Podcasts about equal justice society

In this conversation we speak with four incredible guests from the BLIS (Black Liberation-Indigenous Sovereignty) Collective, Savannah Romero, Trevor Smith, George Galvis, and Lisa Holder. Trevor Smith (he/him) is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the BLIS Collective. He is a writer, researcher, and strategist focused on racial inequality, wealth inequality, reparations, and narrative change. Savannah Romero (she/her) is the Co-Founder and Deputy Director of the BLIS Collective. She is an enrolled member of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and serves as the Director of Communications and Narrative Strategy at Tahoma Peak Solutions. Previously, she served as the Manager of Movement Building and Organizing at IllumiNative, a racial and social justice organization dedicated to building power for Native people by amplifying contemporary Native voices, stories, and issues. (Your'e invited to read more about Trevor and Savannah here: https://www.bliscollective.org/team)Lisa Holder is President of the Oakland, Calif.-based Equal Justice Society. Known for her groundbreaking appointment as a member of the California Reparations Task Force and more than 20 years of experience as a civil rights litigator and scholar, Lisa has made EJS a leader and premier coalition partner in the reparations movement in California and nationally.  (Your'e invited to read more about Lisa here: https://equaljusticesociety.org/about/lisaholder/)George Galvis is the Co-founder and executive director of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ, pronounced “courage”). Since 1993, George Galvis has promoted restorative justice and healing to transform lives. (You're invited to read more about George here: https://curyj.org/our-people/george-galvis/)BLIS Collective: https://www.bliscollective.org

