Podcasts about justice civil rights division

In the United States, there are three types of “animals” that a tenant can have:  a pet, a service animal, and an emotional support animal.  But each one is defined differently, each one may or may not have additional rent, a damage deposit, or require verification as a tenant applies for one of your units.  Additionally, a landlord may have some questions about what “reasonable accommodation” regarding that animal.  Where do we start?  Krista Reuther returns to My Life As A Landlord, to help us figure out the ABCs of ESAs. 

Our guests are Nathan Blevins, the Deputy Commissioner of Community Corrections.Terri Maranoci, Community Corrections DirectorCecil Lott, Community Corrections Associate Director with the MS Board of Parole 239 North Lamar Street, Suite 501, Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 576-3520(601) 576-3528Information about parole in Mississippi, including the current Parole Board Members, Parolee Search, and Victim Parole Notification.MS Department of CorrectionsThe Community Corrections division is responsible for the following agency functions:​​Community Work CentersRestitution CentersTechnical Violation Centers​Interstate CompactProbationParoleIntensive Supervision ProgramEarned Released SupervisionTransitional Housing ServicesDo you need a ride to the polls today?WLOX reports that Lyft and Uber are offering 50% off rides to polling stations on Election Day as part of its voting access program. Lyft users can take advantage of the discount by preloading the code VOTE24 into their app until November 5.BlackNatchez.org is offering rides to the polls on Tuesday to anyone who lives in Adams County and needs one. For more information or to arrange a ride in Adams County, call Chakatria Fitzgerald at 318-719-0801; Adams County Supervisor Angela Hutchins at 601-807-0790; and the Rev. Maurice Irving at 601-807-6324.University of Mississippi Voting Engagement Ambassadors, is set for Tuesday, Nov. 5 to help students travel to polling locations in Lafayette County. Any student who is registered to vote in Lafayette County can use the shuttles for free.The Mississippi Secretary of State's office has a complaint form online if you need to report a violation. I'll have that link on our podcast information. Should you have any questions, please contact the Elections Division at (800) 829-6786.To report a violation of your voting rights, intimidation, or suppression of your voting rights you can report it by: filing a report online with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Section or calling 1-800-253-3931According to usa.gov: You have the right to cast your vote in private. There is no law against asking someone who they are voting for. But you do not have to share that information with anyone if you do not want to.MPBonline.org will have election results as the come in. MPB Think Radio will begin national election coverage at 6pm tonight. At 7pm, when our Mississippi polls close, we'll add our local election results as they come in to the National Election Coverage. MPB News Director Teresa Collier will report our results. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

NOV. 5 Get Out The VOTE 2024" National Association of Black Defenders, Inc. Radio Host Freddie C Howard Guest Call In 1 251 -362 1935 https://www.justice.gov/votingVoting | Voting Rights https://www.justice.gov/voting/voting-rights U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1398356/download CONTACT US National Association of Black Defenders, Inc 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 nabd@lobbyist.com (202) 674-6428 GUEST Mr. Harvel Brown Phil. Thank you. Thanks Mr. Tony Griffin Atlanta Ga. Thanks Dr. Samuel Lett Of Selma AL. Thanks. we join you can join us At another. freddiechoward@gmail.com Monroe County Board Of Reg. Po Box 972 Monroeville, AL. 36461-0972 Phone # 1-251-743-4107 Ext.141 Thanks Herman Jones NABD  

Among some of the top priorities in enhancing community policing efforts is refining community and police relations… specifically with youth. Strategy for Youth is an organization geared towards improving interactions between police and young people. The organization seeks to provide training for law enforcement on effective strategies for interacting positively with youth. Ms. Shelly Jackson, representative from Strategy for Youth, has spent more than 30 years protecting the civil rights of youth, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations. In addition, she served with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, where she worked on matters involving the administration of juvenile justice. Ms. Jackson joins The Beat to share her wealth of experience and knowledge!

On this episode, we are again joined by Attorney Bob Scales to discuss some of the situations surrounding the status of the U.S. Department of Justice consent decrees in the United States.  It's a follow-up to Episode 167: A Non-Consensual Decree, that expands upon our coverage of how the City of  Phoenix is reconsidering the implementation of the federal consent decree process.Bob's extensive experience with this topic provides some insight on how the politicization of consent decrees by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has  undermined a once collaborative and effective aspect of police reform.Email: 3copstalk@gmail.comWebsite: https://www.3copstalk.comYoutube: https://youtube.com/channel/UCFWKMerhChCE6_s5yFqc4awFacebook: 3 Cops Talk | FacebookInstagram: https://instagram.com/3copstalk?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Servicemembers Civil Relief Act a refresher! Original Air Date: June 18, 2019 The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), formerly known as the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, are a set of laws that allow military personnel and servicemembers to focus on defending our nation, instead of worrying about financial issues and legal actions.  The SCRA's important protections come into play in any legal proceeding involving active duty military personnel, and include additional requirements to assist in protecting them.  Join Steve and Rebecca as they discuss this important legislation, and what you need to know to comply with it in your subrogation actions. If you are an attorney and would like to donate your legal services to assist servicemembers, veterans, or their families, you can find information on the ABA Military Pro Bono Project, Operation Standby, ABA Home Front, and the Veterans' Claims Assistance Network here. If you are a servicemember with questions about the Act, please refer to the excellent  SCRA Questions and Answers for Servicemembers page on the Department of Justice's website. From the Department of Justice, if you have additional questions or feel that your rights under the SCRA have been violated, contact the Armed Forces Legal Assistance Program office near you. If you are in an emergency situation (such as an imminent foreclosure, eviction or repossession), you can contact Civil Rights Division's Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: (202) 514-4713 TTY – 202-305-1882 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, NWB Washington, D.C. 20530 Email: fairhousing@usdoj.gov Thank you for your service  

On Saturday September 7th, 1957 Marilyn Van Derbur was crowned 1958's Miss America in Atlantic City. She was a twenty-year old Phi Beta Kappa scholar at the University of Colorado, She later moved to New York City, becoming the TV spokeswoman for AT&T's Bell Telephone Hour and hosted ten episodes of Candid Camera, as well as five Miss America Pageants. In 1975 she established the Marilyn Van Derbur Motivational Institute. When she was fifty three, she revealed herself to be the victim of incestual abuse from her father. Her story was featured on the cover of People magazine on June 10th, 1991. She and her husband angel invested an adult incest survivor program at The Kempe Center, and she founded the Survivors United Network. On Monday September 9th President Eisenhower signed The Civil Rights Act of 1957. The law was the first civil rights legislation since 1875. Deep south Democrat leaders were resisting desegregation. In this midst, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill designed to provide federal protection for African American voting rights against state and local law. The law also established a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. That day, the Hattie Cotton Elementary School in Nashville, Tennessee admitted one African American student, Patricia Watson. She was six years old. Shortly after midnight on September 10th, dynamite was set off at the east end of the school's entrance hall. It tore down walls and knocked out every window, forcing the school to close for nine days. When it reopened, Patricia's mother had her transferred to an all-black school. The act was condemned by Nashville Police Chief Douglass E. Hosse who offered a seven-thousand dollar cash reward for any information. Six suspects were detained, but no one was ever charged. Biography in Sound began when NBC newsman Joseph O. Meyers was assigned to produce a documentary on Winston Churchill for his eightieth birthday on November 30th, 1954. He felt blending actualities of the subject's voice with recollections of his friends, associates, and antagonists could prove successful. A vast resource was available at NBC. Meyers had been building a tape library of interview clips since 1949. In five years, more than one-hundred-fifty-thousand historic statements had been recorded and indexed. In addition, Meyers had Bennett Cerf tell Churchill anecdotes. Laurence Olivier and Lynn Fontanne read from British poetry, and sound effects and music were added for drama. Meyers' finished product was cheered around the industry. “He had done the impossible,” said Radio Life, “turning people's attention once more to radio.” The clamor for another show was immediate and loud. A month later, Meyers answered with a piece on Ernest Hemingway, again to great acclaim. A biography of Gertrude Lawrence followed in another month, and in February it was decided to run the series weekly. On Tuesday September 10th, 1957 at 9:05PM eastern time, Biography In Sound: Danny Kaye took to the air over NBC.

