Friday, April 23, 2010
The Rule of Law and Arizona
In the wake of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's signing of the most draconian immigration legislation in the country, a coalition of attorneys and others is emerging to challenge the new "law." Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said "we must now go to court as occurred in the 1950s and 1960s in the civil rights battles." Alia Beard Rau, Arizona Governor Signs Immigration Law; Foes Promise Fight, Arizona Republic, April 23, 2010. Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox said that the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will join in the effort to strike the new legislation down. The involvement of MALDEF and the ACLU is significant since they have recent experience with this type of litigation and have successfully challenged the City of Farmers Branch, Texas' efforts to regulate immigration as unconstitutional.
Next justice could be an alumna of UT-Austin
As the White House continues to scrub the list of potential Supreme Court nominees, punditry has focused on the issue of pedigree diversity, that is, the case for a nominee outside the usual coterie of elite East Coast law schools and universities. “Pressure mounts,” reads a recent blog headline, “to avoid the Ivy League.” The president is urged by Fox News commentator Bill Kristol to stand up against Ivy League law schools, which “have done a lot of damage.” Down with Harvard! Stop Yale before it kills again!
The apparent assumption is that someone who has been educated in an environment closer to the real world will bring new perspectives and refreshing common sense to a court both intellectually cloistered and Northeastern in sensibilities. Front-runner Diane Wood, a judge on the appellate court in Chicago and a proud graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (undergraduate and law school), fits this bill; advocates of pedigree affirmative action urge a bump for that reason.
At the level of pure self-interest, I will cop to mixed feelings in this matter. As a law teacher at UT, and also a graduate of both the Harvard Law School and a large state university in Southern California, I have alumni sympathies that run the gamut. More to the point, however, there is precious little to the notion that the experience gained from interactions with colleagues and teachers at the flagship public university in Texas is different in significant ways from what goes on up north.
Students at all our nation's fine law schools come from a wide swath of educated American society. Aspiring lawyers with fancy undergraduate credentials sit cheek to jowl (as we say in these parts) with working-class young people whose life experience is significantly different. Happily, professional schools have become more eclectic in attitude and background over the decades. To be sure, the educational setting in which law students begin their journey toward their chosen profession matters to their professional outlook, their social sympathies, perhaps also to their political ideologies. And, truth be told, we professors influence these future lawyers by inculcating values and promoting our own ideas about justice, professional responsibility and the rule of law. Fortunately for the younger version of Judge Wood and for the Diane Wood of today, a good law school is a big tent, a place of many perspectives and points of view. There is not an Ivy League way of training lawyers; there is not a wholly different way in the heartland or on the West Coast.
What Diane Wood and her classmates surely received from UT is just what other Ivy Leaguer front-runners received — a first-class preparation for the hard work of lawyering in a complex, diverse society. To be bothered about where one went to college or, worse yet, to urge a thumb on the scale for “mere” Texans because presumably those East Coast intellectuals need some plain talk from plain folks is to engage in just the sort of prejudice that years of attention to equal treatment and scrutiny of individual talents, not group membership, was meant to avoid.
That all said, diversity in the Supreme Court matters. A Supreme Court of the United States will, one hopes, reflect the diverse experience of a complex nation. We might expect President Barack Obama to consider able lawyers who come from elsewhere than the federal court of appeals; and, yes, we might want to see someone from out west. Yet we would do well to discount pedigree diversity and instead focus on the ways in which the professional experience and demonstrable actions of these wonderfully talented candidates help enrich the court's perspectives and worldview. That Harvard can produce jurists of uncommon ability with a common touch is a testament to the democratization and diversity of modern legal education. But, then again, the University of Texas can do the same, and that is good news for our own Diane Wood who, if appointed, will be running with the big dogs.
Rodriguez teaches constitutional law and administrative law at the University of Texas School of Law. He also is a fellow in law and public policy at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.
By DANIEL B. RODRIGUEZ
The apparent assumption is that someone who has been educated in an environment closer to the real world will bring new perspectives and refreshing common sense to a court both intellectually cloistered and Northeastern in sensibilities. Front-runner Diane Wood, a judge on the appellate court in Chicago and a proud graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (undergraduate and law school), fits this bill; advocates of pedigree affirmative action urge a bump for that reason.