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Annie Lee moderates a panel with African and Asian Americans about the impacts of Birthright Citizenship and the need for Surviving Through Solidarity. Guests include: Lisa Holder, Ming Hsu Chen, Don Tamaki and Michael Harris.   Link to an APEX Episode on Wong Kim Ark from March 20, 2025 Show Transcript [00:00:00] Opening Music: Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   [00:00:40] Miko Lee: Welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we will listen to a recent event, Birthright Citizenship, Surviving Through Solidarity that took place at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Just yesterday, on April 1st, the Supreme Court heard the case around birthright citizenship. This event that you're gonna listen to was highlighting Asian and African American solidarity. As you might know, the cases of dread Scott in 1857 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 are linked as landmark Supreme Court cases that directly defined and redefined American citizenship specifically about race and birthright. While Dred Scott denied citizenship to people of African descent, Wong Kim Ark's case utilized the subsequent 14th Amendment to solidify birthright citizenship for children born to foreign nationals. I'm just noting that in this conversation, because it was a panel discussion that was live, there was some irregular use of microphones, so sometimes the audio can be a bit spotty. Please bear with us, and if you want to review the transcript, check out our website, kpfa.org, apex Express. And last year we also covered the story of Wong Kim Ark and have included this past show in our show notes. Now let's listen in to moderator Annie Lee, Lawyers Michael Harris and Don Tamaki, Lisa Holder of Equal Justice Society and Ming Chen of UC Law.   [00:02:20] Annie Lee: Everyone. My name is Annie Lee and I am the managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Welcome to CAA's office here in San Francisco, Chinatown. And thank you all for being here today for our discussion: Birthright Citizenship Surviving through Solidarity. CAA and Stop AAPI Hate are proud to co-sponsor this event because it matters to us. CAA has been around since 1969 and we are a community based organization that provides direct services to lingual working class Chinese immigrants. And we also try to improve their lives through policy and advocacy. And in 2020, we co-founded Stop AAPI Hate, which is the national leading aggregator of anti-Asian hate incidents. And we know at Stop AAPI Hate that anti-immigrant policies are anti-Asian hate. So why are we here right now? March marks two anniversaries of two Supreme Court cases. One is Dred Scott and the other is Wong Kim Ark. These are two seminal cases in US history. And next week on April 1st, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. So we are here to talk about birthright citizenship because it's an issue that is near and dear to both the Black and Asian communities.   [00:03:46] Without further ado, I am so thrilled to welcome this panel of amazing folks. Let's start with Michael Harris. Michael Harris here on my right is a retired attorney. He, for many, many years led the juvenile justice division at the National Center for Youth Law, an incredible litigator and advocates, and I'm so proud that he's here. He's also on the Equal Justice Society Board. Next to Michael is Don Tamaki. Don is a lawyer at the firm Minami Tamaki, and you might know him because he was part of the legal team that successfully got reparations for Japanese Americans after decades of fighting that injustice. So thank you Don. Don and Lisa, actually, spend time together on the California Reparations Task Force. And so this is Lisa Holder next to Don. Lisa is the president of the Equal Justice Society, which is based in Oakland, an incredible legal organization that has been in many, many fights, including, they filed an amicus brief in support of birthright citizenship, and that brief discusses why this is an issue for the Black community. And last but not least, we have Professor Ming Chen, who is a law professor at UC Law, and she's also the faculty director of the RICE Program, which is Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality. So thank you so much to my panel and let's dive in. So some of you know, but I am a former US history teacher, so I often worry that people don't adequately understand American history and I fear that people don't understand reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. So let's start with the origin of birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship and where did it come from and why does its origin matter for understanding what's happening today? So Ming, I'm gonna start with you because you're a law professor and then others chime in. Lisa, Michael, Don. 'cause I think you'll have more to add.   [00:05:45] Ming Chen: Great. Thank you so much Annie, and thank you to CAA for having us all. I'm really excited to be part of this conversation, which I think is going to be really the beginning of a series of conversations over the next few months. So you're starting in the right place, Annie, in asking us what birthright citizenship is, because that is the heart of what the common lawsuit will be about: who gets to be a citizen in the United States. And that's actually why I named my organization RICE. I think the emphasis is on the “C” [citizenship], because I do think it is something that brings together immigrant communities, as well as all of the different communities within the United States that have been expanding, over time. Getting to the, legal text I, I think it's important to remember first that birthright citizenship is bigger than the United States. Worldwide there are at least two ways of becoming a citizen. One is by birthright and the other is by naturalized citizenship. So we're talking about the birthright half. And the United States is not alone. It's among countries mostly in the Western hemisphere that have chosen to focus on the “jus soli” version of birthright citizenship, which is “soli” is soil. So it's birth by touching US soil. And the idea behind that theory was always meant to be an egalitarian one. It's one that is about the idea that anyone can become a citizen, right? In contrast to the older system that Europe and other countries use, “jus sanguinis,” which is to say that citizenship could only be inherited by blood and heritage. Right? So I think right from the very beginning, it tells us what the text and the history of our 14th amendment citizenship clause intended to accomplish, which was to have an egalitarian spirit, a fresh start, and a continual renewal of what it means to be an American.   [00:07:33] Lisa Holder: Just sort of continuing on the path that Ming just opened up for us, birthright citizenship is very much connected to the African American experience. Particularly because the genesis of that right, really was a reversal of the construct and the regime of the enslavement era, right? Everyone's aware that during that era, descendants of Africa were not considered humans, much less citizens. And the legal cases that were brought where people try to have their citizenship, and their humanity acknowledged, the courts universally said, no, you are not citizens and Black people have no rights that white people need to respect. Right. And so that was the case, law of the land until, after the Civil War, when we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments were lifted up and embedded into our laws. You also had the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where that body of law was overturned and enshrined into our constitution was a new law that said that freed people are citizens and they do have rights that everyone needs to respect and rights to equality. You know, we know that there have been problems executing that [laughs] but at least enshrined in our laws and enshrined in our constitution that is where the birthright citizenship, constitutional law came from. It came out of that experience.    [00:09:21] Michael Harris: I just want to add a couple things to that. I mean, it's very distinguished scholars, they're hitting it really hard. Two things, universality and so I wanna talk about that first. I got one more coming forward. It's universal. Birthright citizenship is universal. And what I mean by that is everybody gets to be a citizen who's born here in the United States. Period. It's universal, applies to everybody. It doesn't matter if you're Black or white or Asian, none of that matters. That's really important. The other thing is it's that this criteria is not something that's subjective, nobody gets to decide. It's automatic. If you're born here, you automatically have citizenship. Those two things being automatic and being universal I think are really important. And this, we'll talk about this more as we go through the conversation, but those two things are what makes birthright citizenship so powerful and why they keep coming to try and take it down because it's universal so everybody gets it and it's automatic. Nobody can take it away. So let's, we'll I'll just leave it there for now, but we'll come back to that.   [00:10:33] Annie Lee: Don, this one's for you. So the 14th Amendment passes in 1868. Like Lisa said, it's to reverse Dred Scott, where the Justice Taney wrote that Black people had no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And so they had to repudiate that through the 14th amendments, they have universal and automatic birthright citizenship with very, very few exceptions for like diplomats kids. Okay, that's like so, so narrow. So 14th Amendment passes in 1868, but it takes another 30 years for a Chinese American man named Wong Kim Ark to establish that birthright citizenship actually applied to the children of immigrants. So Don, can you tell us Wong Kim Ark's story, who was he, what happened to him and why did the federal rural government make him this test case?   [00:11:22] Don Tamaki: Just a couple words about context. I mean, one of the remarkable things about the case is it occurred during especially California's ultra racist, ultra virulent racist period. It's a contradiction in that regard. So just taking you back to the origins of where this racial pathology comes from, of course we focus, tend to focus on Asian American history, but actually you have to begin with Black history and indigenous history in the country. So in 1619, the first enslaved people were brought to America. And you know, 12 million people were kidnapped off the west coast of Africa. 2 million died during the middle passage. 400,000 were dropped off in America, and the million other millions ended up in the Caribbean, in the Brazil in Haiti, Jamaica, et cetera. And from there, slavery in America continued for 246 years. Two and a half centuries. Civil war happened in 1865. It concluded, and for another 100 years, Jim Crow exclusion infected America. And San Francisco, by the way, was heavily Jim Crow until the 1960s and into the 1970s. The vestiges of that exclusion and discrimination directly are rooted in the Black American experience.   [00:12:52] Michael Harris: And it's still present here today. That's why we have a Chinatown. That's why we have a Japantown in San Francisco because of what Don just did.    [00:13:00] Don Tamaki: Redlining and racial covenants.    [00:13:02] Michael Harris: That's right.    [00:13:03] Don Tamaki: Exclusions, redevelopment, and so on. So people think of California as being like a enlightened state. Well, California did enter the union in 1850 before the Civil War. 1849 enslavers came to California and they brought their human property with them. So there were probably at least 1500 enslaved people in California. 1865 Civil War ended, but Democrats in 1868 rose to power saying they would vote against any law that would have any equality between , Black Californians, indigenous people, and Chinese folks. And beginning toward late 1800s, that's when the bulk of Asian American immigration began. First Chinese American coming during the gold rush, and then Japanese Americans have followed and so on. And so, Jim Crow seeped into all that. Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. California was known as a strong Klan state by the end of the 1800s with strong Ku Klux Klan chapters in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, San Jose, Anaheim and so on. And so this was a toxic stew that Chinese immigrated into and other groups too. So unsurprisingly, tons of anti-Asian legislation policies, exclusion, follow. So Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who lived and operated a business here. His parents continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, and then they departed for China. Probably no doubt because of the inhospitable conditions here. And racial terror was part of that, including the race riots here in Chinatown. And now that I mention it between 1865 to 1935, 352 people were lynched in California. Eight of those were Black Californians, but the rest were indigenous, Chinese, and persons of Mexican descent.   [00:15:18] So that was the environment. Wong Kim Ark continued to live in California into his twenties, reportedly working as a cook in San Francisco. And at the age of 21 he actually made two trips to China. He made a trip to China when he was 17 to visit his parents. Stayed there a year, came back without incident worked, came back here, worked till he was 21, then went back to China to visit his parents at that point. And when he attempted to reenter the United States, he was denied entry and detained with a threat of deportation upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. Of course he was born here. So the issue was you know, birthright citizenship was the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did it apply to Wong Kim Ark. And the interesting thing is about the case is that the court ruled in his favor. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And those words are now, today becomes crucial. And people, I think we on the panel will talk about the implications of that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it established this principle that basically was reaffirmed repeatedly throughout our history for this 100 year plus period. To get to your last question, why did the court do this? I think scholars smarter than me can explain this, but I'll give you some clues. The court ruled in Wong Kim Ark's favor despite the virulent context of the era, because that's what the plain and expansive language of the 14th Amendment says.   [00:17:02] All persons didn't say formally enslaved, didn't say Black Americans. It said all persons. That's what the plain expensive language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says: all persons and as Lisa referred to. And the congressional record of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1862, where legislators are debating these issues they clearly understood, and the record shows that if you include this expansive language, it will apply to groups like Chinese and Asians. And so with that understood it was adopted and ratified in 1868, 14th Amendment, and it was reaffirmed in other legislation like the Immigration Act of 1940. They just assumed that if you're born in this country, you're an American citizen. It was applied throughout the turbulent history involving my community, Japanese Americans. As you recall, 1942, 125,000 people were rounded up and put in concentration camps and the first generation were ineligible to become citizens. They were given identity cards marking them as enemy aliens. 2000 people died in those camps, but people were born in those camps. And the government, despite the fact that we were at war with Japan, understood that if you're born in this country. And even if your parents were quote, “enemy aliens,” you're gonna be classified as American citizens. And maybe lastly, the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark because the 14th Amendment was trying to repair the harm done by Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was to provide human beings who've been here for two and a half centuries, the right to become an American citizen with all the benefits that go with that, like voting for instance. And recognizing that if you don't have those rights, you don't have anything, you are you, you're nothing. And for Japanese Americans, for instance, who are born in those camps, can you imagine if they didn't have birthright citizenship? They're not part of Japan. They're not part of America. Where are they? They're stateless. They have no home. They have no rights. And so it would create another underclass of people who have no rights for, and for which the 14th Amendment was trying to remedy which was you know, to provide a pathway. And so I guess you could say that's why, that's the incongruity of why Wong Kim Ark came out that way. In my opinion.   [00:19:59] Ming Chen: Maybe what I could add to the conversation is not just sort of who is included but who is not included. Because I think that's actually a much more small and specific group than the current dialogue would have you believe. So in the very language of the 14th Amendment, this idea of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It refers to three exceptions and only three exceptions. One is for Native Americans, and that is because as of 1924 there wasn't a need to grant citizenship through the 14th Amendment because there were other provisions to grant citizenship to Native Americans. The second exception is for those who are children of diplomats. And the reason for that is because they have citizenship in their home country and their parents are only on a temporary post to the United States with the understanding that they're here in the United States in service to their home country. And I think that actually points to the limited meaning of the third exception, which is the one that I have to say, I have a really hard time understanding is part of the debate now. Because I think up until now, you know, this debate renews itself a couple times every year. Every time there's a new census, every time there's redistricting on all of the anniversaries, and usually the fight is about subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the third exception, which has come into the dialogue, is about the language of accepting children of invading armies. And that is one that I have not thought we needed to argue about. It really becomes a touch point as Don mentions this history with internment and the children of a group of enemy aliens. I think that gives it a whole new historical read.   [00:21:48] But one of the reasons that this argument, I guess I should first explain the argument because it may not be obvious to you as it was not obvious to me the first time I heard it, which was about 18 months ago. And so the argument is that the children of invading armies referring mostly to the children of immigrants coming across the US Mexico border should not be considered birthright citizens. So that's kind of what the public debate, what the insinuation is behind some of the current effort to chip away at Wong Kim Ark through the executive order. There have been many efforts to chip away through legislation. I don't know how frequently it's been attempted through constitutional amendment, which is what it would actually require. That's a very, very high bar that's almost never met. I think most people haven't really made a serious, serious effort there. But what I think is kind of stunning to me in the sort of momentum behind the current moment is that Judge Ho who himself is a birthright citizen. Took up this language and this argument about the children of invading armies after previously saying that he agreed with this interpretation that children of undocumented immigrants, children of temporary visas all of these different legal statuses in addition to all of these racial groups, would immediately be citizens. And the argument he tried to make is that it wouldn't include the group at the border because historically it wouldn't have included enemy aliens or invading aliens either. And I think that what is so surprising to me is that a) that there is meant to be this historical analog between what would've been happening at the time of the Civil War and what is happening now at the US Mexico border. We are not having a civil war. We are not in active military conflict at the US Mexico border. I'll set aside other US military conflicts and how we wanna use that terminology. But I think that's really important because I, I feel like it's almost a trick, you know, to turn what is a media frame that's meant to be like clickbait, right? The idea that there is an invasion at the border, right. That we're being flooded with people who don't belong here. And to try to turn that into a legal argument saying this is actually an invading army and that takes this group outside of the 14th Amendment.    [00:24:19] Michael Harris: That's, I was gonna ask you a follow up question because we haven't been invaded that many times by armies I mean, maybe the War for Independence when the British sent ships over and took over Boston for a while. I could see how if they had kids, I mean, that's a stretch, that might apply to this. But I think the rhetorical device, they're touching on where they speak of people who come into the United States without proper documentation as an invading army or an invading whatever. They use that terminology quite often. Is that enough to bootstrap into this exception?    [00:24:59] Ming Chen: I, not to me, [audience and panel laughter] I think not to serious legal scholars and jurists. I mean, and you know, I'm not trying to be inflammatory by saying that. I think there are a lot of people who are pretty far away from me on a legal and political spectrum who would also say that this argument is pretty unprecedented. To try to say that that would be enough to bootstrap it into the actual text of the constitution or the spirit of Wong Kim Ark. So I think it's going really, really far. And I think too far, and I hope that if that becomes a line of discussion during the oral argument, that it would be cut off pretty quickly.   [00:25:38] Annie Lee: Well, let me punt it to Lisa then. If it's pretty clear based on the text, based on the legislative history, based on, just everything in the last 125 years that has said very clearly that birthright citizenship is universal and automatic. Why is Trump doing this? Like, what is being attempted legally, but also politically? And Lisa, you take a stab at this first and then others can chime in.    [00:26:04] Lisa Holder: Yeah. You know, why is Trump doing this? [audience and panel laughter] There's many layers, you know? And it, this is a strategic play and you have to sort of think about this in a layered way. Like there's a long term strategic play. There's a short term strategic play, there's a procedural strategic play, but that sort of bootstraps and brings in a much more moral and narrative rhetorical play. Procedural play. The short term strategic play has a lot to do with the midterm elections. Right, right. And also limiting people of color's ability to pick people who look like them as their representatives. Right. Because all of a sudden you're not only putting into question people's citizenship based on birth and turning this into a lineage thing where you have to bring me proof that your parents or their parents were born here or something like that, or were naturalized. So you're starting to put into question in a practical measure, people's access to the franchise, people's access to the voting booth. Right. And you're also starting to create a chain effect. So people are actually afraid to go to the voting booth. Right. And then you couple that with moving the migration of ICE. Now ICE is in the airports. Guaranteed by November, ICE will be in the voting booth, right? So you create this chilling effect. And then in terms of having representation that looks like you having people of color represent you in the US House of Representatives, your state representative. When you put birthright into question in this way, you're also gonna be able to challenge people who are running for office, people of color, running for office and say, well, you can't really run because you need to prove. And that is a rhetorical issue that we have seen being used already with both Harris and Obama, you know, because they were brown, Black people. Their birthright citizenship was, they were manipulating that rhetoric and that narrative.   [00:28:25] So this is not coming out of the outta left field. It's iterative and it's a it's rhetoric that has been, you know, percolating up for a long time. This is just a culminating moment. The long term strategy is really about white supremacy. We know that, you know, all of the social science shows that in 20 years this, the country will be a majority minority country, right? And people of color will have a huge amount of power in terms of, you know, in terms of the vote, right? Because of that, switch to majority minority and white people will be in the minority. And so, this is about, from a long term perspective, ensuring that certain people maintain their power as an electoral block. Right? So that's sort of like a long term electoral politics play. And then finally, the procedural issues are what's outstanding, okay? As Ming mentioned, if you are going to use procedure to overturn a constitutional amendment that is a, an astronomical feat to accomplish, right? Because you need two thirds of all of the representatives in Congress, and then on top of that, you need 75% of the states to ratify that process. So overturning a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible. But what we have here is trying to do the same thing. One person trying to do the same thing using the powers of the executive office. It is unprecedented. It is absurd. It has no legal viability, but it is a political moment where this man sees an opportunity because of the bias that we see in the judicial branch, in the court system. And that is being leveraged for the executive to to do something that is unprecedented and that is actually procedurally impossible, right? For one person by just signing a document all of a sudden disenfranchising 13 million people. That is not the democratic process. It's quite the opposite.   [00:30:38] Michael Harris: I just wanted to add to that. The Senate and the House of Representatives are both very narrowly controlled by the Republicans, and so it's really important to Trump to maintain that control. He'll only be able to continue doing these outrageous things by virtue of getting a rubber stamp from Congress. And so either house going the other way would put a stop sign in front of him and make it much more difficult for him to do all those things. All this money he's spending he would not be able to do that if Congress was actually active in doing it's job. Cause under the Constitution, spending is supposed to be controlled by the Congress, not by the Executive. So everything's upside down, but that's only working because Congress is allowing him to do that and not trying to stop him. If the Democrats are able to take over the Senate or the House where there's only a three or four seat margin right now that would make it much, much, much harder for him to pull these things off. And so anything he can do to get an advantage in that way I think is also part of what they're trying to do and trying to pull off.   [00:31:48] Ming Chen: One other thought, and you know, I'm trying very hard to not be professorly in the sense of using jargon or highfalutin terms, but I'm just curious, has anyone in this room heard the term perpetual foreigner before? A few of you have, I mean, I think it's really pertinent here. The first time I heard of this idea was when I started to learn from other Asian American law professors when I was still in college. I think that idea was that for certain groups of people, including Asian Americans, it doesn't matter whether you are actually a citizen by law or how many generations you've lived in the United States, right? So I'm a birthright citizen like Wong Kim Ark, but I think the first time I heard about it was, you know, this idea of Asian Americans not being able to be Americans socially in terms of belonging regardless of whether they are themselves, the child of citizens or immigrants and if they're the sixth generation children, right. I remember taking a Chinatown tour with David and is that where we are about six generations out for a lot of the descendants. So even if you were in the sixth generation that if you look Asian, that you will still be seen as being foreign. And so I think that idea has animated a lot of the work that I do. Like why it is that a lot of the work I do on race centers Asian Americans and then a lot of the work I do on immigrants centers, the naturalization process.   [00:33:16] But I think it's also important to recognize the breadth of that idea. Again, this idea of trying to blur the line between actuality, like what is real and what sounds like a fancy argument. Right. And I think what Lisa said, you know, her brief reference to the challenges against Barack Obama and Kamala Harris when they were running for a highest offices. You know, I think again, there's not, it's not a coincidence. I mean, to me that's the perpetual foreigner at work again. Because it's the idea that not only that Black people cannot possibly be the leader of this country, right? Sort of the, the figurehead of this country, but that for Barack Obama, the child of one international student on a lawful, probably f visa at the time, or that for Kamala Harris, the child of two lawful immigrants, that they cannot be birthright citizens that would be eligible for president. So there's a lot of commonality in that argument. And I think, you know, people forget, I think people assume that if you're talking about groups who are not Asian right, or who are not Latinx, that we're not talking about foreignness, we're only talking about race. And certainly we are talking about race, but we're not talking about it exclusively.   [00:34:33] Michael Harris: And then in addition to all of that is just the straight up racism of it. And that's supported by this notion of white supremacy. And what I mean when I say that, Lisa has touched on this already, is that there is a hierarchy of racial groups. And we're not all created equal. There's a hierarchy and the top group is, you already know, I don't have to say it, is the whites [laughter], and then below that are the other people like us who look different. And the reason there's, they're able to put these groups out there and get people to buy into that belief system is because we look different. And so this is why the perpetual thing is perpetual it's because we still look different. And that is a key part of the white supremacy. They still want to buy into this notion that white people are superior. And the only way they can make that work is by saying that people who look different are inferior.   [00:35:34] Annie Lee: I love this discussion because it's so real. And what you are saying essentially is you're talking about belonging and you're talking about power. Like who gets to belong in America? And then that is necessarily connected with who has power in America, who deserves to have power in America. But I know that we all belong in America and that we have power. So I wanna shift this conversation now to what can we do? And so beyond the courts everybody tune in next week. But beyond the courts, what is the role of community organizing, state and local policy advocacy? Public education in defending birthright citizenship and fighting against the attack on birthright citizenship is one sliver of everything that he has done. So many executive orders that came out on day one. So how, how do we, as everyday people fight white supremacy? What can we do when they are redistricting and trying to take away our franchise right before the midterm elections? What do we do when they're using courts that they've already packed with their federal society judges? And so what, what can an average regular person do? And Don I'm gonna go to you first.    [00:36:47] Don Tamaki: Let me say something in a very far less intellectual way than my colleagues here. This is a very old playbook. The playbook of demagoguery is very old. He said the old is humanity. And there are three elements to that playbook. One, appeal to prejudice, however, that is, race, skin, color, religion, whatever. Secondly, fear monger and scapegoat. And thirdly trafficking, conspiracy theories, fake news, false information, erasure of history. That's how you control the culture. And it worked in 1619. It worked in 1882. It worked in Germany in 1933. And it works today, you know, 2016, 2020. You know, when Chinese were blamed as spreaders of the Chinese virus. Asian Americans, when Mexicans were characterized as drug dealers and rapists when Jews and immigrants were portrayed as replacing good white people. This dehumanizing [of] people where one more Black man killed during an encounter with law enforcement barely evokes a shrug because it is so normal. It is so normal, folks, and so it works. And so, you have the candidate Trump running for office and say to a national audience that, to the people of Springfield, Ohio, that Haitian immigrants are eating your dogs and cats and getting away with it. Or the images of the Obamas transposed on cartoon apes. And this is really Jim Crow stuff. This is Antebellum stuff. And it's a recycling of the same playbook. And so the first part of organizing is being aware of what's going on. This is not a new thing. Okay, it's just a racial pathology that churns in one form or another, and it has an origin. It predates us. And so I, I think part of that is educating ourselves how everything is interconnected.   [00:38:58] And since we're talking about Black Asian solidarity, I'll just say a couple things. I mean, the civil rights movement had three triumphs that we all should remember. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of '65 began the dismantling of Jim Crow, which I, as I said, was a hundred year phenomenon following the end of the Civil War and the Immigration of Act of 1965. The third act. It ended as, you know, racist quotas. It prioritized family ties and skills and it greatly increased Asian immigration. As a result, the majority of AAPIs today are post 1965 Americans whose very presence here was made possible by the Black Civil Rights Movement. How many of us know that, you know? I mean, everybody focuses not everybody, but people tend to focus on their own peculiar predicament as if it's unique to our own situation. And in fact, it's all, quite connected. So I think part of this organizing process is realizing, you know, it's Martin Luther King, the oft quoted statement where he says we may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. And especially in connection with what's happening and, and you're seeing it in different parts of the country where sure, immigrants are being targeted in Minneapolis, but then you have thousands of Minneapolitans that, you know, ordinary people, business folks, teachers, laborers, protesting in Sub-Zero weather against what, what happened? And, and yeah. You know what, can we do protest work? I hope everybody's out there on March 28th, you know, this Saturday on the No Kings March.    [00:40:51] Michael Harris: Not just protesting, running them out of town.    [00:40:55] Don Tamaki: Well, [audience and panel laughter] Gregory Bovino, Gregory Bovino, who was the leading charge? Gone. Kristi Noem. Gone.    [00:41:03] Michael Harris: Yes, right.    [00:41:05] Don Tamaki: 2000 ICE agents in Minneapolis reduced to much smaller numbers. That's right. Their plans then launching Ohio trashed. You know, so that's why you, so boycotts, boycotts work. Ask Elon Musk. Ask Target. Local elections, Michael mentioned the midterm elections. It is if we don't, if Democrats don't get back the House, the country's cooked. So, I mean, everybody should be involved one way or the other in that. Raising money, you know, we are part of a, a fundraising group called CAPA21, and there are other groups out there, but those are, those things are crucial to funnel money toward swing elections and critical races. The education part I think is essential. If you consider the velocity change in terms of the civil rights movement, Japanese American redress and reparations was a 20 year movement. And it was full of education of the public. Civil rights movement, same thing. The philosophy of change on marriage equality or LGBTQ rights and all those things happened because they became normal. They were, they started out as ideas that people thought were preposterous. You know, that'll never change.    [00:42:26] Michael Harris: Right.    [00:42:26] Don Tamaki: And Jim Crow will never end. And San Francisco can segregate Asian Americans within Japantown and Chinatown. It, it will never change. But that idea of change, which were thought preposterous happens. But it requires civic engagement. So just examples.   [00:42:46] Michael Harris: I want to amplify two things that Don said. One is there will be a march this Saturday a No Kings March, and it's really, really important for people to show up for that march. ‘Cause the one thing that's devastating to a government is to have its people out there visible on the streets saying what the government is doing is wrong. Because you can spin certain things, you can lie about certain things, but bodies in the streets you can't lie about. It's there and it's real. So that's one thing that's really important, really. But I would encourage all of you if you can, if you are able, please join us and come out on Saturday. The other thing I want to add to the Don's excellent list is there's a few groups in the Bay Area and in San Francisco that does postcards. And their strategy is they identify particular jurisdictions where it's a very close race and it'll be pivotal if a Democrat can win over a Republican, say in a House or maybe even like the Texas Senator race. That one's probably gonna be very close too. And they send postcards to people encouraging them to vote. Don't sit it out. And those extra votes can be the difference between winning and losing. And that might flip the House might flip the Senate. So those are some other additional items.    [00:44:11] Ming Chen: I think at a much more basic level, it's just like telling, telling your story, telling the story of America. Because, you know, when we talk about all these rhetorical tricks, I mean, I think what it means is that that narrative is gaining a lot of power. And so I think you have to reclaim the narrative, right? You have to tell the counter story which happens to be the real story of what's happening. This is something that I actually haven't talked about this publicly, but my daughter she's like on the brink of being 13, not yet a teenager. It made me really sad that she came back from her well-funded, pretty liberal public school about a month ago crying because she said that in her Mandarin Chinese class, there was a child who was saying that Asian people eat dogs. And then writing swastikas on the chalkboard and singing Nazi songs making fun of the women in the room, I guess they're girls in the room saying that they're all lesbian without knowing anything about them. And it just made me really profoundly sad because I'd like to think that a lot of ignorant narrative is because people don't know better, right? I mean, as an educator, I hope that education will simply solve it. And it made me really sad to hear that again. You know, I'm, I'm on the brink of Berkeley. I basically live in Berkeley, right? So one of the most densely populated PhD overeducated people in America. And to be three generations in and to still have this story being told in the classrooms was really distressing to me. And even more distressing that it isn't just the like Chinese people that eat dogs as being a stereotype from those who are not educated, but it's something she might have heard on TV from the highest offices in the land, right? Something she might've heard the vice president say, for example. And so I just think it's so important and doesn't take education, doesn't take a law degree, right? To be able to tell that story. And so I was really, really proud that my daughter you know, did file a complaint with the principal that she came home and told us about it. And you know, her two parents who are civil rights and immigration lawyers, [laughter] but also that she's been like talking to her classmates right, about the fact that that's not true. That's not right. She's been comforting the other kids in the classroom who don't share the same background that she does. And I feel like that kind of work is just as important.    [00:46:45] Michael Harris: I want to add something to that. We have to take note of the fact that a lot of these types of comments really vile, racist things and not just about Asians, it's also some of the things about Black people, young people are saying. Part of it is because it's very easy to say things like that online because you can do it anonymously and not have to, you know, stand up and back up your comments, so to speak. And another part of it is our culture. We gotta be real about this. When I was growing up, I'm sure you were told this too, as the country became more educated and got more exposed to people of color and more people got higher education, all this crazy stereotypical racist stuff would go away because people would know better. That's what they told me the whole time I was growing up and now we know that's not true [audience laughter] because the reverse is happening. It's growing because some people are making money by putting stuff like that online and selling t-shirts and hats and stuff like that. Or starting, you know, whatever they start. There's this guy, Alex Jones, who made millions of dollars doing that kind of stuff. So some people are making money off of it. Other people are just buying into that ideological tip and are using that to gain power and influence and clicks. So we just have to be aware that this is a current going on in our society right now. And it's happening and it's growing and we, we need to be aware of it and start thinking about ways how we can put it to rest. Cause it's, it's happening.    [00:48:30] Annie Lee: Thank you so much. I do wanna give our audience some time to ask any questions that you all might have. So if you have a burning question to ask our illustrious panel now is your opportunity.   [00:48:45] Audience member: I was wondering how does this with, with the rhetoric of, of Washington pushing for IDs for voting how will that impact on people's presence at the voting booths and validating their ability to vote?   [00:49:04] Michael Harris: I think what you're referring to is the Safeguard [SAVE America] Act is now in Congress, and if it's passed and signed by the president, then it'll become law. And what it will require is anyone who wants to vote will have to have a photo ID. And even if you registered, you have to prove you're a citizen. So those two steps are, I think, designed to suppress the vote of people of color. I mean, I think it's very straightforward. This has been what Republicans have been trying to do for ever since the case that Don just mentioned passed and they were able to start doing this stuff. And I agree. It goes back to the notion that in 20 years, America's going to be a majority minority country. There's gonna be more people of color than white people. And I think that I'm just gonna come out and say that freaks them out. It really freaks 'em out. I think a lot of them have lived their whole lifetime where only white people were in charge, running stuff, and they can envision a future not too far off where that might not be the case anymore. And that's scary. It shouldn't be. I mean, we're all the same. It's all gonna be, you know, and there's Black Republicans and Black Democrats and there's Asian Republican. I don't know why they're so freaked out about it, but but they are freaked out about it. And a lot of this is to suppress the vote so that they can continue to stay in power and will not have to give up the power that they would lose otherwise.   [00:50:35] Lisa Holder: Yeah, I mean, it's always been about limiting the franchise, right? And since the time that it expanded beyond white males with property, there's been a battle to keep it as limited as possible. You know? And when you think about what happened after the Civil War, after the 13th, 14th, and particularly the 15th Amendment were passed and African Americans were allowed to vote, you had a 100 year backlash. Where 10,000 African Americans were murdered and lynched. Most of those were people who were trying to mobilize their communities to enter into the franchise and exercise the right to vote. That's the retrenchment that we're seeing being reiterated right now. Right. And we know that during that period, there were all kinds of hoops that, for instance, Black people had to jump through because of those Black Codes where you had to, for instance, prove that you can read this particular statement. Right. Or, you know, just like all kinds of random hoops that you had to jump through. And so when we see these barriers, these gatekeepers, like, oh, you have to have an ID. If this birthright citizenship goes through, no, no, no you can't bring in your birth certificate. You know, we need some proof of your parent, of your lineage. Right. And it's really is combined with that narrative and that rhetorical aspect, that Ming was articulating because although in fact we are America. America looks like us, Americans look like us. The alternative narrative where white predominance is the point is always going to be pushed where no, no, no, we are different. We are not normal and we are not America. And so that's, that's the narrative piece that all of this leads to. And that's why this story of storytelling that Ming talked about is so important. And also it is so important to just constantly push back to resist, to vote. To run for office when you look like an American.   [00:52:45] Audience member: My question is, if the executive order passes, what can we do to resist? Because one of the things is it will also disenfranchise women because it's about proving your identity that matches your birth certificate. Right. And there are really so many people that will not have their names to match their identities. And so what can people do to, to, to counter if that should happen?   [00:53:11] Don Tamaki: The legislative answer? Well, there'll be court challenges, no doubt    [00:53:15] Audience member: but, but before, let's say the midterm election.   [00:53:18] Michael Harris: Call your representative, fax 'em, email 'em, get your friends to do that, because it's pending in Congress right now.   [00:53:25] Don Tamaki: But elections have consequences is the point. And it people who says, well my vote doesn't count, doesn't matter. Everybody, both parties the same. Elections have consequences. I, I guess the only other thing to remember, I keep, you know, repeating this, the solidarity and connectedness bears repeating because the story keeps recycling. It's very recycled story about voter suppression. You know, the Civil War ended in 1865, 12 years of reconstruction. Lincoln is assassinated shortly after during the beginning of reconstruction and thereafter, you know, a deal was struck in the contested election of 1876. Federal troops are withdrawn from the south and then the voter suppression comes in literacy tests, poll taxes.   [00:54:19] Annie Lee: Mm-hmm. Grandfather clauses.   [00:54:21] Don Tamaki: Yeah. I mean in Virginia. During reconstruction 140,000 formerly enslaved people registered to vote after the collapse of reconstruction it was reduced to 21,000. California had you know, poll taxes. Other states had literacy tests and whatever, and it's now repeating because folks don't like the results of an election. The answer is not to, you know, broaden your net and appeal to upfront (?) policy. The answer is to suppress voting, stop people from voting. And so again, it's a matter of awareness I think we have to realize the game plan. And it makes it so important about who is voted into the dials and levers of the controls that run the country. So that's critical.    [00:55:13] Ming Chen: I can jump onto that. go vote. But I think it's also, you know, it's early enough to say, get your documents in order. Right? Go and be ready to vote in a way that won't draw question, right? So you don't have to wait for the lawsuit. And I will say for that, as someone who spends most of my days working with 20 something year olds who move all over the country, a lot of it is about sort of get your ducks in order, right? So if you don't have a driver's license with the current address that matches your name, you can fix that now. So many people who don't have a normal ID because they never learn how to drive, right? So make sure you go get that document. You mentioned marriage, Anna, and I remember I moved to New York at the same time that I got married and trying to get my name on the document when I was it, you know, it's like this endless loop, right? Because you're getting a new ID because of your address. If you don't have that, you can't get your social security card, if you don't have that you can't validate the marriage certificate, right? There's just this endless loop. And you have to get all of that in order, right? So I think maybe there needs to be two parts to our voter mobilization this year, right? It's get yourself ready, sort of like arm up and then vote so that your vote will actually end up counting.    [00:56:33] Miko Lee: Please check out our website, kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about our show and our guests tonight. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is produced by Ayame Keane-Lee, Anuj Vaidya, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Jalena Keane-Lee, Miko Lee, Miata Tan, Preti Mangala-Shekar and Swati Rayasam. Tonight's show was produced by me Miko Lee, and edited by Ayame Keane-Lee. Have a great night.   The post APEX Express – 4.2.26 – Surviving Through Solidarity. appeared first on KPFA.