Find links to all the following stories as well as other law and legal-adjacent stories at esq.social Links. On this day in history August 29, 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed by congress – the first piece of federal legislation aimed at civil rights since reconstruction.Prompted by the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which ignited public debate on school desegregation, the act aimed to address the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the Southern United States. President Dwight D. Eisenhower initially proposed the bill to bolster federal protection for African American voting rights, a pressing issue given that only about 20% of black people were registered to vote by 1957.However, the act faced considerable opposition in Congress, particularly from Southern Democrats who were engaged in a campaign of "massive resistance" against desegregation and civil rights reforms. Amendments like the Anderson–Aiken and O'Mahoney jury trial amendments were successful in diluting the act's potency. Senator Strom Thurmond notably conducted the longest one-person filibuster in Senate history in an attempt to block the legislation.Despite these setbacks, the act did pass, albeit in a watered-down form orchestrated by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson. While the act had a limited immediate impact on African American voter participation due to the removal of stringent voting protection clauses, it laid important groundwork for future civil rights legislation. It established the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, both of which would play crucial roles in the enforcement of civil rights laws.The act also set the stage for more robust civil rights legislation in the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. These later acts would build upon the foundation laid by the 1957 act, offering more comprehensive protections against discrimination and disenfranchisement. Overall, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a pivotal, if imperfect, step in the long journey toward civil rights and equality in America.The Biden administration has targeted 10 prescription drugs for price negotiations under Medicare, aiming to cut their costs by half on average by 2026. This move is part of Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law a year ago to address the high cost of medicines in the U.S. Among the drugs targeted are Eliquis, a blood thinner by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, and AstraZeneca's Farxiga, which treats diabetes and heart failure. These drugs alone accounted for significant spending, with Eliquis costing Medicare $16 billion in the year through May 2023.Previously, the U.S. government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices due to a 2003 law that created Medicare's Part D program. However, the Inflation Reduction Act has mandated these negotiations. The drugs selected for this round of negotiations account for nearly $51 billion, or about 20% of Part D's prescription drug costs. Around 9 million people on Medicare took these drugs and paid $3.4 billion out-of-pocket last year.Pharmaceutical companies have criticized the move, arguing that it threatens innovation and intellectual property rights. Johnson & Johnson, which has two drugs on the list, stated that the policies put an "artificial deadline on innovation." The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) also warned that giving the government the power to set prices could have "significant negative consequences."The drug industry is currently suing to block these negotiations, and companies like Merck, Bristol, J&J, and AstraZeneca have each filed lawsuits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also seeking an injunction to halt the negotiations. Analysts project a manageable impact on industry revenue, estimating as much as a 5% hit. However, the government expects that the price negotiations will save Medicare $100 billion through 2031.Bristol, Lilly Blockbusters Targeted for Medicare Price Cuts (1)US names first 10 drugs for Medicare price negotiation | ReutersU.S. states are increasingly focusing on "opportunity transparency" to address pay gaps, requiring companies to be more transparent about promotion opportunities. Illinois and Colorado have enacted laws that will take effect in 2025 and next year, respectively, mandating employers to disclose information about promotions. New Jersey also has pending legislation on this issue. These efforts build on pay disclosure laws initiated in Colorado in 2021 and later adopted by states like Washington, New York, California, and Hawaii. These laws primarily aim to address pay disparities affecting women and people of color.The new rules are designed to counter the "shoulder tap" practice, where employees are quietly selected for promotions, often without the knowledge of their co-workers. This lack of transparency disproportionately affects women and minorities. A 2022 study by McKinsey & Co. and LeanIn found that for every 100 men promoted from entry-level to manager positions, only 87 women and 82 women of color are promoted. This contributes to men holding nearly two-thirds of managerial roles despite making up only half of the workforce.Colorado's law imposes fines of up to $10,000 per violation and mandates changes in business practices. It requires companies to notify all employees of job openings and promotions in writing, giving them sufficient time to apply. Amendments to the law will further require businesses to notify employees about all job openings, not just promotions.The Illinois law, effective in 2025, will require companies to announce all potential promotions to their current employees within 14 days of posting a position externally. It will also require the disclosure of salary ranges and a summary of benefits in job ads. These laws aim to have a "cascading impact" on pay equity, complementing other policy efforts like banning employers from asking about applicants' prior salary history.States Put New Spin on Pay Gap Laws With Promotion TransparencyThe American Bar Association (ABA) is forming a new task force to explore the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the legal profession. This move comes as law firms increasingly experiment with AI tools like ChatGPT, while also confronting ethical and practical challenges posed by the technology. The ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence will be chaired by Lucy Thomson, a lawyer and cybersecurity engineer based in Washington, D.C. The group will include seven special advisors, such as former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman.The task force aims to assess how AI will affect the practice of law, probe ethical questions, and focus on issues like risk management, AI governance, and AI in legal education. ABA President Mary Smith emphasized the need to address both the "promise and the peril" of emerging technologies like AI. The initiative reflects a broader trend of growing interest in AI tools among legal professionals, including law schools considering the use of AI in applications and classrooms.By way of brief biographical background, Lucy Thomson, the group's chair, is the principal at a firm in Washington D.C., Livingston PLLC, that focuses on issues related to cyber security.Michael Chertoff was the co-author of the PATRIOT act, and former Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. Seth Waxman was Solicitor General of the United States from 1997 through 2001 and is frequently before the Supreme Court. The average age among the team is about 70, they're all lawyers, and none of them have any evident technical expertise.ABA taps prominent lawyers to tackle AI risks, opportunities | ReutersA U.S. District Judge, James Donato, is set to decertify a class-action lawsuit against Google involving 21 million consumers who claimed the tech giant violated federal antitrust laws through its Google Play app store. The decision could significantly reduce any damages that Google might owe for its distribution of Android mobile applications. The judge stated that his previous class certification order from November 2022 should be thrown out, as he decided not to allow an economist to testify as an expert witness for the consumers. This move eliminated an "essential element" of the consumers' argument for class certification. The class action had included consumers from 12 U.S. states and five territories, separate from a similar case brought by state attorneys general against Google.US judge set to decertify Google Play class action | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Every human needs a place to call home, a place they belong to that also belongs to them, whether they own it or not. This week we had an incredible conversation about housing equity with Michelle White. After Michelle obtained her Juris Doctorate from Rutgers she served the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, eventually focusing on several housing related roles. Michelle is now the Executive Director of Affordable Housing Services, a non-profit specializing in producing units affordable for low and very low-income persons with disabilities, persons of color and families. Michelle shared a beautiful vision of what it looks like when we all have an equitable opportunity for housing, then we reimagined Ezekiel 45:9-10. Without further ado, here's Michelle. Follow along with Michelle's efforts for housing equity at https://pasadena4rentcontrol.org/ Y'all!!!! We're hanging in person!!! Join us Thursday November 17th at 7pm in Pasadena for a communal conversion about a journey of holistic evolution with Author, Actor, and Poet Arielle Estoria. Find more information on our website https://thekinshipcollective.org/gathering. Please subscribe, rate and review our podcast. As you listen week after week and share the podcast we will keep ending otherness and growing solidarity! Please share our podcast with a friend who needs to be part of a more inclusive conversation about scripture and community. You are loved! We are family! Outro "We are Family" - Sister Sledge (Official Cover) by @ShaundReynolds

Recorded Sept. of 2021- The crew looks at the Department of Justice- Civil Rights Division's ' pattern or practice' investigation of the Louisville Metro Police Department.