At the level of pure self-interest, I will cop to mixed feelings in this matter. As a law teacher at UT, and also a graduate of both the Harvard Law School and a large state university in Southern California, I have alumni sympathies that run the gamut. More to the point, however, there is precious little to the notion that the experience gained from interactions with colleagues and teachers at the flagship public university in Texas is different in significant ways from what goes on up north.
Students at all our nation's fine law schools come from a wide swath of educated American society. Aspiring lawyers with fancy undergraduate credentials sit cheek to jowl (as we say in these parts) with working-class young people whose life experience is significantly different. Happily, professional schools have become more eclectic in attitude and background over the decades. To be sure, the educational setting in which law students begin their journey toward their chosen profession matters to their professional outlook, their social sympathies, perhaps also to their political ideologies. And, truth be told, we professors influence these future lawyers by inculcating values and promoting our own ideas about justice, professional responsibility and the rule of law. Fortunately for the younger version of Judge Wood and for the Diane Wood of today, a good law school is a big tent, a place of many perspectives and points of view. There is not an Ivy League way of training lawyers; there is not a wholly different way in the heartland or on the West Coast.
What Diane Wood and her classmates surely received from UT is just what other Ivy Leaguer front-runners received — a first-class preparation for the hard work of lawyering in a complex, diverse society. To be bothered about where one went to college or, worse yet, to urge a thumb on the scale for “mere” Texans because presumably those East Coast intellectuals need some plain talk from plain folks is to engage in just the sort of prejudice that years of attention to equal treatment and scrutiny of individual talents, not group membership, was meant to avoid.
That all said, diversity in the Supreme Court matters. A Supreme Court of the United States will, one hopes, reflect the diverse experience of a complex nation. We might expect President Barack Obama to consider able lawyers who come from elsewhere than the federal court of appeals; and, yes, we might want to see someone from out west. Yet we would do well to discount pedigree diversity and instead focus on the ways in which the professional experience and demonstrable actions of these wonderfully talented candidates help enrich the court's perspectives and worldview. That Harvard can produce jurists of uncommon ability with a common touch is a testament to the democratization and diversity of modern legal education. But, then again, the University of Texas can do the same, and that is good news for our own Diane Wood who, if appointed, will be running with the big dogs.
Rodriguez teaches constitutional law and administrative law at the University of Texas School of Law. He also is a fellow in law and public policy at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.
By DANIEL B. RODRIGUEZ
Arizona should kill immigration bill...
Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Every movement needs heroes. The fight against discrimination in the state of Arizona just got nine.
Sometime before noon Tuesday, nine activists entwined their bodies in a thick steel chain, locking themselves to the doors of the Arizona Capitol in protest against the recently passed Senate Bill 1070, a bill that would open the door to racial profiling in the Grand Canyon state and force all law enforcement officers with "reasonable suspicion" to inquire about the immigration status of those they stop.
The bill awaits the signature or veto of Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican facing an election challenge, who is likely to sign it despite widespread opposition here from everyone from police chiefs and civil libertarians to religious leaders and businessmen. (On Sunday, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, weighed in, comparing the proposed law to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.")
In a statement, the nine activists said they chained themselves to the doors "because nothing else has worked. ... Our purpose is to expose Arizona's apartheid legislation, and to uphold our dignity and human rights."
If the use of the word apartheid seems extreme to the uninitiated, all I can say is that you have to know this bill, and this state, to understand that it is, unfortunately, all too correct. Brewer should veto this dangerous, abhorrent and costly measure.
Jones: Arizona had to take charge on immigration
The new legislation, which was written by state Sen. Russell Pearce, resembles the dictates of an authoritarian government. It would presume all those stopped by police to be immigrants unlawfully present in the United States unless they are carrying one of several forms of federal or state ID. Even citizens could be held if they do not have their papers on them.
Those here illegally would be turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Aliens here legally, who are not in possession of their registration documents, could be fined $500 and jailed for six months.
Police agencies that do not enforce federal immigration law "to less than the full extent permitted," according to the bill, could be sued by any legal Arizona resident and fined anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 a day.
Although the new law would apply to all residents, in determining "reasonable suspicion" the legislation allows police to take into consideration any two of the following: race, color or national origin. Considering the state's proximity to Mexico, and the fact that nearly one-third of Arizona's population is Hispanic, mass racial profiling will be the inevitable consequence if the governor fails to veto the measure.
RELATED TOPICS
Immigration Policy
Arizona
Racial Profiling
Illegal Drugs
As the legislation has inched toward becoming law, the outcry against it has become more and more vocal, drawing both the fringes and concerned citizens into a carnival of the enraged and the desperate. The debate has become polarized, with proponents of the legislation calling opponents "open borders anarchists," and critics referring to the other side's partisans as "racists" or "Nazis."
