine what health hazards exist for future generations yet compensate current victims for current health hazards?
- The challenges of overcoming a sovereign immunity defense, even when not explicitly critiquing military policy and decisions, rather the consequences of them.
- The role that civil disobedience and civil unrest played as a strategy of holding the government accountable for its actions in lieu of Puerto Ricans status as a colony unable to vote for the executive or to have federal congressional representation.
- How the environmental justice movement has or has not championed this issue
And whatever else you may want to discuss!
- A further discussion and critique of the role racism plays in colonialism and in particular the use of Puerto Rico as a location to practice biochemical warfare on people of color
- The long-term health and environmental hazards as a result of the Navy's practices and how those can be measured and accounted for, including in the form of compensation. For example, how can we determine what health hazards exist for future generations yet compensate current victims for current health hazards?
- The challenges of overcoming a sovereign immunity defense, even when not explicitly critiquing military policy and decisions, rather the consequences of them.
- The role that civil disobedience and civil unrest played as a strategy of holding the government accountable for its actions in lieu of Puerto Ricans status as a colony unable to vote for the executive or to have federal congressional representation.
- How the environmental justice movement has or has not championed this issue
And whatever else you may want to discuss!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
In Defense of Immigrants: Hidden Dangers of Immigration Status and the Criminal Justice System
On April 13th, CLORE will be hosting an event about immigrant interaction with the criminal justice system. Here, you can begin the discussion, or participate if you cannot make it, so read on!
Immigrants on trial have a right to know what’s at stake; yet, too often they are left in the dark about their constitutional protections. Recently, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Padilla v. Kentucky which changed the defense attorney's duty to inform a client of the consequences of the charges against them. Panelists will discuss the key role criminal defense lawyers can play a role in safeguarding, advising and enforcing the rights of immigrants facing criminal charges.
Below, you will find a Practice Advisory by Manuel D. Vargas, Founder and Senior Counsel of the Immigrant Defense Project, who will be joining as a panelist on the 13th. This practice advisory assesses the impact of Padilla v. Kentucky. It is an excellent review of the issues raised by the decision, allowing the reader to get an overview of the case and what this new duty means to defense attorneys and their clients. Please take a moment to read it and begin the discussion before the event.
Padilla Practice Advisory
Immigrants on trial have a right to know what’s at stake; yet, too often they are left in the dark about their constitutional protections. Recently, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Padilla v. Kentucky which changed the defense attorney's duty to inform a client of the consequences of the charges against them. Panelists will discuss the key role criminal defense lawyers can play a role in safeguarding, advising and enforcing the rights of immigrants facing criminal charges.
Below, you will find a Practice Advisory by Manuel D. Vargas, Founder and Senior Counsel of the Immigrant Defense Project, who will be joining as a panelist on the 13th. This practice advisory assesses the impact of Padilla v. Kentucky. It is an excellent review of the issues raised by the decision, allowing the reader to get an overview of the case and what this new duty means to defense attorneys and their clients. Please take a moment to read it and begin the discussion before the event.
Padilla Practice Advisory
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Latina and Asian women workers
CLORE's next event will address solidarity work between Latina and Asian women workers, namely factory and sweat shop workers.
What issues do you think go unaddressed in feminist labor movements? How have you seen women of color act at the forefront of demanding living wage jobs, sanitary and healthy work conditions and health care?
What issues do you think go unaddressed in feminist labor movements? How have you seen women of color act at the forefront of demanding living wage jobs, sanitary and healthy work conditions and health care?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Latinos' Racial Identity and the Census
I found this interesting take on how to capture Latinos' mixed race and mixed-ethnicity heritage in the Census this year.
The 2010 US Census is Here and It Wants to Know: What in the world are you?
By Desi Sánchez (February 13, 2010)
There's been a lot of buzz about the latest Census and how it categorizes Latinos, and there's nothing like well-informed advice from expert sources to help us out when those government packets hit our mailboxes. I recently read an interesting article from the NiLP Network that provided just that, entitled How Can Taino Be Counted in the US Census?, which really sparked my interest and my own not-so-expert opinions on the subject.