In his second term as president, Donald Trump has dismantled programs that promote equality, fired Black officials from high ranking positions, and has empowered white nationalists. Social justice activists have long known that progress is uneven and often retracts, so what does the fight for civil rights look like today? On the day America commemorates Martin Luther King Jr., we reflect on his legacy and the state of our civil rights and social justice movements. Guests: Jelani Cobb, staff writer, The New Yorker; professor of journalism, Columbia University; his most recent book is, "Three or More Is a Riot: Notes on How We Got Here: 2012-2025" Eva Paterson, retired, former co-founder and president, Equal Justice Society; now runs a film production company called Joy and Magic Nicole Lee, executive director, Urban Peace Movement - a grassroots racial justice organization in Oakland focused on leadership development for young people to prevent violence and mass incarceration Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We flashback to the final story in a 7-part series in support of reproductive rights. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024.Today's story is by Nicole Walker whose story tells us everything we need to know about why she writes and why she wrote this story. When she wrote about her abortion at 11 in the New York Times, all the shame she carried for more than forty years melted away. This is why we write. Nicole Walker is an English professor at Northern Arizona University and the author of 8 books. You can find Nicole on Facebook, Twitter @nikwalkotter, Instagram @nikwalker28, and her website nikwalk.com.This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olam at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aiden Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.