On Monday, as the state Senate debated the measure, prayer vigils, hunger strikers and protesters comparing the bill to police state-style roundups competed with Second Amendment enthusiasts toting assault rifles and pistols, all for the attention of the media.
For the most part, the pro-firearms people didn't interact with the SB 1070 protesters (gun laws in Arizona allow residents legally to carry their firearms either openly or concealed), but one enraged gun-wearer began shouting, blaming the demonstrators for the death of Rob Krentz, the southern Arizona rancher slain recently, some believe by a drug runner or human smuggler from Mexico.
The man was mostly ignored by the anti-SB 1070 crowd. They were intent on a mock funeral of political "courage," complete with coffins, weeping women and a minister with the United Church of Christ, outfitted in a dog collar.
But on Tuesday, the chaos was more desperate. Hundreds swarmed the Capitol for a rally urging Brewer to veto the legislation, while the bill's supporters stayed away. Then the nine affixed themselves to the Capitol, which dates back to Arizona's days as a territory.
The Capitol Police had to squeeze through the crush of reporters and activists who had crowded near the spectacle, refusing to disperse. The nine, seated, remained quiet. The bolt cutters came out, chains were cut, and the demonstrators were arrested. Later, they were transported to the Fourth Avenue Jail and charged with disorderly conduct.
But before they were bused away, something small happened -- not that odd, really, but strangely moving.
From inside a room where they had been sequestered to await their lawyers, the nine activists, all Hispanics and 20-somethings, began singing "We Shall Overcome," the anthem of the civil rights movement.
As I listened along with other reporters, bystanders, tourists and groups of schoolchildren there to inspect the Capitol, I felt something like hope tinged with defiance, even as SB 1070 sits poised to rend Arizona's social fabric, bringing forth a new order that is odious -- and un-American.
Nine brave young men and women just stood in the way of that injustice, in an outcry they hope their nation hears.
By Stephen Lemons, Special to CNN
Sometime before noon Tuesday, nine activists entwined their bodies in a thick steel chain, locking themselves to the doors of the Arizona Capitol in protest against the recently passed Senate Bill 1070, a bill that would open the door to racial profiling in the Grand Canyon state and force all law enforcement officers with "reasonable suspicion" to inquire about the immigration status of those they stop.
The bill awaits the signature or veto of Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican facing an election challenge, who is likely to sign it despite widespread opposition here from everyone from police chiefs and civil libertarians to religious leaders and businessmen. (On Sunday, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, weighed in, comparing the proposed law to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.")
In a statement, the nine activists said they chained themselves to the doors "because nothing else has worked. ... Our purpose is to expose Arizona's apartheid legislation, and to uphold our dignity and human rights."
If the use of the word apartheid seems extreme to the uninitiated, all I can say is that you have to know this bill, and this state, to understand that it is, unfortunately, all too correct. Brewer should veto this dangerous, abhorrent and costly measure.
Jones: Arizona had to take charge on immigration
The new legislation, which was written by state Sen. Russell Pearce, resembles the dictates of an authoritarian government. It would presume all those stopped by police to be immigrants unlawfully present in the United States unless they are carrying one of several forms of federal or state ID. Even citizens could be held if they do not have their papers on them.
Those here illegally would be turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Aliens here legally, who are not in possession of their registration documents, could be fined $500 and jailed for six months.
Police agencies that do not enforce federal immigration law "to less than the full extent permitted," according to the bill, could be sued by any legal Arizona resident and fined anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 a day.
Although the new law would apply to all residents, in determining "reasonable suspicion" the legislation allows police to take into consideration any two of the following: race, color or national origin. Considering the state's proximity to Mexico, and the fact that nearly one-third of Arizona's population is Hispanic, mass racial profiling will be the inevitable consequence if the governor fails to veto the measure.
RELATED TOPICS
Immigration Policy
Arizona
Racial Profiling
Illegal Drugs
As the legislation has inched toward becoming law, the outcry against it has become more and more vocal, drawing both the fringes and concerned citizens into a carnival of the enraged and the desperate. The debate has become polarized, with proponents of the legislation calling opponents "open borders anarchists," and critics referring to the other side's partisans as "racists" or "Nazis."