Kevin Gabbert, LISW, Opioid Initiatives Director at the Iowa Department of Public Health and Anne Ryan, Host, discuss the opioid epidemic. Anne and Kevin walk through a brief history of the epidemic, the current state of the epidemic in Iowa, and discuss how nurses are serving in the efforts to combat the crisis.  ******************** Resources: Iowa Board of Nursing Website: https://www.nursing.iowa.gov Iowa Legislative Code citations: 655- Chapters 7.6 and 7.7: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/law/administrativeRules/chapters?agency=655 Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/04/28/2021-08961/practice-guidelines-for-the-administration-of-buprenorphine-for-treating-opioid-use-disorder Iowa Department of Public Health:    Your Life Iowa: https://yourlifeiowa.org/    Opioid Update Newsletter: https://idph.iowa.gov/substance-abuse/opioid-update U.S. Department of Justice- Civil Rights Division: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-guidance-protections-people-opioid-use-disorder-under-americans The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Opioid Crisis: Combating Discrimination Against People in Treatment or Recovery: https://www.ada.gov/opioid_guidance.pdf

Today, we're covering recent University talks with CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and officials from the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, as well as President Biden's recent remarks about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On this episode of the Hypermobility Happy Hour, Kerry interviews Dr. Richard Barnum. Dr. Barnum is a board certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who directed the Boston Juvenile Court Clinic for more than twenty years. In that role, he conducted psychiatric evaluations of thousands of children and families in the Massachusetts courts and also provided consulting services to the Massachusetts Departments of Mental Health and Youth Services, regarding cases involving complex legal and clinical problems. He has also consulted with the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division regarding psychiatric care provided to incarcerated juveniles in other states. He was also formerly an Assisted Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and was affiliated with the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Dr. Barnum also contributed a chapter to the book Disjointed. Dr. Barnum discusses the appropriate treatment of patients with hEDS, the issues in getting proper diagnoses, and what to do when you've been misdiagnosed with a psychiatric condition and/or undertreated for their physical ailments and conditions. Barnum, Richard, “Problems with diagnosing Conversion Disorder in response to variable and unusual symptoms.” Adolescent, health, medicine and therapeutics vol. 5 67-71. 17 Apr. 2014, doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S57486. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000178/ Dr. Richard Barnum, Psychiatrist, discusses EDS & Psychiatric illness misdiagnoses, EDS Awareness Educational Series, 17 September 2014, https://chronicpainpartners.com/webinar/free-webinar-19/ Article on misdiagnosis mentioned by Dr. Barnum: https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-correct-medical-record-errors-2615506

Hey everyone! Welcome to Dude, Don't Touch My Cane! Today, it is our 10th episode of this podcast! We are so proud of what we have accomplished so far! We are also very grateful to our listeners: friends, family, and especially our global audiences. Carolina and Shirley will be reflecting on the past episodes in hopes to make improvements so that we can continue releasing content that is valuable to you and supports our mission of advocating for the disabled community.We have a special episode for you. We're celebrating National Service Dog Month by discussing the type of service dogs available, types of breeds, what kind of specialized work they do, and more. BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS!Submit your questions to be featured in our next episode! We are doing a Q&A, answering any questions related to our past episodes, the podcast, and/or about ourselves. Email us or DM us on social media.Please write a review for our podcast! It would really boost visibility to gain more listeners.If you have a service dog, send us your pictures!! We want to see your helping companions and give them a shining moment!   Thank you so much! Transcripts and chapter markers are available for this episode!Our Source:"Service Animals," The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Retrieved from: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htmContact us at: dude.dont.touch.my.cane@gmail.com Follow us on social media:@dude.dont.touch.my.cane on Instagram@DudeDontTouchMyCane on FacebookMusic Mentions:Shirley - Born This Way by Lady GagaCarolina - "star-crossed" by Kacey Musgraves