This is the final story in a 7-part series in support of reproductive rights. On election day, Floridians will have the opportunity to vote Yes on 4 to get rid of a near-total abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v. Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. As the country gears up for the election on November 5, 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight what the current ban limits and excludes, and how this ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on amendment 4) is not only important but will also save lives. We know this sounds counter intuitive, but abortion saves lives. Click here to support Yes on 4 and please stay tuned.Today's story is by Nicole Walker whose story tells us everything we need to know about why she writes and why she wrote this story. When she wrote about her abortion at 11 in the New York Times, all the shame she carried for more than forty years melted away. This is why we write. Nicole Walker is an English professor at Northern Arizona University and the author of 8 books. You can find Nicole on Facebook, Twitter @nikwalkotter, Instagram @nikwalker28, and her website nikwalk.com.This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olam at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aiden Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This is the sixth story in a 7-part series in support of reproductive rights. On election day, Floridians will have the opportunity to vote Yes on 4 to get rid of a near-total abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v. Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. As the country gears up for the election on November 5, 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight what the current ban limits and excludes, and how this ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on amendment 4) is not only important but will also save lives. We know this sounds counter intuitive, but abortion saves lives. Click here to support Yes on 4 and please stay tuned.Today's story is by Derick Cook who describes his wife's near-death experience when doctors sent her home after her water broke at 16 weeks. Derick's wife should have gotten an abortion right away, but because her fetus still had cardiac activity and she wasn't yet on the verge of death, her doctor was afraid to offer common-sense care. This story is tragic, but it has a happy ending. Derick Cook is a high school football champ, drummer, and guitar player. Because of what Derick's wife went through, Derick has become an activist. He told us he wants to write a book. I hope he does. Find Derick on Facebook.This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olam at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aidan Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This is the fifth story in a 7-part series in support of reproductive rights. On election day, Floridians will have the opportunity to vote Yes on 4 to get rid of a near-total abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v. Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. As the country gears up for the election on November 5, 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight how Florida's current 6-week abortion ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on Amendment 4) is not only important but will also save lives. We know this sounds counter intuitive, but abortion saves lives. Click here to support Yes on 4 and please stay tuned.Today's story is by Dr. Cecilia Grande, an OB-GYN in Miami, Florida. Her story is about how the current abortion laws are prohibiting her and her colleagues from giving standard care to her patients and tragically, women are dying. Dr. Grande lists the exceptions provided by the law, but walks us through why these exceptions are grossly inadequate and why even the exception for rape and incest does not protect rape victims unless they report their rape and can provide a court order. The exceptions, in short, are cruel. Dr. Cecilia Grande has been a practicing physician in Miami for 30 years.The Yes on 4 campaign is taking the full live show, Our Abortion Stories, on the road. Join us in a city near you:Tour Dates:Tallahassee, Oct. 24Jacksonville, Oct. 25Orlando, Oct. 26Ft. Lauderdale, Oct. 28Click on the city for tickets and theater locations.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aidan Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olam at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This is the fourth story in a 7-part series in support of reproductive rights. On election day, Floridians will have the opportunity to vote Yes on 4 to get rid of a near-total abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v. Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. As the country gears up for the election on November 5, 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight what the current ban limits and excludes, and how this ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on amendment 4) is not only important but will also save lives. We know this sounds counter intuitive, but abortion saves lives. Click here to support Yes on 4 and please stay tuned.Today's story is by Nilsa Ada Rivera. Nilsa's story shows what someone living on the street goes through when she learns she's pregnant and wants to have a baby. In Nilsa's case, the fetus had severe health problems and Nilsa had to make the hard decision to terminate the pregnancy. Nilsa is Catholic and until recently struggled with her decision. Ultimately she believes God is the only entity that can judge her. She's been on the podcast before when she wrote about hearing loss. For more Nilsa, here's Episode 29 and Episode 107. Nilsa Ada Rivera is a housing analyst and writer. Nilsa and I have been in writing groups together for about 15 years. She is coming out with her first book in 2025 about affordable housing. You can find Nilsa Rivera on Instagram @nilsawrites and Facebook.This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olam at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aidan Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This is the third story in a 7-part series in support of reproductive rights. On election day, Floridians will have the opportunity to vote Yes on 4 to get rid of a near-total abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v. Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. As the country gears up for the election on November 5, 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight what the current ban limits and excludes, and how this ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on amendment 4) is not only important but will also save lives. We know this sounds counter intuitive, but abortion saves lives. Click here to support Yes on 4 and please stay tuned.Today's story is by Matt Tente. Matt's story is in the epistolary form, which means it was told in the form of a letter. Matt comes with a perspective about how healthcare could be handled if we in Florida work hard enough to win Yes on 4. We found Matt's story on HuffPost, where it was published in a longer form. Matt Tente is a screenwriter and portrait photographer who came in from California where he lives with his wife and one-year-old son. You can find him on Instagram @matttenteheadshots. This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olam at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aiden Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This is the second story in a 7-part series in support of reproductive rights. On election day, Floridians will have the opportunity to vote Yes on 4 to get rid of a near-total abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v. Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. As the country gears up for the election on November 5, 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight what the current ban limits and excludes, and how this ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on amendment 4) is not only important but will also save lives. We know this sounds counter intuitive, but abortion saves lives. Click here to support Yes on 4 and please stay tuned. Today's story is by Nicole Crooks and is titled The Shade of Our Grandmothers' Trees. Nicole tells the story of sexual molestation and rape. Neither the abuse nor the rape were described, but there is mention of both. If this is a difficult subject for you to hear about, please skip this episode. In Nicole's story she grapples with reporting her rape and ultimately doesn't, just as the women she counseled ultimately didn't report theirs.Nicole Crooks is a coach and consultant who is committed to black women's well-being and building community. You can find Nicole on Instagram at @IamnicolecrooksThis event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olam at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aiden Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today, we are starting a new series in support of reproductive rights–specifically Yes on 4 here in Florida to get rid of a near-total abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v. Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage in front of 400 people at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. As the country gears up for the election on November 5, 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight what the current ban limits and excludes, and how this ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on amendment 4) is not only important but will also save lives. We know this sounds counter intuitive, but abortion saves lives. Click here to support Yes on 4 and please stay tuned. Our first story in the series is by Liz Chifari. We asked Liz why she wrote this story and she said, “.... because it was time.”Liz had two abortions. In 1970, before abortion was legal, Liz had to proclaim she was mentally ill to get an abortion. In 1997, when she thought she was in perimenopause and already had a family, she went to an abortion clinic. Her story is about how radically different her experiences were. This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olan at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle, and All Angels Episcopal Church.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aiden Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On September 18, 2024, we are launching a new series in support of a family's reproductive rights--specifically the Yes on 4 campaign here in Florida to get rid of a near abortion ban and reinstate the liberties under Roe v Wade. The stories in the series were told live on stage at Temple Beth Am in Miami, Florida on September 5th 2024. Each storyteller stood in front of an audience of 400 people and read their story.As the country gears up for the election on November 5th 2024, we will be sharing all seven stories one week at a time. These stories highlight what the current ban limits and excludes, and how this ban negatively impacts all women and families. We hope these stories will help you understand why keeping abortion legal (which means voting yes on amendment 4) is not only ultra important but will also save lives. I know that is counter intuitive, so stay tuned. This event was produced and created by Writing Class Radio, Rabbi Greengrass at Temple Beth Am, and 19 collaborative partners: The Women's Fund, Equal Justice Society, Cuban American Women Supporting Democracy, Men for Choice, Books and Books, Planned Parenthood, Temple Judea, Coral Gables United Church of Christ, Tikkun Olan at Temple Beth Am, Florida Women's Freedom Coalition, Women's Emergency Network, Sisterhood of Temple Beth Am, Catholics for Choice, Temple Israel, Women of Reform Judaism, All Angels Episcopal Church, RAC Florida, National Council of Jewish Women, The Workers Circle.Writing Class Radio is hosted by Allison Langer and Andrea Askowitz. Audio production by Matt Cundill, Evan Surminski, and Aiden Glassey at the Sound Off Media Company. Theme music is by Kenny Korade.There's more writing class on our website including stories we study, editing resources, video classes, writing retreats, and live online classes. Join our writing community by following us on Patreon. If you want to write with us every week, you can join our First Draft weekly writers groups. You have the option to join Allison on Tuesdays 12-1 ET and/or Mondays with Eduardo Winck 8-9 pm ET. You'll write to a prompt and share what you wrote. If you're a business owner, community activist, group that needs healing, entrepreneur, or scientist and you want to help your team write better, check out all the classes we offer on our website, writingclassradio.com.Join the community that comes together for instruction, an excuse to write, and the support from other writers. To learn more, go to www.Patreon.com/writingclassradio. Or sign up HERE for First Draft for a FREE Zoom link.A new episode in this series will drop every WEDNESDAY until the election on Nov 5 2024. There's no better way to understand ourselves and each other, than by writing and sharing our stories. Everyone has a story. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In April, an unprecedented lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of California challenging the state's death penalty statute as racially discriminatory and unconstitutional under the Equal Protection guarantees of the California Constitution. The filers which include the ACLU, LDF (Legal Defense Fund), and the Office of the State Public Defender on behalf of OSPD, Witness to Innocence, LatinoJustice PRLDEF (Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund), the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and Eva Paterson, co-founder of the Equal Justice Society, claim, “This is the first time a petition of this nature has been filed with the court.” “Numerous empirical studies by leading social science experts reveal troubling disparities: Black people are about five times more likely to be sentenced to death when compared to similarly situated non-Black defendants, while Latino people are at least three times more likely to be sentenced to death.” The 95-page complaint stated, “The parties agree that persistent and pervasive racial disparities infect California's death penalty system.” The Vanguard recently hosted a webinar to discuss this historic suit. Panelists: Avi Frey, Counsel from ACLU of Northern California Lisa Romo, Office of State Public Defender (OSPD) Morgan Zamora, prison advocacy coordinator at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Karen Munoz, from LatinoJustice Moderators: Madison Whittemore, Vanguard News Sophie Yoakum, Vanguard News

Lisa Holder, Esq. is a nationally recognized, award-winning trial attorney, a recognized racial justice scholar and equity consultant. Atty Holder periodically teaches the Civil Rights and Police Accountability Clinic at UCLA Law School. Previously, Holder worked as Legal Director of the Equal Justice Society, and Los Angeles Deputy Alternate Public Defender. She served on the ACLU Board of Directors and is currently Vice President of the Board of Directors for the Child Care Law Center. She was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom to the California Reparations Task Force. www.alliancefor.org www.dominiquediprima.com