The article, and especially its preface note, inspired several concerns about the latest incarnation of the Census and how we as Latinos can classify ourselves in terms of race in the US. One, there is no "mixed race" option, only the option to select more than one race, which is a problem for those of us who do not know our exact racial admixture.
Also, one of the options available, "Black/African American/Negro," may not be a historically or geographically accurate description of many Latinos' African ancestry. And finally, the issue that disturbed me most, was the implication that many Latinos might indeed select only one race, whether it be "white" or "black" or "American Indian," when the reality is that since many of us are racially mixed over several generations, few of us can truly be considered "pure" anything, thus highlighting once more the necessity of a "mixed race" option.
As a Latina whose mixed-race is a big part of my personal identity and family history, I am surprised that there is no mixed-race option for those of us who do not know our exact racial admixture. As a group, Latinos are Mestizo, Mulato, Criollo, or Cuarteado. Some of us have Asian blood or German roots; there could've been direct lines from Spain, or convoluted family histories winding throughout the globe, picking up snippets of DNA along the way as they meandered their way back to Latin America. Yet there is still one thing that unites us racially as Latinos, which ought to be acknowledged on the Census. And that one thing is not racial homogeny, but quite conversely, our general mixed heritage, especially the Spanish/African/Native American mixture which is so very common. And it is such an intrinsic part of our genetic makeup, evidenced by the sheer variety of racial markers, often even between family members, that it seems petty and inaccurate to try and separate and check off each race individually. After so many generations of miscegenation, is "mixed" not a race unto itself?
Adding to the confusion are the cultural connotations behind race, and the conflation of cultural identity with racial background. According to the article's preface, the Afro-Latino Forum at NYU is advocating that Afro-Latinos mark "Black" on the Census. However, do the terms "Black," "African American," or "Negro" accurately describe our African lineage as Latinos? In the US, "Black" and "Negro" do not only imply race or literal skin color, they also imply "African American," African American culture, and the African American community, specifically. And that is not a heritage/culture/history that all African-descended people can necessary relate to.
I fear that Afro-Latinos marking "Black" on the Census may divide and dilute our Latino communities, which have our own history, lineage, and often, ancestry from very specific parts of Africa, that are separate from that of our African American brothers and sisters (as proud, admirable and parallel in many ways as their culture is to ours). And although I am aware that in other parts of the world, "Black" and "Negro" do not have a cultural meaning and are not interchangeable with "African American," this is still, after all, a US Census, not a global Census, so perhaps we should not use terms that have double meanings in our country. Yes, for ease's sake, we can take the Afro-Latino Forum's advice this time around, but I think we should push for a clearer term next Census - perhaps "African" or "African-descended"? Ah, the frustrations of semantics!
And what about those of us Latinos who think we can check off only one option under race (with "mixed" not being one of them) and be done with it? Really? I understand that the Census is based on "self-identifying," but if some of us are picking only "white," and others are picking only "black," and another contingent are picking only "American Indian," that implies a racial purity among individual Latinos that I do not believe is the truly accurate "snapshot" that the Census is trying to achieve. I know you cannot strong-arm people and tell them who or what they are, but somehow, I think we need to establish, if not as Latinos in general, then at least among our smaller subgroups that share a common general racial heritage (Caribbean Latinos, Central Americans, or even more specific populations, like country-by-country, or if necessary, community-by-community) how we are going to represent ourselves as a group.
We need a way to unify ourselves, not just culturally, but racially, so that when two "white" Latino parents have a "black" Latino child (because of mixing generations back), they are not marking off different races for different members of the same family; and so that genetically similar, yet unrelated, mixed individuals are not checking off random and different races from each other, just because of how they "feel." Which brings me back to the "mixed race" option - it may be the only way to unify such a diverse people while remaining accurate.
With the Latino population growing exponentially, and the need for our collective community to be better recognized in government proceedings, programs and legislation, I am happy that the Census Bureau is seemingly more aware of the differences between our people, with separate places to mark off race and Hispanic origin. But perhaps in recognizing our differences, the Census may also be losing sight of our similarities, and even inadvertently lumping some of us in with other ethnic groups.