Travis L. Adkins, deputy assistant administrator for Africa at USAID and lecturer of African and security studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service and in the Prisons and Justice Initiative at Georgetown University, and Brenda Gayle Plummer, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, led a conversation on race in America and international relations. FASKIANOS: Welcome to the first session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's meeting is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website CFR.org/academic if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Travis Adkins and Brenda Gayle Plummer with us to discuss race in America and international relations. Travis Adkins is deputy assistant administrator in the Bureau of Africa at USAID, and lecturer of African and security studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, and in the Prisons and Justice Initiative at Georgetown University. As an international development leader, he has two decades of experience working in governance, civil society, and refugee and migration affairs in over fifty nations throughout Africa and the Middle East. Mr. Adkins was a CFR international affairs fellow and is a CFR member. Dr. Brenda Gayle Plummer is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research includes race and gender, international relations, and civil rights. Dr. Plummer has taught Afro-American history throughout her twenty years of experience in higher education. Previously she taught at Fisk University, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Minnesota. And from 2001 to 2005, Dr. Plummer served on the Historical Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of State. So, thank you both for being with us today. We appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us. Travis, I thought we could begin with you to talk about the ways in which you've seen race relations in America influence U.S. foreign policy. ADKINS: Sure. Thank you so much, Irina. And welcome to everyone. Thank you for joining. The first thing I would say is that America's long history of violence, exclusion, and barbarism towards Black people and indigenous people and Asian communities and immigrant communities in the United States have worked to give the lie to the notion of who we say we are in terms of freedom, in terms of democracy, in terms of the respect for human rights. And these are the core messages that we seek to project in our foreign policy. And we've not been able to resolve those contradictions because we have refused to face this history, right? And we can't countenance a historical narrative in which we are not the heroes, not the good guys, not on the right side of history. And the challenge that we've had is that we've seen that play out in so many ugly ways domestically. But it also has resonance and relevance in our foreign policy, because what it ends up doing is essentially producing a foreign policy of platitudes and contradictory posturing on the issues of human rights, on the issues of racial justice, on the issues of democratic governance when the world can see not only this history but this present reality of racial discrimination, of police brutality, of efforts to suppress the political participation of specific groups of people inside of America. They can see children in cages at the Southern border. They can see anti-Asian hate taking place in our nation, and they can hear those messages resounding, sometimes from our White House, sometimes from our Senate, sometimes from our Congress and other halls of power throughout the United States. And that works against the message of who we say we are, which is really who we want to be. But the thing that we, I think, lose out on is pretending that where we want to be is actually where we are. And I think back a couple weeks ago Secretary Blinken came out saying to diplomats in the State Department that it was okay for them to admit America's flaws and failings in their diplomatic engagements with other countries. But I would—I do applaud that. But I also think that saying that we would admit it to the rest of the world—the rest of the world already knows. And who we would have to need to focus on admitting it to is ourselves, because we have not faced this national shame of ours as it relates to the historical and the present reality of White supremacy, of racialized violence and hatred and exclusion in our immigration policy, in our education policy, in our law and customs and cultural mores that have helped to produce ongoing violence and hatred of this nature in which our history is steeped. I think the other part of that is that we lose the opportunity to then share that message with the rest of the world. And so, what I like to say is that our real history is better than the story that we tell. So instead of us framing ourselves and our foreign policy as a nation who fell from the heavens to the top of a mountain, it's a more powerful story to say that we climbed up out of a valley and are still climbing up out of a valley of trying to create and produce and cultivate a multiracial, multiethnic democracy with respect for all, and that that is and has been a struggle. And I think that that message is much more powerful. And what it does is it creates healing for us at home, but it also begins to take away this kind of Achilles' heel that many of our adversaries have used historically—the Soviet Union, now Russia, China, Iran—this notion that democracy and freedom and the moral posturing of America is all for naught if you just look at what they do at home. Who are they to preach to you about these things when they themselves have the same challenges? And so I think that we would strengthen ourselves if we could look at this in that way. And I would just close by saying that we often speak of the civil rights movement and the movement for decolonization in the world, and specifically in Africa where I mostly work, speak of them in the past tense. But I would argue that both of them are movements and histories that are continuously unfolding, that are not resolved, and that haven't brought themselves to peaceful kinds of conclusions. And this is why when George Floyd is killed on camera, choked for nine minutes and loses his life, that you see reverberations all over the world, people pushing back because they are suffering from the same in their countries, and they are following after anti-Asian hate protestors and advocates, Black Lives Matter advocates and protestors, people who are saying to the world this is unacceptable. And so even in that way, you see the linked fates that people share. And so I think that the more we begin to face who we are at home, the more we begin to heal these wounds and relate better in the foreign policy arena, because I think that it is a long held fallacy that these things are separate, right? A nation's foreign policy is only an extension of its beliefs, its policies and its aspirations and its desires from home going out into the world. So I will stop there. And thank you for the question. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. Dr. Plummer, over to you. PLUMMER: Well, your question is a very good one. It is also a very book-length question. I'll try to address that. First of all, I would like to say that I find Mr. Adkins' statement quite eloquent and can't think of anything I disagree with in what he has said. There are a couple of things that we might consider as well. I think there are several issues embedded in this question of the relationship between race relations in the United States and it's policies toward other countries. One of them is, I think there's a difference between what policymakers intend and how American policy is perceived. There is also the question of precisely who is making and carrying out U.S. foreign policy. Now there was a time when that question I think could be very readily answered. But we're now in an age where we have enhanced roles for the military and the intelligence community. We have private contractors executing American objectives overseas. And this really places a different spin on things, somewhat different from what we observe when we look at this only through a strictly historical lens. I think we also need to spend some time thinking about the precise relationship between race and racism and what we might call colonial, more of imperialist practices. You might look, for example, at what is the relationship between the essentially colonial status of places like Puerto Rico and the Marianas and the—how those particular people from those places are perceived and treated within both the insular context and the domestic context. Clearly, everybody on the planet is shaped to a large degree by the culture and the society that they live in, that they grew up in, right? And so it is probably no mystery from the standpoint of attitudes that certain kinds of people domestically may translate into similar views of people overseas. But I think one of the things we might want to think about is how our institutions, as well as prejudices, influence what takes place. People like to talk, for example, about the similarities between the evacuation of Saigon and the evacuation of Kabul and wonder what is it called when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results? We might want to think about what is it, institutionally, which creates these kinds of repetitions, creates situations in which diplomats are forced to apologize and explain continually about race and other conflictual issues in American society. We might also think about what you perhaps could call a racialization process. Do we create categories of pariahs in response to national emergencies? Do we create immigrants from countries south of the United States as enemies because we don't have a comprehensive and logical way of dealing with immigration? Do we create enemies out of Muslims because of our roles in the Middle East and, you know, the activities and actions of other states? There's some historical presence for this—the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, for example. So it seems to me that in addressing I think, you know, some of this very rich question, there are a number of ways and facets that we might want to look at and discuss more fully. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you very much. And now we're going to go to all of you for questions and comments. So you can either ask your question by raising your hand, click on the raised hand icon and I will call on you, or else you can write your question in the Q&A box. And if you choose to write your question—although we'd prefer to hear your voice—please include your affiliation. And when I call on you, please let us know who you are and your institution. So the first question, the first raised hand I see is from Stanley Gacek. Q: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Professor Plummer and Mr. Adkins, for a very, very compelling presentation. My name is Stanley Gacek. I'm the senior advisor for global strategies at the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, representing 1.3 million working women and men in the United States and Canada in the retail, wholesale, food production, healthcare, and services industries. Practically all of our members are on the frontlines of the pandemic. I also served as deputy director and interim director of the ILO mission in Brazil in 2011 to 2016. And my question is this. I wonder if the speakers would also acknowledge that an issue for the United States in terms of its credibility with regard to racial justice, human rights, and of course labor rights, is a rather paltry record of the United States in terms of ratifying international instruments and adhering to international fora with regard to all of these issues. One example which comes to mind in my area is ILO Convention 111 against discrimination in employment and profession, which could—actually has gone through a certain due diligence process in former administrations and was agreed to by business and labor in the United States but still the United States has failed to ratify. I just wondered if you might comment more generally about how that affects our credibility in terms of advocating for racial justice, human rights, and labor rights throughout the world. Thank you very much. FASKIANOS: Who can address that, would like to address that? PLUMMER: Well, I have very little immediate knowledge of this, and I have to say that labor issues and labor rights have been kind of a missing element in terms of being heavily publicized and addressed. I think it has something to do with the fact that over the course of the decades the United States has been less responsive to the United Nations, to international organizations in general. But in terms of the specifics, you know, precisely what has fallen by the wayside, I, you know, personally don't have, you know, knowledge about that. ADKINS: And I would just say more generally, not to speak specifically in terms of labor, where I'm also not an expert, but there is, of course, a long history of the U.S. seeking to avoid these kinds of issues in the international arena writ large as Dr. Plummer was just referring to. I just finished a book by Carol Anderson called Eyes Off the Prize, which is a whole study of this and the ways in which the U.S. government worked through the United Nations to prevent the internationalization of the civil rights movement which many—Malcom X and Martin Luther King, Fannie Lou Hamer, and others—sought to frame it in the context of human rights and raise it into an international specter, and that was something that the U.S. government did not want to happen. And of course, we know that part of the genius of the civil rights movement writ large was this tactic of civil disobedience, not just to push against a law that we didn't like to see in effect but actually to create a scene that would create international media attention which would show to the world what these various communities were suffering inside of America, to try to create pressure outside of our borders for the cause of freedom and justice and democracy. And so there is that long history there which you've touched on with your question. Thank you for that. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome. Q: Good afternoon and thank you for your presentation. I just wonder about U.S. foreign policy, how it lines up with the domestic politics, you know, in terms of race relations, because if one was to believe U.S. propaganda, you know, this country is doing good in the world, it's the country to emulate. But you know, the events of—well, I guess the George Floyd case brought into graphic relief what most astute observers of the U.S. know, that race relations of the U.S. do not line up very well with the constitutional aspirations of the U.S. So what's going to change now, you know? And then there's also this pandemic and the way which race and class is showing us about the real serious inequalities in the U.S. So what's going to change in terms of lessons learned? And then moving forward, is also multilateralism going to come back into U.S. foreign policy in some way? That's it. PLUMMER: I think—I'm getting kind of an echo here. I don't know if other people are. I don't think anyone is—you know, who is thinking about this seriously doubts that the United States is in a crisis at the moment—a crisis of legitimacy not only abroad but also domestically. We have a situation in which an ostensibly developed country has large pockets, geographic pockets where there are, you know, 30, 40, 50 percent poverty rates. We have people who are essentially mired in superstition, you know, with regard to, you know, matters of health and science. And you know, I don't think anyone is, you know—is, you know—who is, you know, thinking about this with any degree of gravity is not concerned about the situation. Once again, I think we're talking here about institutions, about how we can avoid this sort of repetitive and cyclical behavior. But one thing I want to say about George Floyd is that this is a phenomenon that is not only unique to the United States. One of the reasons why George Floyd became an international cause célèbre is because people in other countries also were experiencing racism. There—other countries had issues with regard to immigration. And so really looking at a situation in which I think is—you know, transcends the domestic, but it also transcends, you know, simply looking at the United States as, you know, the sort of target of criticism. FASKIANOS: Do you want to add anything, Travis, or do you want to—should we go to the next question? ADKINS: Go on to the next question. Thank you. FASKIANOS: OK, thank you. Let's go to Shaarik Zafar with Georgetown, and our prior questioner was with Brooklyn—teachers at Brooklyn College. Q: Hey, there. This is Shaarik Zafar. I was formerly the special counsel for post-9/11 national origin discrimination in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division—sorry, that's a mouthful—and then most recently during the Obama years I was a special representative to Muslim communities. So this—I first applaud the presentation. These issues are very near and dear to me. I think it's clear, you know, we have to own up and acknowledge our shortcomings. And I think, you know, I was really sad to hear that we actually worked against highlighting what I think is really an example of American exceptionalism, which is our civil rights movement and our civil rights community. When I was at State during the Obama years, we had a very modest program where we brought together U.S. civil rights leaders and connected them with European civil rights leaders. And the idea wasn't that we had it all figured out but rather that, you know, in some respects the United States has made some advances when it comes to civil rights organizing and civil society development in that respect—and perhaps more so than other countries. I was just thinking, I would love to get the panelists' thoughts on ways that we can continue to collaborate and—you know, on a civil society level between civil rights organizations in the United States and abroad and the way the U.S. government should actually support that—even if it means highlighting our shortcomings—but as a way to, you know, invest in these types of linkages and partnerships to not only highlight our shortcomings but look for ways that we could, you know, actually come to solutions that need to be, I think, fostered globally. Thanks so much. ADKINS: You know, the first thing I would say, Shaarik—thanks for your question—I thought it was interesting, this idea of framing the civil rights movement as a kind of example of American exceptionalism. And I think there's a way in which I would relate to that in the sense that folks did, at least nominally or notionally, have certain kinds of freedom of speech, certain kinds of rights to assembly. But even those were challenged, of course, when we see the violence and the assassinations and all of the machinations of the government against those who were leaders or participants in that movement. And so in that sense, perhaps I would agree. I might push back, though, in terms of American exceptionalism as it relates to civil rights, because these people were actually advocating against the U.S. government, who actually did not want them to have the rights that they were promised under the Constitution. Of course, many of us would not be free or able to speak up without the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments. And so there's a sense in which we celebrate them, but there's also a sense in which they are actually indictments of the original Constitution which did not consider any of those things to be necessary elements of our society. In terms of civil society and where the U.S. government is engaged, I think that, you know, sometimes when we deal with these problems that are foreign policy related, you know, sometimes the answer is at home. Sometimes the answer is not, you know, a white paper from some high-level think tank. It's not something that starts ten thousand miles away from where we are, because I don't think that we would have the kind of standing and credibility that we would need to say that we believe in and support and give voice and our backing to civil society movements abroad if we don't do the same thing at home. And so everything that we want to do somewhere else, we ought to ask ourselves the question of whether or not we've thought about doing it at home. And I don't mean to suggest—because certainly no nation is perfect, and every nation has its flaws. But certainly, we would be called to the mat for the ways in which we are either acknowledging or refusing to acknowledge that we have, you know, these same—these same challenges. And so I think there still remains a lot of work to be done there in terms of how we engage on this. And you have seen the State Department come out and be more outspoken. You've seen the Biden administration putting these issues more out front. You have now seen the Black Lives Matter flag flying over U.S. embassies in different parts of the world. And some people might view that as co-optation of a movement that is actually advocating against the government for those rights and those respects and that safety and security that people believe that they are not receiving. And others might see it as a way to say, look, our nation is embracing civil society and civic protests in our nation as an example that the countries in which those embassies are in should be more open to doing the same kinds of things. And so it's a great question. I think it remains to be seen how we move forward on that—on that score. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Molly Cole. Q: Hi. My name is Molly Cole. I am a grad student of global affairs at New York University. I was just curious sort of what y'all thought about what the consequences of foreign policy on punishment systems and institutions as it pertains to race relations in the United States would be, also in tandem with sort of this strive for global inclusivity and equity and just sort of, I guess, hitting those two ideas against each other. ADKINS: Can you clarify the ideals for us, Molly? So one sounded like it was about maybe mass incarceration or the death penalty or things of that nature? You're talking about punitive systems of justice? And then the other seemed to be more about diversity, equity, and inclusion in the foreign policy space? But I don't want to put words in your mouth. I just want to make sure I understand the question. Q: You hit the nail on the head. ADKINS: OK. Do you want to go ahead, Dr. Plummer? PLUMMER: Oh. Well, again, a great question but, you know, one of, you know, it's—could write a book to answer. (Laughs.) Well, if you're talking about the sort of international regime of incarceration—is that what you were referring to? Q: Yes, essentially. So when we're—when we're considering, you know, these punitive systems, I'm thinking in terms of, you know, the death penalty, mass incarceration, private prisons, sort of this culmination of us trying to come up with these ideals, but doing it sort of on our own, while also combatting, you know, what the nation is calling for, what the globe is calling for. PLUMMER: Yeah. I think this sort of pertains to what I had mentioned earlier about just, you know, who is making and carrying out U.S. foreign policy, or domestic policy for that matter. There's a whole question of the state and, you know, what parts of the state are involved in this whole question of incarceration and are involved in the whole question of the death penalty. One of the things that we are aware of is that prisons have—some of the prisons are actually not being operated by civil authorities. They're operated by private entities. We saw this again in—you know, particularly in Afghanistan, where a lot of functions which normally, you know, are carried out by civil authorities are carried out by private authorities. And so this really puts a whole different perspective on the question or the relationship of citizens to the state and, you know, to any other particular group of citizens to the state. So I think that, you know, one of the problem areas then is to tease out what in fact are the obligations and privileges of government, and how do they differ from and how are they distinguished from the private sector. Q: Thank you. ADKINS: And I would just add quickly on this notion of hypocrisy and saying one thing and doing another, there was an interesting anecdote around this when President Obama visited Senegal. And he was delivering a fairly tough message about the treatment of members of the LGBT+ community in Senegal. And President Macky Sall got up essentially after President Obama and was essentially saying that, you know, we kind of appreciate this tough love lecture, but I would remind you, you know, that Senegal doesn't have the death penalty, right? And so on one hand we're actually saying something that has a grounding. Of course, people of all human stripes can have dignity, and have respect and be protected. But he is then hitting back and saying, hey, wait a minute, you kill people who break laws in your own country. And we don't have the death penalty. So who should actually be the arbiter of how is the correct way – or, what is the correct way to be? On the second part of your question, quickly, Molly, especially as it relates to the kind of diversity, equity, and inclusion piece, this is why also there has been a big push to look in our State Department, to look at USAID, to look at the face that America presents to the world. And all too often that face has been male, that face has been White. And that gives a certain perception of America, but it also means that we lose the tremendous treasure and talent of people who have language skills, who come from communities in which their own perspective on the world actually is a talent that they have. Specifically, because many of those communities—whether they've immigrated or come to America by different means—are also from groups who've been marginalized, who've been oppressed, who have a certain frame and a lens with which to engage with other nations in the world, either in terms of partnership, either in terms of deterrence. And so we lose out in many ways because we haven't done a great job in that—in that matter. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take a written question from Morton Holbrook, who's at Kentucky Wesleyan College. His question is: How should the United States respond to international criticism to the U.S.'s racial discrimination? And how will that affect the relationship between the U.S. and the international community? PLUMMER: Well, the United States, I think, has—(laughs)—no choice but to acknowledge this. Historically this has been a problem that when pressed on this issue in the past the response was always, well, you know, we know this is a problem and we're working on it. And the most egregious examples of racism are the responsibility of people who are either at the margins of society or who represent some sort of relic past that is rapidly disappearing, right? That was the message about the South, right? OK, the South is, you know, rapidly developing and so soon these vestiges of violent racism will be over. Well, again, the reason why that doesn't work anymore—(laughs)—is because we're always projecting this future, right, that—you know, it's always being projected further and further into the future. And we're never there yet. And it seems to me, again, that this is a problem of institutions. This is a problem of the embeddedness of racism in American life, and a refusal on the part of so many Americans to acknowledge that racism is real, and that it exists. And you know, I think we see many examples of this. I'm thinking of one instance where a George Floyd commemorative mural was painted on a sidewalk and some folks came along with some paint and painted over it, because they said it wasn't a racism corner, you know, while engaged in a racist act. So, you know, there really needs to be, I think, on a very fundamental level, some education—(laughs)—you know, in this country on the issue of race and racism. The question is, you know, who is—who will be leaders, right? Who will undertake this kind of mission? ADKINS: One thing I would say, quickly, on that, Irina, just an anecdote as well that also relates to really in some ways the last question about who our representatives are and what perspective they bring. Several years ago, I was on a trip—a congressional delegation to Egypt. And I was with several members of the CBC. And we met with President Sisi. And they were giving him a fairly rough go of it over his treatment of protesters who were protesting at that time in Tahrir Square, many of whom had been killed, maimed, abused, jailed. And he listened to them kind of haranguing him. And at the end of that speech that they were giving to him he said basically: I understand your points. And I hear your perspective. But he said, can I ask you a question? They said, sure, Mr. President. We welcome you to ask questions. And he said, what about Ferguson? And the day that he said that Ferguson was on fire with surplus military equipment in the streets of America, with, you know, tear gas and armed military-appearing soldiers in the streets of America who were seen, at least optically, to be doing the same thing, right? Not as many people were killed, certainly, but the point is you have this same problem. However, if that had been a different delegation, he might have scored a point in their verbal jousting. But President Sisi had the misfortune of saying this to two-dozen 70-plus-year-old Black people. And no one in America would know better than they what that is like. And so what they ended up replying to him by saying, exactly. No one knows this better than we do. And this is exactly why we're telling you that you shouldn't do it. Not because our country doesn't have that history, but because we do have that history and it has damaged us, and it will damage you. Which takes on a completely different tone in our foreign relations than if it was simply a lecture, and that we were placing ourselves above the nations of the world rather than among them. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go to Ashantee Smith. Q: Hello. Can you guys hear me? ADKINS: We can. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: OK, perfect. Hi. My name is Ashantee Smith. I am a grad student at Winston-Salem State University. In regards to some of the responses that you guys gave earlier, it gave me a question. And I wanted to know how you guys were putting the correlation between racism and immigration. PLUMMER: Well, yeah. The United States has a history of racialized responses to immigrants, including historically to White immigrants. Back in the day the Irish, for example, were considered to be, you know, something less than White. We know, however, that society—American society has since, you know, incorporated Europeans into the category of Whiteness, and not done so for immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, who remain racialized, who are perceived as being, in some respects by some people, unassimilable. We also have a phenomenon of the racialization of Muslims, the creation of outcast groups that are subjected to, you know, extremes of surveillance or exclusion or discrimination. So immigration is very much embedded in this, is a question of an original vision of the United States, you know, and you can see this in the writings of many of the founding fathers, as essentially a White country in which others, you know, are in varying degrees of second-class citizens or not citizens at all. So this is, I think, an example of something that we have inherited historically that continues to, you know, be an issue for us in the present. Yeah. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Pearl Robinson. Q: Hello. I am just so thrilled to see the two panelists here. I want—I actually raised my hand when you were talking about the labor rights issue. And I'm at Tufts University. And I'm currently working on an intellectual biography about Ralph Bunche. And I actually ran over here from the U.N. archives where I was actually reading about these issues. (Laughs.) And I wanted to just say that the discussion we're having now, it's sort of disjointed because we're dealing with lots of erasures, things that are overlooked, and they are not enough Carol Andersons and Brenda Gayle Plummer professors out there putting these things in press. But even more importantly, they are not sufficiently in our curriculum. So people who study international relations and people who do international relations don't know most of these things. So my quick point I just wanted to say was during World War II when Ralph Bunche was working for the OSS military intelligence, his archives are full of it, he went and he was interviewing our allies at their missions and embassies in the U.S.—the French, the British—asking them: What are your labor relations policies in your colonial territories? And this was considered important military information for the United States, as we were going to be—as Africa was an important field of operation. When you get to actually setting up the U.N., I was struck in a way I hadn't, because I hadn't read archives this way. (Laughs.) But I'm looking at conversations between Bunche and Hammarskjöld, and they're restructuring the organization of the United States—of the United Nations. And there are two big issues that are determining their response to the restructuring—the Cold War as well as decolonization. And I actually think that those two issues remain—they're structuring that conversation we're having right now. And they—we say the Cold War is over, but I love this phrase, of the racialization of the current enemies or people we think of as enemies. So I actually do think that this is a really good program we're having where we're trying to have the conversation. But the dis-junctures, and the silences, and the difficulties of responding I think speak volumes. The last thing I will say, very quickly, that incident about the discussion with President Sisi that Mr. Adkins—that needs to be canned. That needs to be somehow made available as an example that can be replicated and expanded and broadened for people to use in teaching. ADKINS: Well, I always listen when my teacher is talking to me, Dr. Robinson. Thank you for sharing that. And I'm working on it, I promise you. (Laughter.) FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to—we have lots of questions and raised hands, and we're not going to get to all of you. So I apologize right now. (Laughs.) We'll do the best we can. Jill Humphries. Q: Hello. My name is Jill Humphries. And I'm an adjunct assistant professor in the Africa Studies Program at the University of Toledo, and have been doing Africa-based work, I'm proud to say, for about thirty-three years, starting at the age twenty-two, and have used Dr. Plummer's work in my dissertation. And hello, fellow ICAPer (sp). So my question is this: There's an assumption that I believe we're operating in. And that is race and racism is somehow aberrant to the founding of this country, right? So we know that Saidiya Hartman and Frank Wilderson, the Afropessimist, make the argument that it is clearly key that it is fundamental to the development of our institutions. And so my question is this: You know, the—in the domestic scene the sort of abolitions clearly state that unless we fundamentally transform our norms and values, which impact, of course, our institutions, then we will continue to have the exact outcomes that are expected. The killing of George Floyd and the continuing, I think, need to kill Black bodies is essential to this country. And so my question is, in the context of foreign relations, international relations, are we also looking at the way in which, number one, it is not aberrant that racism is a constituent element in the development of our foreign policy and our institutions? And that unless we fundamentally first state it, acknowledge it, and then perhaps explore the way in which we dismantle, right—dismantle those norms and values that then impact these institutions, that we're going to continue to have the same outcomes, right? So for example, when Samantha Powers visited Ethiopia, if you've been following that whole narrative, there was a major backlash by the Ethiopian diaspora—major. My colleagues and friends, like, I've had intense conversations, right, around that. Same thing about the belief about Susan, former—Susan Rice's role, right, in continuing to influence our foreign policy, particularly towards the Horn of Africa. So my question is: What does that look like, both theoretically, conceptually? But more importantly for me, because I'm a practitioner on the ground, what does that look like in practice? And that's where I think Professor Adkins, working for USAID, could really kind of talk about. Thank you. ADKINS: Thank you. Yeah, you know, I think it goes back to Dr. Robinson's question a moment ago. And that is the first the acknowledgement and the calling out and the putting into relief and contrast the context in which we're operating, especially when we think about not even USAID specifically, but the industry of development—aid and development assistance kind of writ large. Because essentially what we have is a historical continuum that starts with the colonial masters and the colonial subjects. And then that because what is called, or framed, as the first world and the third world, right? And then that becomes the developing world and the developed world. Then that becomes the global north and the global south. All of which suggests that one is above, and one is below. That one is a kind of earthly heaven, the other kind of earthly hell. That one possessed the knowledge and enlightenment to lead people into civilization, and the other needs redemption, needs to be saved, needs to be taught the way to govern themselves, right? That this kind of Western notion of remaking yourself in the world, that your language, that your system of government, that your way of thinking and religious and belief and economics should be the predominant one in the world. And so I think, to me, what you're saying suggests the ways in which we should question that. And this is where you start to hear conversations about decolonizing aid, about questioning how we presume to be leaders in the world in various aspects, of which we may not actually be producing sound results ourselves. And thinking again about this notion of placing ourselves among nations rather than above nations in the ways in which we relate and engage. And I think that it's one of the reasons that we continue to have challenges in the realm of development assistance, in the realm of our diplomacy and foreign policy. Because, again, there is a pushback against that kind of thinking, which is rooted in a deep history that contains much violence and many types of economic and diplomatic pressures to create and sustain the set of power relations which keeps one group of people in one condition and one in another. And so it's a huge question. And how to bring that kind of lofty thinking down to the granular level I think is something that we will have to continue to work on every day. I certainly don't have the answer, but I'm certainly answering—asking, I should say—the questions. PLUMMER: I think I might also think about how is in charge. And this is—you know, it goes back to something we talked about before, when U.S. foreign policy is no longer exclusively rooted in the State Department? So in terms of, you know, who represents the United States abroad and in what ways, and how is that representation perceived, we're really looking at, you know, a lot of different actors. And we're also looking at, you know, changes in the way that the U.S. government itself is perceiving its role, both at home and abroad. And one of the questions was previously asked about the system of incarceration speaks to that, because we have to ask ourselves what are—what are—what are the proper roles and responsibilities and burdens of the state, the government and, you know, what is leased out—(laughs)—in some ways, for profit to private concerns? So I think that, you know, some of this is about, you know, a sense of mission that I don't see out there, that I think will in some respects have to be restored and reinvented. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Erez Manela. Q: Thank you very much for this really terrific and important panel. My name is Erez Manela. I teach the history of U.S. foreign relations at Harvard. And my question actually—I don't know if Irina planned this—but it follows on directly from the previous question. Because I kept on wondering during this panel what—I mean, the focus that we've had here, the topic that's been defined, is the way in which domestic race relations, domestic racism, have shaped U.S. foreign policy. But of course, U.S. foreign policy has been shaped—as the previous questioner noted—has been shaped directly by racism and perceptions of racial hierarchy for—well, since the very beginning. And Professor Adkins spoke very eloquently about it. And of course, Professor Plummer has written eloquently about that, including in her books on Haiti and international relations. But I guess I'm wondering if you could speak more about the specifics about the history that needs to be recognized in that realm, and then—and this is maybe self-interested—whether you have any recommendations, in the way that you recommended Carol Anderson's really terrific book—for reading that we can read ourselves or give our students to read, that would really drive that point home, the influence of racism, race perceptions, race hierarchies themselves on—directly on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations historically. PLUMMER: Well, Professor Manela, I appreciate your own work on Wilson. And you know, that in some respects—that would be a book that I'd recommend. (Laughs.) Might also think about Mary Dudziak's work on Cold War civil rights, and her law review article, Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative, which, you know, directly addresses these questions. Again, what I would like to see is some work that will—perhaps not necessarily a historical perspective—but will address this whole question of the sort of growing, I don't know what you'd call it, multiplicity or multivariant character of American policymaking, you know, as we—as we go forward, you know, past the Cold War era. There's an interesting item by a man named Andrew Friedman, who wrote a book called Covert Capital. I think the subtitle is something like Landscapes of Power, in which we discussed the rise of Northern Virginia as what he sees as the true capital of, you know, parts of the U.S. government, in being a center for the military and for intelligence community. And their shaping of that environment at home, as well as their influence in shaping U.S. policy abroad. So, you know, there's a lot of room for work on these—on these issues. ADKINS: And I would also just follow up—and thank you for the question—and add another book that I just finished. Daniel Immerwahr, from Northwestern University, How to Hide an Empire, which deals in many ways with U.S. foreign policy and the way in which it is explicitly racialized and ways in which that goes understudied in our—in our policy circles, and certainly in the world of education. FASKIANOS: I'm going to try to squeeze in one last question. And I apologize again for not getting to everybody's question. We'll go to Garvey Goulbourne as our final question. Q: Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: Yeah. My name's Garvey Goulbourne. I'm a student at the University of Virginia, actually studying abroad this semester in Rabat, Morocco. And my question to you both is: What mechanisms do we have to orient the narratives that our foreign policy leaders are brought up with? Thinking particularly of American exceptionalism and how we kind of place ourselves on a pedestal, whether they be foreign affairs schools or various institutions at different levels of American education, what tools do we have to address the foundations of American perspectives of themselves and our nation in relation to the rest of the world, particularly the global south? FASKIANOS: Who wants to go first? An easy question, of course, to close with. PLUMMER: Go ahead, Mr. Adkins. ADKINS: Sure, sure. Thank you for your question, Garvey. And congratulations on the move out to Morocco. Great to see you there. I think the first thing I would say, of course, is our tools, as far as I am concerned, relate certainly to education. And it's one of the reasons that I am in the classroom. But I know what that fight is like, because even education is taken over by these notions of White supremacy, by these notions of singular historical narratives. And this is why there's been such a push against the 1619 Project of the New York Times, why there is this kind of silly season around the misunderstood origins and contexts of critical race theory. There is this battle over who gets to tell the story of what America is, because it is more than—but it is more than one thing, obviously, to a multiplicity of people. And so I am kind of remiss—or, not remiss. There's no way for me to elucidate for you now a series of tools that will resolve these problems, because these are challenges that people have been wrestling with before our mothers' mothers were born. And so we only are continuing that fight from where we sit. And certainly, in the classrooms that I am in, whether they are in prisons or on campuses, we are always digging into the origin of these themes. And the main frame through which I teach is not just for students to understand this history for their health, but for them to understand this history as a lens through which to view the current world and all of the events and challenges that we find ourselves facing, to see if we can come up with new ways to address them. PLUMMER: Well, one of the things that Mr. Goulbourne could do, since he is in Morocco, is to make use of his own insights in his conversations with Moroccans. So, you know, there is still a role, you know, for individual actors to play some part in attempting to make some changes. FASKIANOS: Well, with that we unfortunately have to close this conversation. It was very rich. Thank you, Travis Adkins and Brenda Gayle Plummer or sharing your insights and analysis with us. We really appreciate it. To all of you, for your questions and comments. Again, I'm sorry we couldn't get to all of you. You can follow Travis Adkins @travisladkins, and that's on Twitter. And our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday September 29, at 1:00 p.m. (ET) with Thomas Graham, who is a fellow at CFR. And we'll talk about Putin's Russia. So in the meantime, I encourage you to follow us at @CFR_Academic, visit CFR.org, Thinkglobalhealth.org, and ForeignAffairs.com for new research and analysis on global issues. So thank you all again and we look forward to continuing the conversation. ADKINS: Take care, everyone. Thank you. (END)