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. The Supreme Court's ruling earlier this week has struck down on affirmative action in college admissions. What does this mean? What can we do? Where do we go from here? All of these questions will be answered in this week's episode of AACRE Thursday at APEX Express. Miko Lee and Cheryl Truong are joined by affirmative action experts, Vincent Pan, Co-Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) and Sally Chen, Harvard alum and CAA's Education Equity Policy Manager for a discussion on SCOTUS's repeal of race-conscious admission policies. Make sure to tune in! CAA and APEX Express are proud to be a part of the Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality (AACRE) network. Petition to Universities in support of Affirmative Action Affirmative Action Resources   Let's Talk Affirmative Action show Transcripts Miko Lee: Good evening, you are on APEX Express. This is Miko Lee and Cheryl Truong. Tonight is an AACRE night, APEX Express is proud to be part of the AACRE Network, which is Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality. Cheryl Truong: Tonight, we're talking about the Supreme court's ruling against affirmative action in the repeal of race conscious admission policies just earlier this week week. Joining us today from Chinese for Affirmative Action are co-executive director Vincent Pan and education equity policy manager Sally Chen Miko Lee: Sally and Vin, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Sally, I know that you have had a personal connection to affirmative action. Can you tell us a little bit about your personal connection? And I know you wrote an article that was amazing in the LA Times. Tell us about your experience. Sally Chen: Absolutely. I was born and raised in San Francisco. The daughter of Chinese immigrants who are working class worked in restaurant and service industries all of their time in the United States. And from a young age, I was both a translator and advocate for my parents, whether that was letters from our landlord in the mail, dealing with insurance, calling the bank, and. All of these experiences really shaped my motivations, my aspirations, and ultimately the content of what I wrote about in my college application at the time. I talked really candidly about my background and ultimately matriculated to Harvard in 2015. As a part of my experiences as an organizer, a student organizer on campus involved with various racial justice efforts, including advocating for ethnic studies and for supporting junior faculty of color on campus I came to be involved with student for fair admission versus Harvard in my junior year of college. I ultimately was one of eight students and alumni that testified in support of race conscious policies such as affirmative action for two reasons. One, for how I saw the benefits of race conscious policies reflected in my own admissions experience. I had gotten to look at my admissions file and I saw how much of the reality that I would not have been able to get across all of who I am with my skills, strengths, perspectives, without talking about race and ethnicity, without talking about my background, my upbringing, and second, because of how I saw racial diversity on campus, playing out in really meaningful ways for cross-racial school coalition building or our joint advocacy. And I really think it's important. It's important to highlight that in the course of this case. Students for Fair Admissions, Ed Blum's organization, never brought forward a single student in any of his proceedings to testify, to even show proof that they had been harmed by race conscious policy, and as one of the only eight students who did get to weigh in on this case, on the public record. We all showed really direct support and answered the question that I was disappointed to see that the Supreme Court justices did not answer, did not hear in answering why these policies are important, why racial diversity is important, why racism is still a reality in the society. Miko Lee: Thanks for that Sally. Vin, as the co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action can you talk about the impact of this ruling across the work that you're doing with CAA? Vincent Pan: Sure. I'm happy to do so. Miko and, and thanks for having us on the program. You know, I think that the ruling is devastating on so many different levels. I think most notably it affects college admissions and who will have access to higher education. It's already been a very difficult struggle for students of color, for students from backgrounds that, you know, may have been less traditionally college going. And this will make it even harder for students to present the entirety of themselves for consideration at the most select private institutions of, of higher education. But on another level, I think that impact is, is even worse. Because when you really read and understand the ruling that the supreme court conservative, super majority made and understand, you know, how those individuals got onto the court we can also recognize that this ruling is about going backwards on the whole issue of race and racial justice. Because it is trying to convince America again that the way to deal with racism is to either pretend that it doesn't exist by sticking our head in the sand, or by saying that racism is okay and that we can live with these deep inequities that affect so many of us. So I think for CAA and, and for the communities that we work with and we represent it's a time to really deepen our resolve and our commitment because the work for racial justice is not going to be easier by this decision, but in many ways becomes even more important. Cheryl Truong: In a similar vein, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And so, Sally, I was wondering just because you were a first-generation student at an Ivy league school. I was wondering what your experience was like just navigating these educational systems Sally Chen: Absolutely. As I mentioned, my parents were working class immigrants. They had not attended college themselves. And in my K 12 educational journey, a lot of. What I was able to navigate was, for the most part on my own. My parents were not able to help me with my homework starting in around third or fourth grade, and I nonetheless, I still felt that a lot of the values and the lessons that they taught me were of value. That people who do not often have their voices uplifted should nonetheless be heard. That people who are directly impacted by issues are experts on issues. And when I was writing my college application, my personal statement, I talked a lot about wanting to do work that would be relevant to the communities that I'm from to Asian American communities of the Bay Area that I called home. And I remember when I wrote my personal statement, I actually had advice from my counselor at the time who himself was Asian American. And he said something along the lines of, don't tell an Asian immigrant story. It's not compelling, it's not of interest. And. I remember at the time as a young person feeling utterly crushed honestly, by that advice. And in the end, I didn't listen. One because I had already written my statement and I was not going to rewrite it, being a tired student myself, but second, because I really felt that I wanted to be going to an institution that would. Value the perspectives that I would bring that would see the value of my presence there. And are still able to and are empowered to. Speak directly about the issues that affect our lives, about what shapes our perspectives, and that no student should feel they have to hide who they are or what their needs are, or what their goals and ambitions are either. Miko Lee: Well, number one, thank you young Sally for standing up for yourself, not listening to that counselor and just saying, I'm gonna speak my truth. Yay. Thank you for doing that. This brings up this question that I'm hearing Edward Blum and all these conservatives bring up around a holistic idea of admissions. And having colorblindness. Can both of you talk a little bit about that holistic admissions process? Because Sally, like you're saying, part of your upbringing is being an immigrant, you know, having to translate for your parents. So now with this new ruling, this whole idea of colorblindness, how do you separate those two out? Vin, can you speak a little bit about that process and what does that mean and, how are they gonna go forward? How are people supposed to go forward with this idea of a holistic admission process, but also being colorblind? Doesn't one contradict the other? Vincent Pan: They, they absolutely contradict. And so what makes sense is to have a holistic process that takes into account, not just academic performance, but also extracurriculars, also adversity, also race and ethnicity, gender, immigration status. Like all the things that make us human beings. , as a result of being these full human beings, being able to participate in learning processes with beloved students and classmates and to share those perspectives. And so, why this court ruling makes no sense is because it somehow suggests that we consider everything else but race when we know that race is actually one of the driving and determinant factors of how we experience life. Maybe there's a time or a place where that wouldn't be the case but in the United States, it has probably been one of the most important factors in terms of how people experience life. Not only historically but today. So in some ways colorblindness is just a mask. There's, there's really no such thing as colorblindness in the way, you know, America navigates either it's public policy or it's social and cultural life. Colorblindness becomes a way of, of just saying, we're going to make invisible people of color. And, you know, Blum and, and his allies and the super majority of conservatives on the court, that's really what this has always been about. And it really has been an effort to turn back much of the progress that began with the civil rights era and the in the sixties, to try and reckon with race by more directly confronting and addressing it. Sally Chen: Right. And. Totally agree with everything Vin is bringing up here, and I can speak to a little bit just how holistic admissions works. Naming first that holistic admissions at generally elite institutions include often hundreds of factors including gender, sexuality, religion, geographic diversity. Socioeconomic status includes a large range of factors, and this calling out specifically of race as being problematic is just as ridiculous as Vin has discussed. And if anything, the decision from the court really throws a confusing challenge to colleges and universities around how they can navigate these limitations and move forward. We really see the role of advocates in this space to both show support for and call for accountability from colleges and universities to still hold racial diversity and equity as part of their goal, part of their mission, and that. They need to invest more and double down on the alternatives available to them, and even to implement policy changes that were available to them even before this decision that can open access for more students in particular students of color that I'll plug here on CAA's website. We have an open letter to colleges and universities outlining some of these changes, including eliminating legacy preferences, removing racially biased SAT or ACT tests as evaluation for admissions or merit scholarships, and really looking at racial diversity, after admissions to continue tracking data around who is being admitted and encourage diverse student matriculation to support financial aid or mentorship programs for first generation college students, and to really double down and invest more in these practices that we know work and that are more important than ever. Cheryl Truong: Thanks Sally, for that plug. If folks are interested in signing that open petition that Sally mentioned, we will have it linked in our show notes. We're going to take a quick music break and listen to a Burmese track. “Thai Rhymes with Sound” by Ma Ei Moe. This is a recording by Columbia records from back in around 1932 and features the saung-gauk, an arched harp that is considered the national instrument of Burma. And a little fun fact for all of our listeners out there, the saung gauk is said to be the only surviving harp in Asia. Cheryl Truong: you are tuned in to apex express at 94.1 KPFA and 89.3, KPF B in Berkeley and online@kpfa.org. That song you just heard was a Burmese song called “Thai Rhymes with Sound” by Ma Ei Moe. The singer is singing about the colors and smells of each flower. How in the summer, after the long monsoon season flowers are in bloom. Once again that was “Thai Rhymes with Sound” by Ma Ei Moe. Now, back to the show. Where we will be diving in a little bit on asian american history and Asian Americans, long history of supporting affirmative action. Cheryl Truong: Vin, you mentioned something really important earlier, and I just it's so important that I want to say it again. Asian Americans have had a long history of supporting affirmative action since the 1960s. And yet Blum is perpetuating this harmful narrative about affirmative action attacking, targeting Asians. And weaponizing this fear against other communities of color. I wonder if you can talk a little bit more about this. Vincent Pan: Yeah. Well, you know, the, the narrative it is very problematic. It's very dangerous. And for me personally, I, I find it sickening. ,the reality is that almost all the gains made by Asian Americans, in this country have been in part, due to leadership by African Americans. Uh, in the 1960s on civil rights. It really opened the door for, immigration to be expanded from Asian countries. It opened the door in education and employment. In public contracting, media representation, political representation. So, this idea that somehow Asian Americans could ever afford to be against affirmative action because of some false belief that select school admissions at the smallest, most elite institutions are working against them and to blame that on other people of color, you know, it's, it's quite frankly, it's horrifying and it's also not true. Right. We know through the research and through the evidence that there is discrimination, of course against Asian Americans in all sectors of society, but it very, very rarely, and I would say almost never has anything to do with how affirmative action is practiced. It has to do with anti-Asian racism. So again, the cause of fighting anti-Asian discrimination can be solved with things at college admissions, like better training, more oversight, really making sure that there are not biases that creep into the process. But to suggest somehow that one of the more powerful tools for rectifying systemic discrimination is a cause, it's not just cynical. it's also, I think, reflective of just the lengths that the far right is willing to go. And to really use basic tenants of the Constitution and equal protection and flip them upside down in their head. I'm very, very discouraged when I see Asian Americans who put a fall for these lies. It behooves the rest of us. Asian Americans had to really speak out, you know, speak out in solidarity with other communities that are marginalized and oppressed to speak out in support of, of race conscious programs, whether that's in college, admissions or in the workplace, or in culture and, and media. I think Asian Americans, you know, we, we have our work cut out for us, both in terms of rooting out anti-blackness in our, our own communities in terms of really getting educated on how public policy and complicated areas work. But also, to take this as a challenge to do even more to lead the way to push for policies that makes society work for everyone. Miko Lee: Vin can you back up and speak a little bit more about Asian-Americans history of support for affirmative action? I know there was a 2020 Asian-American voter survey that said that 70% of Asian-Americans actually support affirmative action, even though the narrative has been shifted a lot. But can you go back in time with us a little bit about how AAs have had this history of supporting affirmative action? Vincent Pan: Sure, I'm happy to, you know, so Chinese affirmative action was found in 1969 and it's important to know at the time, affirmative action did not have the same sort of political controversy around it because it was understand as a broad approach and a deal. Simply stated that we have to be proactive to try and fix these problems that we've inherited, that lead to unfairness and discrimination towards women, towards people of color, towards folks who are trans and queer. It's not a hard idea to grasp that you can't take a society that is so unfair and just automatically expect that by doing nothing, things will get better. No. And so for more than five decades in, in all areas of society, CAA and other Asian American groups with other Asian Americans have fought for affirmative action. And they continue to fight for affirmative action. But I think, in some ways they've come to misunderstand just how much affirmative action has benefited us. And so when, you know, I have community members tell me how much they like, say Everything everywhere, All At Once, pushing for Asian Americans, the media is affirmative action. When folks say that they really want to see more Asian American judges or senators or maybe someday the president. That's a form of affirmative action. So it's not surprising that many of the polls do show when people understand what affirmative action is, Asian Americans overwhelmingly support. Now I think what we're seeing though, in terms of this very loud vocal minority is frustration around select school admissions. Or to be quite blunt, maybe their kid didn't get in. Right. That frustration is, is, is driven by a whole number of things, including unhealthy of what higher education in the United States could be, um, but other things as well. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to explain in the future know, like the constructive ways to push against anti-Asian discrimination and to create productive outlets for some of these frustrations. For example, just expanding the pie and making sure that there are more good school and college slots for everyone as opposed to like buying into this idea that a good education or somehow needs to be this very, very scarce commodity by design. Right. But, you know, I think that it's also very true that Asian Americans, and it's really primarily East Asians and South Asians, who I think have got caught up in this. That's also part of this challenge of a growing right wing within our communities that also needs to be confronted. Miko Lee: Thank you for that. , you know, this whole idea around the colorblindness and holistic admissions and really talking about how many students can be allowed into these elite schools. One of the things that the justices didn't address was the bulk of folks that get into these school sites, which is, you know, 43% of Harvard admissions fall into the legacy, donors ,and children's of staff. Those are the folks that are getting this special admissions. Sally, can you talk a little bit about that? Who is getting access into these select schools and why that aspect hasn't been addressed? Sally Chen: Absolutely. Part of what VIN had talked about was the idea that we already knew, which was that college admissions as it stands is not fair, and that there's so much work to be done to make sure that there is meaningful, real access for all students. And one of the first points on our open letter to colleges and universities in calling on them to reassess all the different levers that they have to address inequity in college admissions in this moment is to reexamine exactly what you named this Athletic Legacy Dean's List, children of. Faculty, A L B C category under which, as you named at Elite institutions, this factor is often the first in consideration and even when it is not explicitly named the numbers that you see around students in these types of categories. Applying under early admissions, applying under early action. As a kind of backdoor for them to be able to ensure their admissions in ways that disadvantage certainly first generation students, immigrant students, students of color that are not benefited by these policies. We see that this is one of the key areas where we do need to address what some people have said is, Affirmative action for wealthy white students and that while this still stands, there is a very clear contradiction in how college admissions is allowed to continue to operate. Miko Lee: Thanks for that, Sally. We know already that nine states have passed anti-affirmative action laws and California sadly did this with Prop 209. Vin, can you talk a little bit about the impact that that has had on the uc system in California and how that can be utilized as a model for how we deal with affirmative action in other states and nationally in the future. Vincent Pan: Sure, sure. It's a really important question because there's aspects of Prop 209, the ban on affirmative action in California that overlaps with the ruling that occurred at the Supreme Court. Prop 209 really limited race and gender conscious programs in California's public institutions that deal with education, employment, and contracting, but it did not govern any of the private institutions. And so, you know, the, the private colleges and, and universities in California were not affected by Prop 209. And I should also say that businesses in the private sector were not affected by it either. Supreme Court ruling affects institutions of higher education that are both public and private. And private because most private colleges have received at least some federal funding. And so they will be governed by this as, as well. What we saw in California was a real drop in access for students of color at the UCs. We saw a tremendous drop in the number of minority owned and women owned businesses who were able to obtain public contracts. We saw real slowdown in the diversity of the public sector workforce. And that includes teachers, includes civil servants, it includes firefighters. We also saw, and this is one thing we need to be careful about, sort of an overreaction too, where many government agencies who could still do a lot of different things just decided not to even try not to even ask the question. Through the support and leadership of advocates, it's taken time, but we've been able to get many of these institutions to do better. At some parts of UC, you do see a rebound in the number of students of color because folks have learned to be more assertive and to really understand that they have to do everything that the law will allow. And I think there's a lesson there for public colleges and universities. To what Sally was saying before it's on our petition. This ruling should not be an excuse for college presidents and universities to back down or to shy away from this, this critical question of how we achieve racial justice in society. It's a call to action for them to really make sure they're doing everything possible. And that includes getting rid of the SATs. It includes making their campuses more welcoming for students of color by having stronger ethnic studies programs. It includes really accelerating the need for a more diverse faculty. It also means thinking about how we can get at issues of the adversity that students of color face and being able to account for that in the application process. In California we are unfortunately, with Prop 209, we made it very, very hard for ourselves. To achieve the type of equitable society that we all want. But as hard as it's been, we've recognized that there are multiple tools, and affirmative action was a powerful one, but it was not the only one. We've got to get better at using all of the tools available to us and also developing new ones. Cheryl Truong: So I'm so glad we're actually talking about Prop 209 because it's a point in history where we've already repealed affirmative action and we have seen how it affects our communities. I think 40%, the enrollment of black and Latino communities dropped by 40% with the passing of Prop 209. This is going to change how a lot of young people imagine their futures because now we are being told that we cannot financially succeed or we won't have financial opportunities due to this example of systemic racism. How do you think this repeal of affirmative action is going to impact how families and communities think about our futures? And if you have any advice you'd like to share especially with high schoolers who are trying to navigate the college process in the wake of this repeal. Vincent Pan: Well, I'll, I'll go first and I would love to hear what you think Sally. I think a lot of it is still unclear, right? We know like the pathways are as a result of the ruling and by limiting affirmative action or really ending affirmative action in, in college admissions, it's gonna be much, much, much harder. But a lot of it will depend on what the colleges and universities decide to do. If they decide to take the easy way out and say we really can't prioritize diversity and inclusion anymore, then the numbers of students of color are going to drop dramatically. There's no question about that. But on the other hand, if the colleges and universities say, okay we've got to double down on our commitment to diversity because our schools can't function if they're only serving just one community, the white community or just one community, the rich community. If they really step up and understand that's not acceptable, then they will have to employ every single tool at their disposal with the absence of affirmative action. And they will have to also create new ones. I think if they do that, then perhaps there's more reason to be optimistic. what does that mean for, for students and families? I think they have to stay engaged and to really understand what's happening in, in this space. It's important as Sally has said before, for students to talk about adversity, to present themselves as who they are. and to also know that in many parts of society that there is still discrimination against all students of color and people of color. It'll depend on finding allies in particular universities or colleges and really understanding what they're trying to do in this moment. Are they looking at this as an excuse to go back to when universities were really just for rich white men ? Or are they going to really step up and meet the call that this ruling really demands of all of us. Cheryl Truong: We are deep in conversation with affirmative action specialists, Sally Chen and Vincent Pan from CAA. We're going to take a quick music break and listen to some music by Namgar, an international ethno music collective that fuses traditional Buryat and Mongolian music with pop, jazz, funk, ambient soundscapes, and art- pop. We'll be back in just a moment with more on the supreme court ruling after we listen to “part two” by Namgar. Cheryl Truong: Welcome back. You are tuned in to APEX express on 94.1 KPFA and 89.3 KPFB B in Berkeley and online at kpfa.org. That song you just heard was “part two” by Namgar, an incredible four- piece Buryat- Mongolian ensemble that is revitalizing and preserving the Buryat language and culture through music. Now, back to the show as we continue our conversation with Vincent pan and Sally Chen discussing their valuable insights regarding the Supreme court's recent ruling on affirmative action. Miko Lee: I wanna go back Vin, to something that you just said about getting faculty to look more like the students, and I'm wondering both of your response to actually also getting the Supreme Court to look more like our population , and actions that can be taken to actually change the Supreme Court. Vincent Pan: Well, the Supreme Court questions are as, as many of your listeners know, Supreme Court members are appointed for life and there are not that many of them. It becomes very important to make sure that we have people in the White House who make those appointments. Who I would say not only appoint people who look like America, but who actually represent a vision that works for all Americans. In a very small body like that you're gonna have your Clarence Thomas's who, you know, are African-American, but in, in my view, are not representing the interests of, of African-Americans at all. It speaks to the importance of being involved political process and voting and civic engagement throughout the country and being smart about it. I think for folks who say that elections don't matter, here's another example of just how much they do. I think that the representation in all aspects of government is also critical. And again, that's not just the folks who work at college and university say, but it's also in Congress it's also all of our elected officials, and I think that we are making progress in, in this way. But for Asian Americans, we again have to be very, very careful because you do see folks running who are Asian Americans on the far right. It's incumbent upon us not just to vote for someone who looks like us, but to be smart and, and to vote for people who represent the interest of all those who've been left behind, including our communities. Miko Lee: That's right. And I guess I'm asking about expansion of the Supreme Court and actually changing the very function of how it's operating. Sally Chen: I can uplift here specifically on Supreme Court reform. That is one of the areas in which many of our advocates and allies have been thinking about in and planning for, in pivoting in response to this recent slate of decisions that came out. I'll uplift here. Equal Justice Society, one of our , close partners, both in the Prop 16 campaign and ongoing that they have really dug into exploring and researching and educating people on the history of Supreme Court expansion at Pivotal moments in US history and other opportunities for reform and even intervention. Curtailing some of the Supreme Court's power and really calling on the other branches of our federal government to step up here, whether that is our Congress or the executive branch and highlighting equal justice society as well as an expert in that area. Vincent Pan: Yeah, it's a great point, Sally. You know, and I think it is something we all have to look more closely at because you see like ruling, after ruling, after ruling they are all right wing decisions that sort of overturn not only settled law but are really trying to take the country backwards, to a place where none of us want to go. So whether that's on reproductive rights, whether that's on racial justice issues, whether it's on, student loan, debt relief. This term in particular, right? Voting rights, Trans and queer rights. It's just like one after the other. So I do think it does make sense to look at ways to try and get the Supreme Court to do what it was meant to do. And at the same time are so many things for all of us work in the grassroots to, to engage in as, as well. And so when we talk about all these other tools at our disposal, we need to know that many of those occur at the local level. sometimes we have pretty good laws maybe passed at the, the state level, but they're not implemented at the city or township I think that there are always very, and this is one thing I'm really, you know, proud of that we do at CAA and proud of all the folks in AACRE, there's so many ways to push for social justice. And as despondent and, and frustrated and angry as many of us are about the Supreme Court latest rulings, one thing we cannot say is that there aren't things that we can do. And that's one thing in particular that I think for Asian Americans, we have to, you know, we have to step up our game on. Sally Chen: Thanks Vin. And just adding on that, a lot of CAA's work on the ground, whether that's in our civic engagement team or our Chinese digital engagement is engaging directly with students, families, community members, and the message that we want to send to students and their families is that our young people should follow their dream, should be able to celebrate their identities, and reach their full potential, strive for success in ways that are meaningful to them. They should feel able to be unapologetically themselves and at the end of the day know that, we, the broader community, are ultimately with them separately. I did, I was thinking a little bit about the legacy question. I just wanted to add one more piece, if that's okay. Which is that. Reform around the removal of consideration of legacy or significant donations in college admissions is not a new conversation. And in fact, we've seen universities like Amherst College only a few years ago, publicly announced that they would no longer consider legacy as a factor in admissions. And they saw a significant change in the demographics of their student bodies admitted .The number of first generation college students certainly increased and they did see racial diversity overall broaden and that this is not a new change and it's not one that is unprecedented either, and that we really have seen universities already at the forefront of taking action even before this decision came. Vincent Pan: Right. The other piece that I think has been lost in all this is there are more Asian Americans, uh, who attend City College of San Francisco than who are in all of the Ivy Leagues. So there's a real distortion of just how important the Ivy Leagues are in real terms for Asian Americans. Another good thing to know is that more than half of Asian Americans who are in any type of higher education or in community college, Right. So if we understand that the real damage of the Supreme Court ruling on the one hand is in the way, it's changing how this country wants to deal with the issues of race and racism. You know, we could also know that for Asian-Americans who are seeking college, that there also has to be an emphasis on where students are actually at, which is in the community colleges. Community colleges have historically been dramatically under invested in. We know that there need to be better pathways for folks to get from the community colleges into to four year degree programs. I think that the degree that we can at CAA we also wanna lift up the need for all of our communities, not just to always be focusing in on what the media feeds us, which is that we only care about the Ivy Leagues, but to focus in on what we also live and experience. That it is the community colleges, it's the CSUs. It's all these other nontraditional pathways to higher education that our community benefits from. ESL classes, vocational training. Now, all those need support as well. And those are also other ways to drive educational equity across and with other communities of color. Miko Lee: Well, Vincent Pan and Sally Chen, you've given us so many things to think about and so many actions that we can take from fighting for investments in more community colleges to paying attention to Asian American candidates to make sure that we're in values alignment to checking out this open petition that is on the CAA website, which we will put a link to. What else can people do to get involved so that they can actually take action around affirmative action? Sally Chen: Well, certainly our open petition is still available for signatures. We are hoping to, and are rapidly reaching a thousand signatures by the end of this week, but we are preparing to use that as the launching off point for a lot of engagement with colleges and universities, certainly advocates that have relationships to their alma maters, to their networks should engage as much as possible, show their support publicly for the investment in commitment to values of racial diversity and equity, especially at these institutions of higher education .And like Vin had mentioned, a lot of this implementation will , happen at the local and state level. Folks should pay attention to any attempts to broaden this decision beyond the scope of what it should be, of any kind of backing down from originally stated commitments to equity, diversity, inclusion, and to call that out where they see it. Vincent Pan: Yeah, obviously I second what Sally has, has said in terms of ways for folks to get involved, especially on the issue of, of colleges and universities and access and equity to those institutions. You know, I, I think more broadly for Asian Americans, it, it really can't be understated how dangerous a time we are in. And that what, the anti civil rights litigator Ed Blum, has done and the way that our community is now being portrayed that it becomes important. So, so important, even more important for Asian Americans to speak out. To speak out and, and declare themselves as an anti-racist, to declare themselves as a supportive of affirmative action, and to declare them themselves in solidarity with all people who have been oppressed.. It's the time to lift up our histories as activists, as people who have fought for civil rights and social justice. This ruling coupled with everything that we know is going on with the escalation of anti-Asian hate, with the uprising in China, just behooves our community to really to reflect and to, and to move forward and to act, as you said, Miko. And so I think that one of the great ways to support affirmative action in the broad sense is by getting involved with any of the key social justice issues that are currently needing our attention. Again, it's intersectional. And so whether it's voting rights, reproductive rights, trans and queer rights, civil rights, immigrant rights, there's just so much work that all advances this broader ideal that really reflect what affirmative action has always been about. This has to be a wake up call for Asian Americans. Most of us have fought for progress. Most of us know that our fate is intertwined with other communities of color, but there's also far too many who've been on the sidelines. And this should be a wake up call to engage on, on the side of those who have been fighting for justice and equity for all communities and not allowing themselves to be exploited by groups and people who clearly do not have our community's best interests at heart. Miko Lee: That was a great wrap up, VIN. Thank you. Is there anything else either of you would like to add? Vincent Pan: Yeah, I have one thing. There's, there was one part of the ruling that was also very instructive. Part of the conservative majority, the ruling said, well, the only institution of higher education and learning that can still maybe consider race are military academies. In effect saying that no, well, we want diversity in the schools that are preparing people to go and die in wars. Right? But it's not in the rest of of society. And so I thought that was like extremely telling, right? Because I think that these right-wing folks, they really don't believe in colorblind. They only want to use it as a way to mask white supremacy. But in instances where it won't uphold white supremacy, then they will toss it overboard, right? So they want race conscious admissions for military academies. They want race conscious admission for the military. I mean, you know, that tells us everything I think that we need to know about what's motivating them. I'll pause on that. The other thing that I think affirmative action as it was conceived and as it moved in the 1960s benefited white women, and white women have been perhaps the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action programs. And affirmative action programs have always included gender, right? To say that this has been just about affirmative action when it really is about how we understand race in America. Some parts of the community will still continue and say, oh, this is about whether or not the admissions process is fair. But it really is about trying to solve what's always been maybe the most difficult thing to solve in America. The question of race. And that there have not been uprise Of opposition against affirmative action programs that have helped white women. It is only because affirmative action has been a tool that's been able to increase racial diversity at some of these institutions that we've seen such a backlash against it. Miko Lee: Holy cow. I just have a whole nother series of questions about white women beneficiaries, but that's another show. Sally, do you have anything that you wanna add? Sally Chen: I'm good. Thank you both so much, Miko and Cheryl for this interview. Miko Lee: Thank you. Thanks to both of you. I actually additionally have more questions about what's behind this Ed Blum guy, like what's in it for him? I mean I'm kind of blown away. I know we're at time, but I do wanna have a further conversation about that too, because it's like, dude is the rebellion to his progressive parents. He was raised by Jewish progressive parents and he's every progressive's parents nightmare. I just like, what's in it for him? Is this just a money thing? Like what's that about? Vincent Pan: That's great question. Yeah, I don't know, but maybe there's a, a six hour version of this podcast that we could do time where we're just going all different directions. Cheryl Truong: check out our website, kpfa.org to find out more about the fight for affirmative action and equal access to higher education. And to learn more about our wonderful guests, Sally Chen and Vincent pan. We think all of you listeners out there, keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. Cheryl Truong: Apex express is produced by Miko Lee, Paige Chung, Jalena Keane-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar. Shekar, Anuj Vaidya, Kiki Rivera, Swati Rayasam, Nate Tan, Hien Nguyen, Nikki Chan, and Cheryl Truong tonight's show was produced by me cheryl. Thanks to the team at KPFA for all of their support. And thank you for listening. The post APEX Express – 7.6.23 Let's Talk Affirmative Action appeared first on KPFA.