Thus, I look forward to more accurate terms for the various races, as well as to more inclusive terms for those of us of mixed race. And I would encourage all Latinos to embrace their history, embrace their diversity, and in the absence of a "mixed" race option, to check off as many race options as are applicable, and especially not to assume that what they personally see in the mirror is all there is to their individual heritage. Because after all, "Y tu abuela, ¿donde esta?"
Desi Sanchez is an artist, musician, TV host & native New Yorker, born to Cuban and Dominican parents. Every week, Desi celebrates her fellow Latinos on the nationally syndicated TV show LatiNation, and enjoys imitating silly Monty Python clips and eating mail-order sugar-free chocolate in her free time. She can be contacted at desimanagement@gmail.com and her website is www.DesiSanchez.com.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs057/1101040629095/archive/1103039027393.html
The 2010 US Census is Here and It Wants to Know: What in the world are you?
By Desi Sánchez (February 13, 2010)
There's been a lot of buzz about the latest Census and how it categorizes Latinos, and there's nothing like well-informed advice from expert sources to help us out when those government packets hit our mailboxes. I recently read an interesting article from the NiLP Network that provided just that, entitled How Can Taino Be Counted in the US Census?, which really sparked my interest and my own not-so-expert opinions on the subject.
The article, and especially its preface note, inspired several concerns about the latest incarnation of the Census and how we as Latinos can classify ourselves in terms of race in the US. One, there is no "mixed race" option, only the option to select more than one race, which is a problem for those of us who do not know our exact racial admixture.
Also, one of the options available, "Black/African American/Negro," may not be a historically or geographically accurate description of many Latinos' African ancestry. And finally, the issue that disturbed me most, was the implication that many Latinos might indeed select only one race, whether it be "white" or "black" or "American Indian," when the reality is that since many of us are racially mixed over several generations, few of us can truly be considered "pure" anything, thus highlighting once more the necessity of a "mixed race" option.
As a Latina whose mixed-race is a big part of my personal identity and family history, I am surprised that there is no mixed-race option for those of us who do not know our exact racial admixture. As a group, Latinos are Mestizo, Mulato, Criollo, or Cuarteado. Some of us have Asian blood or German roots; there could've been direct lines from Spain, or convoluted family histories winding throughout the globe, picking up snippets of DNA along the way as they meandered their way back to Latin America. Yet there is still one thing that unites us racially as Latinos, which ought to be acknowledged on the Census. And that one thing is not racial homogeny, but quite conversely, our general mixed heritage, especially the Spanish/African/Native American mixture which is so very common. And it is such an intrinsic part of our genetic makeup, evidenced by the sheer variety of racial markers, often even between family members, that it seems petty and inaccurate to try and separate and check off each race individually. After so many generations of miscegenation, is "mixed" not a race unto itself?
Adding to the confusion are the cultural connotations behind race, and the conflation of cultural identity with racial background. According to the article's preface, the Afro-Latino Forum at NYU is advocating that Afro-Latinos mark "Black" on the Census. However, do the terms "Black," "African American," or "Negro" accurately describe our African lineage as Latinos? In the US, "Black" and "Negro" do not only imply race or literal skin color, they also imply "African American," African American culture, and the African American community, specifically. And that is not a heritage/culture/history that all African-descended people can necessary relate to.
I fear that Afro-Latinos marking "Black" on the Census may divide and dilute our Latino communities, which have our own history, lineage, and often, ancestry from very specific parts of Africa, that are separate from that of our African American brothers and sisters (as proud, admirable and parallel in many ways as their culture is to ours). And although I am aware that in other parts of the world, "Black" and "Negro" do not have a cultural meaning and are not interchangeable with "African American," this is still, after all, a US Census, not a global Census, so perhaps we should not use terms that have double meanings in our country. Yes, for ease's sake, we can take the Afro-Latino Forum's advice this time around, but I think we should push for a clearer term next Census - perhaps "African" or "African-descended"? Ah, the frustrations of semantics!