Saniyya Dennis, the New York college student who disappeared last month, died by apparent suicide, officials said Thursday. "It appears that this poor girl took her own life," Erie County District Attorney John Flynn told reporters during a morning news conference. While authorities have not located the 19-year-old's body, they were able to reach that conclusion based on a timeline of her last hours. Flynn said on the afternoon of April 24, Dennis got into an argument with her boyfriend in New York City over the phone. After trying to contact him 59 times to no avail, she called another male friend in New York City and talked about killing herself, the DA said. However, the family demanded a federal investigation by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. “Given these variables and the fact that Saniyya’s body has not been discovered, we express great concerns about the handling of this case and the suicide narrative. Mr. Flynn purposefully placed Saniyya in a negative light as though she was a depraved stalker who harassed her boyfriend for attention,” the family statement said. “These dismissive acts caused victim blaming and shaming. It is unconscionable that he presented a speculative narrative as a factual one by calling a national press conference and falsely asserting he shared his findings with the family.” Click here to watch the full video. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/leah-gordone/support

Show #271 | Guests: Gilda Daniels and Myrna Peréz | Show Summary: Angie's guests tackle the many obstacles to our most precious freedom: access to the ballot box. Donald Trump has convinced many voters not to trust the Post Office with their ballot, and overseen destruction of mailing systems. Gerrymandering is the norm across the country. And a rising number of poor districts and neighborhoods of color report hours-long voting lines. Angie's guests: Gilda Daniels is the author of Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America; she's a former Deputy Chief in the U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Section. She served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations and is currently a professor of law at the University of Baltimore Law School. Myrna Peréz heads the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. She has testified before Congress and several state legislatures on a variety of voting rights related issues. She is a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School and has also served as an adjunct professor of clinical law at NYU School of Law.