In this episode, Sheppard Mullin attorneys Melissa Eaves and Ray Marshall join host Scott Maberry to explore how the best companies in the world are navigating between directly conflicting regulatory guidance on Environmental, Social and Governance initiatives.   What We Discuss in this Episode: What is the SEC doing regarding Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing right now? What are state legislatures and Attorneys General doing? How do these enforcement contradict each other, and what should companies do? What should companies be doing to reduce the potential for ESG-related enforcement actions? How does "greenwashing" open the door to civil litigation? What steps should companies and investors take to mitigate risk in this complicated environment?   About Ray Marshall Ray Marshall is Of Counsel in the Governmental Practice in Sheppard Mullen's San Francisco office, where his practice focuses on White Collar and Investigations, Fiduciary Duties, and Environmental, Social & Governance issues. Ray represents clients in both complex business litigation and white-collar defense. He has conducted a wide array of internal investigations and company inquiries, including cases alleging insider trading, stock options backdating, securities fraud, accounting irregularities, antitrust violations, public corruption, FCPA and other corporate and individual wrongdoing. He has represented clients in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings brought by governmental authorities, including the Department of Justice and the offices of various U.S. Attorneys, State Attorneys General and District Attorneys. In addition to serving on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Judicial Advisory Committee for the Northern District of California, Raymond also serves as an adviser to the American Law Institute on the Model Penal Code Sentencing Project. He is past-President of the ABA Retirement Fund Board of Directors, a past member of the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, and former president of both the State Bar of California and the Bar Association of San Francisco. In 2004 and 2007, he was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George to chair the California Supreme Court's Advisory Task Force on Multijurisdictional Practice. In addition to his professional affiliations, Ray is extremely active in community affairs, serving on the boards of the Giffords Law Center, the Equal Justice Society, the United Negro College Fund, and HomeBase/The Center for Common Concerns. In March 2009, he argued on behalf of five of the leading civil rights groups in the country (Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California State Conference of the NAACP, Equal Justice Society, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund) before the California Supreme Court, arguing that allowing Proposition 8 (a proposition which sought to outlaw gay marriage) to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.   About Melissa Eaves Melissa Eaves is Special Counsel in the Governmental Practice in Sheppard Mullen's Los Angeles office. Melissa currently focuses her practice on complex civil litigation, fraud, investigations white collar criminal defense and False Claims Act litigation. She has substantial experience in compliance investigations, fiduciary counseling, ESG, American with Disabilities Act, FTC, SEC and TVPRA/human trafficking litigation. Melissa has successfully represented numerous individuals and entities in connection with a wide range of federal and state investigations and prosecutions. In civil litigation, she has successfully represented both clients in both state and federal court. In addition to complex litigation and white collar defense work, Melissa handles internal investigations for companies. She is an experienced and skilled investigator, handling investigatory matters involving whistleblower claims, harassment and workplace misconduct, criminal misconduct, and healthcare fraud. She has also worked with governmental agencies such as the OIG, DOJ, FTC, SEC, and HHS in connection with such investigations.  Melissa was part of the team that recently won a complete defense victory in a human trafficking case, and she has also obtained complete defense verdicts in trials involving ADA claims. In addition, she has represented the California Insurance Commissioner in the Executive Life Insurance Company, First Capital and Mission Insurance Group insolvencies and reinsurance litigation, involving over 300 reinsurers worldwide, representing recoveries in excess of $1.3 billion. Melissa has substantial litigation experience in both state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, enforcing judgments abroad and supervising of domestic and foreign outside counsel.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information: Melissa Eaves Raymond Marshall J. Scott Maberry   Resources: Goldman Sachs SEC Settlement (2022)  BNY SEC Settlement (2022)  Texas AG Letter ISS Response Glass Lewis Response BlackRock Letter Kentucky AG Opinion Kentucky AG Letter Washington DC AG Letter ClientEarth Lawsuit Against Shell  BNP Paribas Case   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