And what about those of us Latinos who think we can check off only one option under race (with "mixed" not being one of them) and be done with it? Really? I understand that the Census is based on "self-identifying," but if some of us are picking only "white," and others are picking only "black," and another contingent are picking only "American Indian," that implies a racial purity among individual Latinos that I do not believe is the truly accurate "snapshot" that the Census is trying to achieve. I know you cannot strong-arm people and tell them who or what they are, but somehow, I think we need to establish, if not as Latinos in general, then at least among our smaller subgroups that share a common general racial heritage (Caribbean Latinos, Central Americans, or even more specific populations, like country-by-country, or if necessary, community-by-community) how we are going to represent ourselves as a group.
We need a way to unify ourselves, not just culturally, but racially, so that when two "white" Latino parents have a "black" Latino child (because of mixing generations back), they are not marking off different races for different members of the same family; and so that genetically similar, yet unrelated, mixed individuals are not checking off random and different races from each other, just because of how they "feel." Which brings me back to the "mixed race" option - it may be the only way to unify such a diverse people while remaining accurate.
With the Latino population growing exponentially, and the need for our collective community to be better recognized in government proceedings, programs and legislation, I am happy that the Census Bureau is seemingly more aware of the differences between our people, with separate places to mark off race and Hispanic origin. But perhaps in recognizing our differences, the Census may also be losing sight of our similarities, and even inadvertently lumping some of us in with other ethnic groups.
Thus, I look forward to more accurate terms for the various races, as well as to more inclusive terms for those of us of mixed race. And I would encourage all Latinos to embrace their history, embrace their diversity, and in the absence of a "mixed" race option, to check off as many race options as are applicable, and especially not to assume that what they personally see in the mirror is all there is to their individual heritage. Because after all, "Y tu abuela, ¿donde esta?"
Desi Sanchez is an artist, musician, TV host & native New Yorker, born to Cuban and Dominican parents. Every week, Desi celebrates her fellow Latinos on the nationally syndicated TV show LatiNation, and enjoys imitating silly Monty Python clips and eating mail-order sugar-free chocolate in her free time. She can be contacted at desimanagement@gmail.com and her website is www.DesiSanchez.com.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs057/1101040629095/archive/1103039027393.html
Monday, February 8, 2010
Latinos farmers trying to sue USDA
NPR reports on an important story of discrimination that has not gotten much press: "In Texas and across the Southwest, Hispanic farmers have been fighting the Agriculture Department for close to a decade. The farmers say the department's Farm Services Agency discriminated against them — denying or delaying loans, and refusing to investigate when they cried foul. The government settled a similar complaint brought by African-American farmers for $1 billion. And while the claims of discrimination and other factors are almost identical, the Hispanic farmers have gotten nothing." (emphasis added).
For civil procedure buffs, the story is especially interesting because an important part of the Department of Agriculture's refusal to settle with the Hispanic farmers as a group turns on the denial of class certification of the Hispanic farmers. see Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2006), a decision of which they are seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court; Black farmers had obtained certification of a class and the discrimination claims were resolved on a class-wide basis. Given the court decision not to certify the class, the U.S. government has taken the position that it will settle the claims individually but not as a whole.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0120a5e883fc970b
MENENDEZ ON USDA DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HISPANIC FARMERS: NEED FOR LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS AND COMMON SENSE
Video of Menendez’s floor statement in the Senate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7q055renrI
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) yesterday stood on the Senate floor to urge the Administration to provide a settlement in the USDA discrimination lawsuit brought by Hispanic Farmers. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) stood in support of the farmers:
“Decades of indifference and discrimination in lending practices at the United States Department of Agriculture have made it difficult for minority farmers – specifically Hispanic farmers -- to make a living at what they love to do – leaving many no choice but to leave the farms and ranches they have tended all their lives.”
“These hard-working farmers, Hispanic families -- who bought a piece of land – built a family farm -- their small piece of the American dream – were wrongly denied loans and other benefits in violation of the Equal Opportunity Act by county committees that review Farm Service Administration credit and loan applications for approval..”