On Monday, as the state Senate debated the measure, prayer vigils, hunger strikers and protesters comparing the bill to police state-style roundups competed with Second Amendment enthusiasts toting assault rifles and pistols, all for the attention of the media.
For the most part, the pro-firearms people didn't interact with the SB 1070 protesters (gun laws in Arizona allow residents legally to carry their firearms either openly or concealed), but one enraged gun-wearer began shouting, blaming the demonstrators for the death of Rob Krentz, the southern Arizona rancher slain recently, some believe by a drug runner or human smuggler from Mexico.
The man was mostly ignored by the anti-SB 1070 crowd. They were intent on a mock funeral of political "courage," complete with coffins, weeping women and a minister with the United Church of Christ, outfitted in a dog collar.
But on Tuesday, the chaos was more desperate. Hundreds swarmed the Capitol for a rally urging Brewer to veto the legislation, while the bill's supporters stayed away. Then the nine affixed themselves to the Capitol, which dates back to Arizona's days as a territory.
The Capitol Police had to squeeze through the crush of reporters and activists who had crowded near the spectacle, refusing to disperse. The nine, seated, remained quiet. The bolt cutters came out, chains were cut, and the demonstrators were arrested. Later, they were transported to the Fourth Avenue Jail and charged with disorderly conduct.
But before they were bused away, something small happened -- not that odd, really, but strangely moving.
From inside a room where they had been sequestered to await their lawyers, the nine activists, all Hispanics and 20-somethings, began singing "We Shall Overcome," the anthem of the civil rights movement.
As I listened along with other reporters, bystanders, tourists and groups of schoolchildren there to inspect the Capitol, I felt something like hope tinged with defiance, even as SB 1070 sits poised to rend Arizona's social fabric, bringing forth a new order that is odious -- and un-American.
Nine brave young men and women just stood in the way of that injustice, in an outcry they hope their nation hears.
By Stephen Lemons, Special to CNN
Monday, April 19, 2010
Success and Possibility Knows No Gender, Race, Class or Language
First Lady Michelle Obama landed in Mexico City last week and received a welcome that is analogous to rockstar status. Thousands of people lined the streets in Mexico City wherever she traveled. Young women cried and waved the Mexican flag high above their heads as they jumped up and down to get a glimpse of the First Lady. Her message as she traveled from Ayiti, after the devastating earthquake that has resulted in approximately 250,000 deaths, and approximately 1 million homeless, to Mexico City is for young people in our society, especially the young women in developing countries that “success and possibility knows no gender, race, class or language.” First Lady Obama’s thoughts regarding her committment to assist the young people in our society, and the shared values with the people of Mexico are available here. Jose Jaime Enriquez Reynoso, a law student from Universidad Iberoamericana, introduced First Lady Obama with an inspiring speech of his own. He stated in his solemn, yet commanding voice that, “to understand society you must look at the young people in that society... The young people are scarce natural resources whose potential has yet to be tapped... Education without knowledge is like hearing without listening... To be informed the young must be educated....” Reynoso’s full speech is available here.
The American media was quick to note that Mexico “embraced” First Lady Obama. As if there had been some doubt as to the type of welcome she would receive. First Lady Michelle Obama's first official stop when she arrived in Mexico was at the the residence of President Felipe Calderon, to meet privately with First Lady Margarita Zavala. A woman with whom First Lady Obama gladly admits that she shares many values. They are both smart, passionate, and committed women. They are also mothers, wives, and as First Ladies they believe that they bear a special responsibility to the young people in society.First Lady Michelle Obama’s visit to Mexico has gone very well. The friendship and shared values between the two First Ladies as well as the mutual respect between President Calderon and President Obama has led the White House to announce that the second state dinner of President Barack Obama’s administration will be in honor of Mexico, on May 19th.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The GOP and the Tea Party Continue Attacks on Latinos
On February 11, 2010, I blogged here on the Tea Party hostility to Latinos. As you can see from the photo at right things have gone from bad to worse since that blog entry, as the Tea Party is now actively campaigning against Latinos and organizing rallies against any kind of immigration reform. In fact: "The rallies will include some well-known Tea Party and anti-immigration speakers, including former Rep. Tom Tancredo, the outspoken founder and co-chairman of border security, anti-immigration PAC Team America; J.D. Hayworth, John McCain’s Republican opponent for U.S. senate; Arizona’s controversial sheriff, Joe Arpaio; and ALIPAC President William Gheen."Further, the GOP is coddling this group of hateful extremists now more than ever. I am calling again on GOP leaders to denounce the extremist parts of this "movement," to issue statements against signs like the one at right, and to state in no uncertain terms that this kind of hate-mongering is not acceptable and is inconsistent with GOP values. After all since my initial post, members of the Tea Party have spat upon congressmen (including John Lewis), posted threats of violence against Latinos on Tea Party web sites, and now are following thru on Tancredo's anti-Latino rant that triggered my initial post.