A man becomes well known at the Fresno County Jail after he is arrested 10x in 31 days. Shou Zi Chew is due to answer questions Thursday from U.S. lawmakers concerned about the social media platform's effects on its young user base and possible national security risks posed by the popular app, TikTok, which was founded by Chinese entrepreneurs. Lisa Holder, a task force member and president of the far-left Equal Justice Society, published an opinion piece advocating for the reparations committee and writing that Californians "must be prepared for remedies on a scale approaching the Great Society programs of Medicare and Medicaid." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Xiomara Castro speaks to press following the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, July 7, 2009. | Image by M. Santos and R. Irias is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 On today's show: 0:08 – Dana Frank, Professor Emerita of History at UC-Santa Cruz joins us to discuss Honduran President Xiomara Castro's swearing in. Frank's latest book is The Long Honduran Night. 0:34 – We discuss the Supreme Court's decision to hear a challenge to affirmative action in the fall with Mona Tawatao (@monatawatao), Legal Director at the Equal Justice Society and Adam Harris (@AdamHSays), staff writer at The Atlantic and author of The State Must Provide: Why America's Colleges Have Always Been Unequal–and How to Set Them Right. 1:08 – Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee (@OttoLee_) joins us to discuss the vote of no confidence by the County and the attendant investigation by the state Attorney General Rob Bonta into alleged corruption at the Sheriff's office. Supervisor Lee served on the County Blue Ribbon Commission to study the County jail and the sheriffs department. 1:33 – We discuss the musical acts at the 1969 Harlem Cultural Festival as captured by Questlove's documentary film, Summer of Soul. The soundtrack debuts on January 28. Joining us are Rickey Vincent (@rickeyvincent), author, educator, music scholar, and host of KPFA's The History of Funk and Davey D Cook (@mrdaveyd), Hip Hop historian and host of KPFA's Hard Knock Radio. During this segment we play an early release off the forthcoming Summer of Soul (…OR, WHEN THE REVOLUTION COULD NOT BE TELEVISED) Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, “Sing a Simple Song” performed by Sly and the Family Stone at the 1969 Harlem Cultural Festival. The post Xiomara Castro sworn in as president of Honduras; SCOTUS will take up challenge to affirmative action; SCC Supervisor Otto Lee on alleged corruption at Sheriffs; Plus music historians discuss the 1969 Harlem Cultural Festival appeared first on KPFA.

In episode 130 of Berkeley Talks, Eva Paterson, president and co-founder of the Equal Justice Society, talks in 2017 with Savala Nolan (then Savala Trepczynski), director of Berkeley Law's Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, about when Paterson first realized the need for social justice, litigating implicit bias and why she loves — and hates — America. This conversation first appeared on Nolan's 2017 summer podcast series, Be the Change.Berkeley Talks is going on winter break. We'll be back with new episodes on Jan. 14, 2022.Listen to the episode and read a transcript on Berkeley News. (This page will go live Friday afternoon.)(The Atlantic photo by Edwin Tse) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Three formerly enslaved Black men were living their California Gold Rush dream, building a lucrative mining supply business in just a few months. But one cool spring night in 1852, an armed posse of white men burst into their cabin and arrested them, claiming they were fugitive slaves. In our pilot episode, we explore a little-known California law that unleashed racial terror on Black people and made a mockery of the state constitution's ban on slavery. Episode Guests: Stacey L. Smith, an associate professor of history at Oregon State University, and author of Freedom’s Frontier: California and the Struggle over Unfree Labor, Emancipation and Reconstruction. Smith is acting as a historical consultant to the California Department of Justice as it supports the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans. Taylor Bythewood-Porter, an assistant curator at the California African American Museum in Los Angeles. Bythewood-Porter co-curated California Bound, Slavery on the New Frontier, 1848-1865. Candice Francis, communications director at the ACLU of Northern California. Explore the entire Gold Chains: Hidden History of Slavery in California Project Production Credits: Produced by the ACLU of Northern California. Episode created, written and hosted by Tammerlin Drummond Technical production and music by Dax Brooks, co-written by Alex Doty.  Thanks to Marshal Arnwine, Candice Francis, Gigi Harney, Brady Hirsch, Carmen King, Abdi Soltani, Eliza Wee and Stephen Wilson. And to our partners on the public education project, Gold Chains: The Hidden History of Slavery in California: KQED the California Historical Society, the Equal Justice Society and Laura Atkins. Episode Website

The Honorable Sylvester Turner, Mayor of Houston, discusses diversity and inclusion. The event is moderated by Politico National Correspondent Natasha Korecki and includes a panel discussion with Gail Christopher, Executive Director of the National Collaborative for Health Equity; Pedro Noguera, Emery Stoops and Joyce King Stoops Dean, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, and Kathleen Yang-Clayton, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago. Teresa Córdova, Director of the Great Cities Institute and Professor of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago, starts the event with a land acknowledgement.  Ula Y. Taylor, Professor & H. Michael and Jeanne Williams Department Chair, Department of African American Studies & African Diaspora Studies, UC Berkeley, introduces the event.  Stephen Small, Director of the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues and Professor of African American Studies at UC Berkeley, closes the event. This event is part of a series presented by the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues and the Department of African American Studies at UC Berkeley, as well as the Great Cities Institute at the University of Chicago at Illinois. For more about the series, visit  https://issi.berkeley.edu/BlackMayors The series is co-sponsored by: Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, African American Mayors Association, National Urban League, California Association of Black Lawyers, Charles Houston Bar Association, Litigation Division of the California Bar Association, Equal Justice Society, City Club of Chicago, Executives' Club of Chicago, the Chicago Community Trust, Metropolitan Family Services of Chicago, Communities Partnering 4 Peace, Institute for Nonviolence Chicago, Strides for Peace, and WBGO-FM (Newark). Support Inclusion Catalyst by contributing to their Tip Jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/inclusion-catalyst

Eva Jefferson Paterson has campaigned for civil rights with passion, courage and tenacity for more than four decades. Paterson is the President and a co-founder of the Equal Justice Society, a legal organization transforming the nation's consciousness on race through law, social science, and the arts.Prior to taking the helm of the Equal Justice Society in 2003, Paterson worked at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights for twenty-six years, thirteen of them as Executive Director. Paterson led the organization's work providing free legal services to low-income individuals, litigating class action civil rights cases, and advocating for social justice. Eva and Kristan discussed the work of the Equal Justice Society to further equity and equality.

https://kpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ariel-Boone-on-Prop-16-brian-mix.mp3 jQuery(document).ready(function($) { var media = $('#audio-345803-40'); media.on('canplay', function (ev) { this.currentTime = 0; }); });   By Ariel Boone (@arielboone), KPFA elections reporter OAKLAND, CA – California is one of only ten states that ban affirmative action by public institutions. Voters put that ban into the state's constitution in 1996. But that could change this fall, when voters get a chance to overturn the ban with Proposition 16. Affirmative action was a response to the civil rights movement. It means an institution considers race and sex when they review applications for a job, for admissions or for contracting, in order to include categories of people they've excluded in the past. Sharon Elise is a professor of sociology teaching at California State University, San Marcos and associate vice president for racial and social justice in the California Faculty Association, the union representing faculty on CSU campuses. She calls herself an “affirmative action baby.” As a Black student, Sharon received a scholarship from a private college to attend. After, she enrolled at UC San Diego, where there was also programming to support Black students, including tutoring and social support. Then, she was hired to teach. “I first started off at Fresno, and definitely I was an affirmative action hire, and what that meant is you're still very outnumbered. You're one or two people of color in a program that was beginning to diversify against the sea of whiteness that had been its historical legacy.” Then the sea of whiteness came roaring back. “There were years that I was the only Black woman tenure-track faculty member on my campus. Years.” – Sociologist Sharon Elise in 1996, California conservatives ran an initiative to end affirmative action in government contracting and at public universities and colleges — Proposition 209. They framed it as a ban on “discrimination” and racial preferences. Then-Governor Pete Wilson campaigned on it, and used its success to launch a presidential bid. “Affirmative action preferences are quotas based on race and gender,” he said, announcing his run for president. “They are inescapably unfair and they are undermining a fundamental American dream.” Republicans were turning to affirmative action as a “wedge issue.” They wanted to split white voters from the Democratic Party, using the language of “anti-discrimination.” Wilson lost the nomination, but GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole started stumping for Prop 209 himself. Dole lost the presidency, but Prop 209 passed. Protests rocked California campuses before and after the passage of Prop 209. Suddenly, every public university and college in California had to terminate its programs for recruiting and supporting students of color. “For Black people, anything for Latinos, anything for Filipinos, this stuff just disappeared overnight, practically,” Elise says. “And I will tell you in practice, it meant there were years that I was the only Black woman tenure-track faculty member on my campus. Years.” Students stepped in to try to recreate these support programs in their spare time, unpaid. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley's admission rate for African American students dropped from 50 percent to 15 percent. “Without saying, ‘You know, you must look really hard at these people and do what you can to create pathways for them,' it's not going to happen. And it does not happen,” Elise notes. “When we say we needed affirmative action as a tool to fight discrimination, it's a fact. Because without it, we see the results.” California voters are now deciding whether to approve Prop 16, which would repeal Prop 209 and strike the ban on affirmative action from the state constitution. The challenge for Prop 16 supporters is that their opponents also use the language of anti-discrimination.  Gail Heriot is a law professor at the University of San Diego, and a co-chair of the No on 16 campaign. She says affirmative action discriminates against white people and Asian-Americans. “There have been many times in history where the United States of America has engaged in racial discrimination for reasons that were thought to be good and sufficient at the time. And almost always, we have come to regret that kind of decision.” Heriot argues affirmative action is bad for Black and Latino students. She argues underrepresented students who would benefit from affirmative action are better off going to less competitive schools. “Almost a hundred percent of the students who are getting that preferential treatment, they're going to get grades that are low. And that's not doing them a favor. They're much better off going to the school where their grades will be high, they're more likely to go on to graduate school.” Opponents say these statistics have been debunked. A 2020 economic impact study by the UC Office of the President showed the opposite of Heriot's claims — Prop 209 didn't just push students of color off the most competitive campuses onto other campuses, the study said. It pushed them out of the UC system as a whole. Systemwide, Black, Latino and Native American student enrollment fell 12% in the UC system after 209. Applicants in the years after 209 took effect earned, on average, 5 percent lower wages between the ages of 23 and 35. Plus, the number of Black or Latino students who became high earners ($100,000 and above) fell. And the study showed the grades of students of color actually suffered in the sciences, engineering and math after 209. Heriot also cited Brookings research saying Black students don't study as much as Asian-American students: “I'm saying that they, that compared to Asian students, they don't study as often. Is that likely to affect grades? Will you think about that?” she said. Vincent Pan, a co-chair of the Yes on 16 campaign and a director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, called Heriot's claim “racist lies.” “In some cases, you do have real disadvantages for students of color in terms of what classes are even offered at their schools,” Pan says. “And so when you have a GPA system, for example, that weights advanced placement courses higher, but you don't have equal access to advanced placement courses. You do have these built-in systemic disadvantages facing students of color, including African Americans. But when they talk about, ‘Well, this group doesn't study as hard or are not as qualified,' then you really start to see their true colors.” Heriot also said California's ban on affirmative action has saved the state money by letting it pick lower-bidding contractors.  But a 2015 study by the Equal Justice Society found that this had consequences — California businesses owned by people of color and women have lost over $1 billion annually because of Prop 209. Pan says it “can't be understated” how much of an economic loss this was for the state, and for struggling neighborhoods that lost this money and are experiencing poverty.  The Yes on 16 campaign has support from the founders of Black Lives Matter, the family of Martin Luther King Jr, Senator Kamala Harris, Governor Newsom, the ACLU, and California teachers and nurses. It's also drawing support from a new generation of students. “There's only been one professor I really connected with, and it's a professor who also Latino, who's also first generation.” – Jose Lopez, UC Merced student Jose Lopez is external vice president of student government at UC Merced. He says he knows how it feels like to be not represented on campus. “There's only been one professor I really connected with, and it's a professor who also Latino, who's also first generation,” Lopez says.  Over half of California K-12 students are Latino. But as of 2018, Latinos made up just 12 percent of tenured faculty at the UCs, CSU campuses, and community colleges. “As a first generation Latino student from a low income household, it was always very difficult for me to access higher education,” Lopez continues. “When I was a senior in high school, I had no idea about the ACT that I had to take in order to enroll in higher education. So I kind of had to wing it, and I had no practice, I had no study. And I feel like it's different for other communities who have those resources compared to us. And I feel like that would greatly change the representation in higher education, if students have more access to these types of resources with affirmative action.” When California's original ban on affirmative action was on the ballot, students like Jose and professors like Sharon Elise were protesting on almost every campus in the state. They lost, but the fight politicized a generation.  But right now, campus rallies aren't possible right now because of remote learning and Covid, so students like Jose are texting and phone banking each other to organize for Prop 16. The post With Prop 16, a new generation of Californians has a chance to reinstate affirmative action. Will they? appeared first on KPFA.