NOTE: First Mondays is a special discussion program about current business and political events through a legal lens. This program is an opportunity to meet Albany Law School faculty and to participate in a stimulating discussion on world events. As America prepares for the 2020 Election, we present a First Mondays program around voting rights. We will discuss the history of the struggle for voting rights including the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with our special guest, Professor Gilda R. Daniels. Professor Daniels is a voting rights expert and former Deputy Chief in the U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, where she served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. She is currently a professor of law at the University of Baltimore Law School and the Director of Litigation for Advancement Project's National Office, a multi-racial civil rights organization. She is also the author of UNCOUNTED: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America, her first book. Published in January by New York University Press, it has already been called “required reading” by Ms. Magazine. Hosts Prof. Patricia Reyhan - Distinguished Professor of Law Prof. Ted De Barbieri - Associate Professor of Law; Director, Community Economic Development Clinic Special Guest Prof. Gilda R. Daniels - Associate Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law; Author: UNCOUNTED: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America

Chiraag Bains is the Director of Legal Strategies at Demos, a think tank focused on strengthening democracy and fighting for racial justice. He previously served as Senior Counsel to the head of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He co-wrote the Ferguson Report. The Department of Justice sued Ferguson, Missouri, over unconstitutional policing and court practices. He believes that the lack of accountability for police violence is solvable. Here are a few of the resources related to this episode: Ending Qualified Immunity Act, introduced by Representatives Justin Amash and Ayanna Pressley June 4, 2020 George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, introduced by Representative Karen Bass June 8, 2020 'CAHOOTS': How Social Workers And Police Share Responsibilities In Eugene, Oregon, NPR, June 10, 2020 Fatal Force, a study by The Washington Post (updated daily) Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, March 4, 2015

Join us as Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, discusses the priorities and work of his office before, during and after COVID-19.Featuring: -- Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice

Join us as Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, discusses the priorities and work of his office before, during and after COVID-19.Featuring: -- Eric S. Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice

NARAL's The Morning After is a production of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. This week, Gabe and Jaime traveled to the US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. The Down syndrome abortion ban signed into law by former Gov. John Kasich was immediately blocked by federal courts. The appeal by Gov. Mike DeWine's Department of Health challenging the stoppage called for an en banc review, which means the case was heard by all SIXTEEN judges of the appeals court at one time, instead of the usual three judge panel.  The state's argument was presented by attorney Ben Flowers and joined by an addition from the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division attorney, Alexander Maugeri. The plaintiff, Preterm, was represented by attorney and Case professor, Jessie Hill. The state of Ohio is arguing many positions, first being that this abortion ban somehow isn't an abortion ban. They feel that it applies to doctors and not women, so the women aren't impacted. (We note that the entire trial, and our discussion of it, was entirely using gendered language. This isn't a principal shared by NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, but it's not our court.) A second position of the state, and several male judges on the court, is that women won't be impacted by this ban because they can just dodge it by not informing their doctor why they are seeking an abortion. Prof. Hill pointed out that asking patients to hide information from doctors is not sound health care policy. Full hearing audio is available at: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/aud1.php (Look for March 11, 2020 - 18-3329 Preterm-Cleveland v Amy Acton et al.) ********** Listen to NARAL's The Morning After on these podcast apps: Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/naralpodcast Spotify: bit.ly/naralspotify Stitcher: bit.ly/naralstitcher Podbean: bit.ly/naralpodbean