Instead of denouncing violence and hatred GOP leaders are fomenting an environment conducive to violence and hatred. If we do not stand up to the GOP's embrace of thuggery we should expect that sooner or later these hateful elements will become dangerously violent. When that happens innocent people of color--including Latinos--will get hurt. Statements like "reload" from presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Sarah Palin are tantamount to encouraging violence against people of color. The GOP must renounce this kind of hate, not pour fuel on the fire.
Latinos are fighting back. There is a new web site up that specifically calls on so-called GOP leaders to forsake the extremists that they are now coddling. If they fail to heed calls like this the GOP cannot hope to regain the majority. Frankly, when I see a sign like the one above and I hear what Palin says in response to this kind of nonsense it motivates me to give more money to the Democrats--who I often have spoken against.
We need to stand up to hatred before these people turn more violent. Tell the GOP to get some spine, here: http://www.facebook.com/cuentame?v=app_10531514314
Let me be clear. I do not object to the fact that the Tea Party is 99% white and is relatively conservative on the political spectrum, as shown in a recent NY Times Poll. My objection is that it condones hate and violence. Just look at the video above.
Friday, April 16, 2010
How would you define the true value of Diversity....
Hi all (and especially my fellow bloggers here),
In a effort to provoke conversation and perhaps debate, I would like to invite all readers and bloggers of this site to comment on the following question: what is the value this society places on diversity?
Diversity, it sees to me, has evolved in these promising times as a value few would contest. Indeed, I am confident we are all familiar with institution after institution addressing their respective commitments to this core value. And of course, recent political events, such as the election of President Obama suggests that the antipathy of the average American towards Africa-Americans may have changed dramatically. Yet, we witnessed just a few days ago the leader of the Republican party in rare moment of brutal honesty suggest that despite the diversity value, some in this society are scrutinized more than others. I would suggest Michael Steele seemed to admit to a belief that we are not all equals in this society.
Despite Steele's rare moment of honesty or foolishness, we have all noticed the leaders of institution after institution speak of diversity and not themselves represent diversity or have their inner circle represent diversity. In other words, I wonder whether diversity represents a dialectic--two opposing visions that either undermine or define each other. Is diversity truly an effort that many, especially most American law schools, aspire to achieve? Or is speaking of diversity merely a means to effectively engage in legitimizing the myth of diversity -- a rhetoric that glosses over and undermines true diversity; hence the reality or
paradox of diversity. What I mean by the above is whether diversity has evolved to effectively a Red Herring that allows all to easily embrace the term, but in practice rarely make significant strides in achieving-- the paradox between tokenism vs inclusion.
Just some things I have been thinking about lately when witnessing institution after institution speaking of diversity...
Ediberto Roman
In a effort to provoke conversation and perhaps debate, I would like to invite all readers and bloggers of this site to comment on the following question: what is the value this society places on diversity?
Diversity, it sees to me, has evolved in these promising times as a value few would contest. Indeed, I am confident we are all familiar with institution after institution addressing their respective commitments to this core value. And of course, recent political events, such as the election of President Obama suggests that the antipathy of the average American towards Africa-Americans may have changed dramatically. Yet, we witnessed just a few days ago the leader of the Republican party in rare moment of brutal honesty suggest that despite the diversity value, some in this society are scrutinized more than others. I would suggest Michael Steele seemed to admit to a belief that we are not all equals in this society.
Despite Steele's rare moment of honesty or foolishness, we have all noticed the leaders of institution after institution speak of diversity and not themselves represent diversity or have their inner circle represent diversity. In other words, I wonder whether diversity represents a dialectic--two opposing visions that either undermine or define each other. Is diversity truly an effort that many, especially most American law schools, aspire to achieve? Or is speaking of diversity merely a means to effectively engage in legitimizing the myth of diversity -- a rhetoric that glosses over and undermines true diversity; hence the reality or
paradox of diversity. What I mean by the above is whether diversity has evolved to effectively a Red Herring that allows all to easily embrace the term, but in practice rarely make significant strides in achieving-- the paradox between tokenism vs inclusion.