https://kpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ariel-Boone-on-Prop-16-brian-mix.mp3 jQuery(document).ready(function($) { var media = $('#audio-345803-10'); media.on('canplay', function (ev) { this.currentTime = 0; }); });   By Ariel Boone (@arielboone), KPFA elections reporter OAKLAND, CA – California is one of only ten states that ban affirmative action by public institutions. Voters put that ban into the state's constitution in 1996. But that could change this fall, when voters get a chance to overturn the ban with Proposition 16. Affirmative action was a response to the civil rights movement. It means an institution considers race and sex when they review applications for a job, for admissions or for contracting, in order to include categories of people they've excluded in the past. Sharon Elise is a professor of sociology teaching at California State University, San Marcos and associate vice president for racial and social justice in the California Faculty Association, the union representing faculty on CSU campuses. She calls herself an “affirmative action baby.” As a Black student, Sharon received a scholarship from a private college to attend. After, she enrolled at UC San Diego, where there was also programming to support Black students, including tutoring and social support. Then, she was hired to teach. “I first started off at Fresno, and definitely I was an affirmative action hire, and what that meant is you're still very outnumbered. You're one or two people of color in a program that was beginning to diversify against the sea of whiteness that had been its historical legacy.” Then the sea of whiteness came roaring back. “There were years that I was the only Black woman tenure-track faculty member on my campus. Years.” – Sociologist Sharon Elise in 1996, California conservatives ran an initiative to end affirmative action in government contracting and at public universities and colleges — Proposition 209. They framed it as a ban on “discrimination” and racial preferences. Then-Governor Pete Wilson campaigned on it, and used its success to launch a presidential bid. “Affirmative action preferences are quotas based on race and gender,” he said, announcing his run for president. “They are inescapably unfair and they are undermining a fundamental American dream.” Republicans were turning to affirmative action as a “wedge issue.” They wanted to split white voters from the Democratic Party, using the language of “anti-discrimination.” Wilson lost the nomination, but GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole started stumping for Prop 209 himself. Dole lost the presidency, but Prop 209 passed. Protests rocked California campuses before and after the passage of Prop 209. Suddenly, every public university and college in California had to terminate its programs for recruiting and supporting students of color. “For Black people, anything for Latinos, anything for Filipinos, this stuff just disappeared overnight, practically,” Elise says. “And I will tell you in practice, it meant there were years that I was the only Black woman tenure-track faculty member on my campus. Years.” Students stepped in to try to recreate these support programs in their spare time, unpaid. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley's admission rate for African American students dropped from 50 percent to 15 percent. “Without saying, ‘You know, you must look really hard at these people and do what you can to create pathways for them,' it's not going to happen. And it does not happen,” Elise notes. “When we say we needed affirmative action as a tool to fight discrimination, it's a fact. Because without it, we see the results.” California voters are now deciding whether to approve Prop 16, which would repeal Prop 209 and strike the ban on affirmative action from the state constitution. The challenge for Prop 16 supporters is that their opponents also use the language of anti-discrimination.  Gail Heriot is a law professor at the University of San Diego, and a co-chair of the No on 16 campaign. She says affirmative action discriminates against white people and Asian-Americans. “There have been many times in history where the United States of America has engaged in racial discrimination for reasons that were thought to be good and sufficient at the time. And almost always, we have come to regret that kind of decision.” Heriot argues affirmative action is bad for Black and Latino students. She argues underrepresented students who would benefit from affirmative action are better off going to less competitive schools. “Almost a hundred percent of the students who are getting that preferential treatment, they're going to get grades that are low. And that's not doing them a favor. They're much better off going to the school where their grades will be high, they're more likely to go on to graduate school.” Opponents say these statistics have been debunked. A 2020 economic impact study by the UC Office of the President showed the opposite of Heriot's claims — Prop 209 didn't just push students of color off the most competitive campuses onto other campuses, the study said. It pushed them out of the UC system as a whole. Systemwide, Black, Latino and Native American student enrollment fell 12% in the UC system after 209. Applicants in the years after 209 took effect earned, on average, 5 percent lower wages between the ages of 23 and 35. Plus, the number of Black or Latino students who became high earners ($100,000 and above) fell. And the study showed the grades of students of color actually suffered in the sciences, engineering and math after 209. Heriot also cited Brookings research saying Black students don't study as much as Asian-American students: “I'm saying that they, that compared to Asian students, they don't study as often. Is that likely to affect grades? Will you think about that?” she said. Vincent Pan, a co-chair of the Yes on 16 campaign and a director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, called Heriot's claim “racist lies.” “In some cases, you do have real disadvantages for students of color in terms of what classes are even offered at their schools,” Pan says. “And so when you have a GPA system, for example, that weights advanced placement courses higher, but you don't have equal access to advanced placement courses. You do have these built-in systemic disadvantages facing students of color, including African Americans. But when they talk about, ‘Well, this group doesn't study as hard or are not as qualified,' then you really start to see their true colors.” Heriot also said California's ban on affirmative action has saved the state money by letting it pick lower-bidding contractors.  But a 2015 study by the Equal Justice Society found that this had consequences — California businesses owned by people of color and women have lost over $1 billion annually because of Prop 209. Pan says it “can't be understated” how much of an economic loss this was for the state, and for struggling neighborhoods that lost this money and are experiencing poverty.  The Yes on 16 campaign has support from the founders of Black Lives Matter, the family of Martin Luther King Jr, Senator Kamala Harris, Governor Newsom, the ACLU, and California teachers and nurses. It's also drawing support from a new generation of students. “There's only been one professor I really connected with, and it's a professor who also Latino, who's also first generation.” – Jose Lopez, UC Merced student Jose Lopez is external vice president of student government at UC Merced. He says he knows how it feels like to be not represented on campus. “There's only been one professor I really connected with, and it's a professor who also Latino, who's also first generation,” Lopez says.  Over half of California K-12 students are Latino. But as of 2018, Latinos made up just 12 percent of tenured faculty at the UCs, CSU campuses, and community colleges. “As a first generation Latino student from a low income household, it was always very difficult for me to access higher education,” Lopez continues. “When I was a senior in high school, I had no idea about the ACT that I had to take in order to enroll in higher education. So I kind of had to wing it, and I had no practice, I had no study. And I feel like it's different for other communities who have those resources compared to us. And I feel like that would greatly change the representation in higher education, if students have more access to these types of resources with affirmative action.” When California's original ban on affirmative action was on the ballot, students like Jose and professors like Sharon Elise were protesting on almost every campus in the state. They lost, but the fight politicized a generation.  But right now, campus rallies aren't possible right now because of remote learning and Covid, so students like Jose are texting and phone banking each other to organize for Prop 16. The post With Prop 16, a new generation of Californians has a chance to reinstate affirmative action. Will they? appeared first on KPFA.

Racism in America can take on many different forms, and the nuance between things like overt and covert racism can make discrimination much more difficult to see, discuss and ultimately address. To learn more about this topic, FM89's Kathleen Schock spoke with Chris Bridges from The Equal Justice Society . He is an Oakland-based attorney who also leads trainings on implicit bias.

4.9.19 #RMU: Congress held a hearing addressing hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism. Eva Paterson, President of the Equal Justice Society and Kristen Clarke, President of the National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law offer powerful testimony; New poll says Americans have negative views of the country's racial progress; Sen Cory Booker introduces legislation to form a commission on reparations; Gentrification is pushing African Americans out of their neighborhoods. We'll take a look at how this trend is really hurting predominantly Black neighborhoods

CJSF’s Allison R. Brown is joined by Eva Paterson, Founder and Director of the Equal Justice Society. They discuss the historic victory a group of civil rights organizations won when they settled a bias case against Kern H.S. District in Bakersfield, CA.

In 1970, as a 20-year-old college student, Eva Paterson famously debated Vice President Spiro Agnew on The David Frost Show. She went on to become a fierce advocate for civil rights, eventually working for 26 years at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights – including more than a dozen years as its executive director. In 2003 Paterson co-founded the Oakland-based Equal Justice Society, which works to close racial divides “through law, social science, and the arts.” Along with advocacy, the Society co-authors amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of equal protection and litigates civil rights class actions. In December, Paterson spoke with attorney Paul Henderson, the deputy chief of staff, public safety, for the mayor of San Francisco, about her career, affirmative action, the death penalty, and the nature of implicit bias. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30070]

In 1970, as a 20-year-old college student, Eva Paterson famously debated Vice President Spiro Agnew on The David Frost Show. She went on to become a fierce advocate for civil rights, eventually working for 26 years at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights – including more than a dozen years as its executive director. In 2003 Paterson co-founded the Oakland-based Equal Justice Society, which works to close racial divides “through law, social science, and the arts.” Along with advocacy, the Society co-authors amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of equal protection and litigates civil rights class actions. In December, Paterson spoke with attorney Paul Henderson, the deputy chief of staff, public safety, for the mayor of San Francisco, about her career, affirmative action, the death penalty, and the nature of implicit bias. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30070]

In 1970, as a 20-year-old college student, Eva Paterson famously debated Vice President Spiro Agnew on The David Frost Show. She went on to become a fierce advocate for civil rights, eventually working for 26 years at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights – including more than a dozen years as its executive director. In 2003 Paterson co-founded the Oakland-based Equal Justice Society, which works to close racial divides “through law, social science, and the arts.” Along with advocacy, the Society co-authors amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of equal protection and litigates civil rights class actions. In December, Paterson spoke with attorney Paul Henderson, the deputy chief of staff, public safety, for the mayor of San Francisco, about her career, affirmative action, the death penalty, and the nature of implicit bias. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30070]

In 1970, as a 20-year-old college student, Eva Paterson famously debated Vice President Spiro Agnew on The David Frost Show. She went on to become a fierce advocate for civil rights, eventually working for 26 years at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights – including more than a dozen years as its executive director. In 2003 Paterson co-founded the Oakland-based Equal Justice Society, which works to close racial divides “through law, social science, and the arts.” Along with advocacy, the Society co-authors amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of equal protection and litigates civil rights class actions. In December, Paterson spoke with attorney Paul Henderson, the deputy chief of staff, public safety, for the mayor of San Francisco, about her career, affirmative action, the death penalty, and the nature of implicit bias. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 30070]

Bipartisan campaign-finance reform was dealt a serious blow in 2010 with the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and subsequent decisions. Five years later, questions loom. Are all campaign contributions now protected "speech" under the Constitution? How can elections work best when "deep-pockets" secretly attempt to control the results and often drown out civil discussion? In this new environment, policymakers are exploring how to keep our democracy healthy and strong. Panelists include Eva Paterson, President & Co-Founder of the Equal Justice Society; Nate Percily, Professor of Law at Stanford; and Pete Peterson, Executive Director of the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. Moderated by Dick Beahrs of the Center for Civility and Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 29426]

Bipartisan campaign-finance reform was dealt a serious blow in 2010 with the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and subsequent decisions. Five years later, questions loom. Are all campaign contributions now protected "speech" under the Constitution? How can elections work best when "deep-pockets" secretly attempt to control the results and often drown out civil discussion? In this new environment, policymakers are exploring how to keep our democracy healthy and strong. Panelists include Eva Paterson, President & Co-Founder of the Equal Justice Society; Nate Percily, Professor of Law at Stanford; and Pete Peterson, Executive Director of the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. Moderated by Dick Beahrs of the Center for Civility and Democratic Engagement at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 29426]

  This has been a week of devastating news coming from Japan. Tonight, we reflect on the tragic events in Japan and how our local community has responded. We'll talk with Sri Lankan reporter Suvendrini Kakuchi who was in Tokyo at the time of the earthquake. We talk with Stephen Gong, executive director at the Center for Asian American Media to find out how they are harnessing their large Festival audience to donate funds to the relief effort. Paul Osaki talks with us about the Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California's quick response to set up the Northern Japan Earthquake Relief Fund based on a long relationship between Japan and San Francisco. Keith Kamisugi, director of communications on sabbatical from the Equal Justice Society, talks with us about his use of social media upon learning about the devastation in northern Japan.Laura Adleman with the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management talks with us about how WE can be better prepared for an emergency. Important sites are 72hours.org and alertsf.org. And finally, we take you to the Save Rapa Nui Day of Action held yesterday outside the Chilean Consulate's office. The post APEX Express – March 17, 2011 appeared first on KPFA.