“Consequently, these farmers filed suit in the hope that it would change the discriminatory practices at the USDA – how it treated America’s minority farmers -- but under the Bush Administration nothing changed…”
Earlier this year $1.25 billion was allocated in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget to settle similar outstanding lawsuits by African American farmers in the Pigford v Glickman suit. Earlier this year, in letter to the president (http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/06202009USDAHispanicFarmersLetter.pdf , eight Senators reminded President Obama that the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 calls on the administration to resolve outstanding discrimination lawsuits against the USDA brought by Hispanic and other farmers in an expeditious and just manner.
The video of Senator Menendez’s remarks on the Senate floor are available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7q055renrI
For civil procedure buffs, the story is especially interesting because an important part of the Department of Agriculture's refusal to settle with the Hispanic farmers as a group turns on the denial of class certification of the Hispanic farmers. see Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2006), a decision of which they are seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court; Black farmers had obtained certification of a class and the discrimination claims were resolved on a class-wide basis. Given the court decision not to certify the class, the U.S. government has taken the position that it will settle the claims individually but not as a whole.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0120a5e883fc970b
MENENDEZ ON USDA DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HISPANIC FARMERS: NEED FOR LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS AND COMMON SENSE
Video of Menendez’s floor statement in the Senate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7q055renrI
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) yesterday stood on the Senate floor to urge the Administration to provide a settlement in the USDA discrimination lawsuit brought by Hispanic Farmers. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) stood in support of the farmers:
“Decades of indifference and discrimination in lending practices at the United States Department of Agriculture have made it difficult for minority farmers – specifically Hispanic farmers -- to make a living at what they love to do – leaving many no choice but to leave the farms and ranches they have tended all their lives.”
“These hard-working farmers, Hispanic families -- who bought a piece of land – built a family farm -- their small piece of the American dream – were wrongly denied loans and other benefits in violation of the Equal Opportunity Act by county committees that review Farm Service Administration credit and loan applications for approval..”
“Consequently, these farmers filed suit in the hope that it would change the discriminatory practices at the USDA – how it treated America’s minority farmers -- but under the Bush Administration nothing changed…”
Earlier this year $1.25 billion was allocated in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget to settle similar outstanding lawsuits by African American farmers in the Pigford v Glickman suit. Earlier this year, in letter to the president (http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/06202009USDAHispanicFarmersLetter.pdf , eight Senators reminded President Obama that the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 calls on the administration to resolve outstanding discrimination lawsuits against the USDA brought by Hispanic and other farmers in an expeditious and just manner.
The video of Senator Menendez’s remarks on the Senate floor are available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7q055renrI
Monday, February 1, 2010
No Vote, No Voice: Impact of Disenfranchisement on Communities of Color
Voting is one of the most fundamental rights we enjoy as citizens. The importance implores us all to consider: How could I lose that right? Who has lost that right? Why?
Latino and African-American communities experience these effects due to felony disenfranchisement and obstacles for immigrants (such as waiting lists to become a citizen, and ineligibility to vote while a permanent resident), to name a few. Most states do not allow individuals to vote while incarcerated and many states continue this ban after release, either during probation, parole and/or their entire lifetime. Because a disproportionate number of people of color are subjected to our criminal justice system, communities of color can be left without a meaningful voice when voting. This problem can be compounded where the Census calculates the populations of an area including those incarcerated. This can mean that rural districts with a large state prison can gain influence over the region, while the communities from where the inmates have come are left with fewer constituents. For example, in New York there are five counties with a district that derives more 20% of their population from prisoners. (http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/nycounties/) Even more alarming is that many people are not advised that they can regain their voting rights upon completion of probation or parole.
Check out this link to see a state-by-state picture of felony disenfranchisement: http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm
I am thrilled to have the opportunity to engage in a discussion with Juan Cartagena and Angelo Falcon, exploring disenfranchisement and political empowerment on a local and national level. See the following link for more information about the program: http://www.law.cuny.edu/clinics/JusticeInitiatives/clore/events-upcoming/NoVoteNoVoice.pdf
Welcome to our blog!
Welcome to the official launch of the CLORE blog! We'll be posting reactions, commentary, analysis and discussions of both CLORE-sponsored events and current issues affecting the Latino community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)