Just some things I have been thinking about lately when witnessing institution after institution speaking of diversity...
Ediberto Roman
Latinas/os and the Politics of the U.S. Census
By now, everyone knows the Census is taking place. This exercise, undertaken every decade, helps to determine the allocation of federal funding and political representation over the next 10 years. Therefore, the stakes are extremely high—or so goes the conventional wisdom.
Defying this wisdom, some immigrant rights activists are calling upon Latinas/os to boycott this year’s Census. This call argues that the Census promises resources that ultimately fail to materialize. It is an exercise that amounts to a hoax because it promises much but fails to deliver most of it. It breeds complacency where outrage should mushroom.
Meanwhile, mainstream Latina/o groups are conducting a multimedia campaign to convince young Latinas/os to participate actively in the Census. Relying on technologies like texting, this campaign argues that the Census does indeed provide an opportunity to fight for the right to live with dignity in our own communities. The benefits, pro-Census commentators argue, outweigh any other concern.
All of this brouhaha overlooks the fact that this year’s Census reshuffles the “Hispanic” category in ever-more mystifying ways. Rather than considering Hispanic (or Latina/o) to be a racial category, this year’s Census asks Latinas/os to identify racially either as white, black, white, American-Indian or Asian/Pacific Islander. Thus, this year’s Census considers Chinese, Filipino and Korean to be racial categories but noT Hispanic or Latina/o. Can anyone figure this one out?
Of course, you may recall that ten years ago the big controversy was the multi-racial and bi-racial questions … questions now gone. In addition, you may recall that Latina/o demographics also was a big question last time – as was the controversy over the counting of same-sex couples and their families. After all, if the idea is to be counted so that everyone gets a fair share of the pie, then why not count seriously, right? But this category confusion illustrates yet again the continuing incoherence of “race” or “ethnicity” as meaningful sociolegal concepts, and thereby also raises a very serious question regarding the debate whether to the boycott or not: Given this extreme and volatile category confusion, can the Census really even begin to establish an accurate and reliable portrait of the nation? When the questions are so incoherent, can the results be any better? Is this a case of trash in, trash out?
What do you think? Is the Census worth it? What is your experience – and what about all that nonsense regarding identities and categories...where do you stand?
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12152687
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/multimedia-campaign-urges-latino-youth-to-participate-in-the-us-census.html
Frank Valdes
Defying this wisdom, some immigrant rights activists are calling upon Latinas/os to boycott this year’s Census. This call argues that the Census promises resources that ultimately fail to materialize. It is an exercise that amounts to a hoax because it promises much but fails to deliver most of it. It breeds complacency where outrage should mushroom.
Meanwhile, mainstream Latina/o groups are conducting a multimedia campaign to convince young Latinas/os to participate actively in the Census. Relying on technologies like texting, this campaign argues that the Census does indeed provide an opportunity to fight for the right to live with dignity in our own communities. The benefits, pro-Census commentators argue, outweigh any other concern.
All of this brouhaha overlooks the fact that this year’s Census reshuffles the “Hispanic” category in ever-more mystifying ways. Rather than considering Hispanic (or Latina/o) to be a racial category, this year’s Census asks Latinas/os to identify racially either as white, black, white, American-Indian or Asian/Pacific Islander. Thus, this year’s Census considers Chinese, Filipino and Korean to be racial categories but noT Hispanic or Latina/o. Can anyone figure this one out?
Of course, you may recall that ten years ago the big controversy was the multi-racial and bi-racial questions … questions now gone. In addition, you may recall that Latina/o demographics also was a big question last time – as was the controversy over the counting of same-sex couples and their families. After all, if the idea is to be counted so that everyone gets a fair share of the pie, then why not count seriously, right? But this category confusion illustrates yet again the continuing incoherence of “race” or “ethnicity” as meaningful sociolegal concepts, and thereby also raises a very serious question regarding the debate whether to the boycott or not: Given this extreme and volatile category confusion, can the Census really even begin to establish an accurate and reliable portrait of the nation? When the questions are so incoherent, can the results be any better? Is this a case of trash in, trash out?
What do you think? Is the Census worth it? What is your experience – and what about all that nonsense regarding identities and categories...where do you stand?
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12152687
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/multimedia-campaign-urges-latino-youth-to-participate-in-the-us-census.html
Frank Valdes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