The State Auditor's office uncovers an embezzlement scheme.Then, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announces an investigation of the Department of Corrections.And, the Fifth Circuit Court hears the appeal in Mississippi's six-week abortion ban.Segment 1:The State Auditor's Office in cooperation with the Hinds County District Attorney's office is uncovering what Auditor Shad White calls the largest case on record. Arrests were made on Wednesday of former Department of Human Services Director John Davis and Dr. Nancy New, owner and Director of the Mississippi Community Education Center (MCEC) and New Learning, Inc, along with four other alleged co-conspirators. Auditor White addressed the indictments at the Hinds County Courthouse Thursday. We also received comment from the U.S. Attorney's office.Segment 2:The U.S. Department of Justice announced its investigating four Mississippi prisons. The Civil Rights Division will examine conditions at Parchman Penitentiary, Southern Mississippi Correctional Institute, the Central Mississippi and Wilkinson County Correctional Facilities. Mississippi 2nd District Congressman Bennie Thompson requested the investigation after recent violence and the deaths of at least 15 inmates most of them at Parchman. He tells MPB's Michael Guidry Mississippi has a problem and he hopes the DOJ's involvement will bring some solutions. Plus, reaction from Cliff Johnson of the MacArthur Justice Center and Governor Tate Reeves.Segment 3:The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday in Jackson Women's Health Organization v Dobbs — a case challenging Mississippi's ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. This is the first of the recent six-week abortion bans to reach a federal court of appeals. The ban was blocked by a district court last May, but the State of Mississippi appealed the decision. Hillary Schneller, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, recaps the arguments from the Fifth Circuit in Houston. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), formerly known as the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, are a set of laws that allow military personnel and servicemembers to focus on defending our nation, instead of worrying about financial issues and legal actions.  The SCRA’s important protections come into play in any legal proceeding involving active duty military personnel, and include additional requirements to assist in protecting them.  Join Steve and Rebecca as they discuss this important legislation, and what you need to know to comply with it in your subrogation actions. If you are an attorney and would like to donate your legal services to assist servicemembers, veterans, or their families, you can find information on the ABA Military Pro Bono Project, Operation Standby, ABA Home Front, and the Veterans’ Claims Assistance Network here. If you are a servicemember with questions about the Act, please refer to the excellent  SCRA Questions and Answers for Servicemembers page on the Department of Justice’s website. From the Department of Justice, if you have additional questions or feel that your rights under the SCRA have been violated, contact the Armed Forces Legal Assistance Program office near you. If you are in an emergency situation (such as an imminent foreclosure, eviction or repossession), you can contact Civil Rights Division’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section: (202) 514-4713 TTY – 202-305-1882 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, NWB Washington, D.C. 20530 Email: fairhousing@usdoj.gov Thank you for your service   The post SCRA: Legal Protections for Military Personnel appeared first on Rathbone Group, LLC.

May is National Foster Care Awareness Month, and the child welfare system is overwhelmed, especially in the middle of the opioid crisis. Yet many faith-based foster care and adoption providers find themselves defending their very right to exist up against legislation like the Equality Act. These providers and families entered the child welfare system because of their religious convictions to care for the vulnerable. We need as many providers as possible to serve vulnerable children and that means, as Russell Moore argued, letting Catholic adoption agencies be Catholic. Jeff and Chelsea welcome their coalition partner Hillary Byrnes, a religious liberty advocate from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to discuss the future of faith-based child welfare. Guest Biography Hillary Byrnes is director of Religious Liberty and Associate General Counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in Washington, D.C. Hillary staffs the Committee for Religious Liberty, which the U.S. bishops established to address growing concerns over the erosion of freedom of religion in America. Before joining the USCCB, Hillary worked in private practice and served as a Trial Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. She is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame Law School, cum laude, where she was an Article Editor of the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, and earned her bachelor's in Foreign Service, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University. Hillary is a member of the bars of New York and the District of Columbia and has been admitted to practice before several federal trial and appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Resources from the Conversation ERLC article by James Williams | 10 ways you can get involved in foster care USCCB Religious Liberty The legal case Hillary referenced | Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia Blog by Chelsea Patterson Sobolik | Three Ways Christians Can Get Involved In Pro-Life Work TGC article by Andrew Walker | The Equality Act Accelerates Anti-Christian Bias USA Today op-ed by Russell Moore | Let Catholic adoption agencies be Catholic. We should focus on finding every child a home. ERLC | Capitol Conversation Podcast

May is National Foster Care Awareness Month, and the child welfare system is overwhelmed, especially in the middle of the opioid crisis. Yet many faith-based foster care and adoption providers find themselves defending their very right to exist up against legislation like the Equality Act. These providers and families entered the child welfare system because of their religious convictions to care for the vulnerable. We need as many providers as possible to serve vulnerable children and that means, as Russell Moore argued, letting Catholic adoption agencies be Catholic. Jeff and Chelsea welcome their coalition partner Hillary Byrnes, a religious liberty advocate from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to discuss the future of faith-based child welfare. Guest Biography Hillary Byrnes is director of Religious Liberty and Associate General Counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in Washington, D.C. Hillary staffs the Committee for Religious Liberty, which the U.S. bishops established to address growing concerns over the erosion of freedom of religion in America. Before joining the USCCB, Hillary worked in private practice and served as a Trial Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. She is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame Law School, cum laude, where she was an Article Editor of the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, and earned her bachelor's in Foreign Service, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University. Hillary is a member of the bars of New York and the District of Columbia and has been admitted to practice before several federal trial and appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Resources from the Conversation ERLC article by James Williams | 10 ways you can get involved in foster care USCCB Religious Liberty The legal case Hillary referenced | Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia Blog by Chelsea Patterson Sobolik | Three Ways Christians Can Get Involved In Pro-Life Work TGC article by Andrew Walker | The Equality Act Accelerates Anti-Christian Bias USA Today op-ed by Russell Moore | Let Catholic adoption agencies be Catholic. We should focus on finding every child a home. ERLC | Capitol Conversation Podcast

What is it like to watch as the Trump administration attempts to undo all of your accomplishments? That’s what Michele and Igor ask Vanita Gupta about this week. As Former Head of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights she’s watched the DOJ announce it’s intent to sue universities for implementing affirmative action admissions policies, to withhold funding from sanctuary cities and roll back voting rights enforcement… YET she is still fighting.

Deepa Iyer is the author of We Too Sing America: South Asian, Arab, Muslim, and Sikh Immigrants Shape Our Multiracial Future (The New Press, 2015). Iyer is Senior Fellow at Center for Social Inclusion and was Executive Director of South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) for a decade prior. Drawing on professional experiences in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and years leading a national advocacy organization, Iyer weaves personal anecdotes, excellent elite interviews, and policy recommendations into We Too Sing America. She calls out the organized anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political movement in the country and calls for mobilized political action by South Asians to resist these threats. Scholars and policy practitioners interested in immigrant rights will enjoy this new book. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deepa Iyer is the author of We Too Sing America: South Asian, Arab, Muslim, and Sikh Immigrants Shape Our Multiracial Future (The New Press, 2015). Iyer is Senior Fellow at Center for Social Inclusion and was Executive Director of South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) for a decade prior. Drawing on professional experiences in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and years leading a national advocacy organization, Iyer weaves personal anecdotes, excellent elite interviews, and policy recommendations into We Too Sing America. She calls out the organized anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political movement in the country and calls for mobilized political action by South Asians to resist these threats. Scholars and policy practitioners interested in immigrant rights will enjoy this new book. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deepa Iyer is the author of We Too Sing America: South Asian, Arab, Muslim, and Sikh Immigrants Shape Our Multiracial Future (The New Press, 2015). Iyer is Senior Fellow at Center for Social Inclusion and was Executive Director of South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) for a decade prior. Drawing on professional experiences in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and years leading a national advocacy organization, Iyer weaves personal anecdotes, excellent elite interviews, and policy recommendations into We Too Sing America. She calls out the organized anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political movement in the country and calls for mobilized political action by South Asians to resist these threats. Scholars and policy practitioners interested in immigrant rights will enjoy this new book. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices