Author Archives: Iris Outlaw

Stand Your Ground

Posted on by

Throughout the past year, we have learned that the Stand Your Ground Law is pervasive throughout the country.  It has led to deaths of African American and Latino males in Jacksonville, FL and most recently Miami, Fl. Some artists, such as Steve Wonder, Frankie Beverly and Maze, and Mary Mary, have verbalized their objections to the law and vowed not to perform in Florida until the law is repealed.  Their commitment to end the “hunting season on our young men of color” is commendable; but what is our charge?  As individuals, who live in states with a similar law, we have the due diligence to make our opposition known when voting.

On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech calling for equal opportunities for jobs and freedom from harassment. Three weeks later, four little girls lost their lives in Birmingham as a result of racially motivated terrorism. Even though much has changed, a significant amount of ideology has remained the same.  As we stand our ground to fight for social justice, we have to be strategic in how we implement our plan of action. In commemoration of the 50th anniversaries of the March on Washington and the bombing of the Birmingham 16th Street Church, we remember these monumental events were about civil rights.  Notre Dame in conjunction with other local institutions is hosting the Echoes of Birmingham. From September 7 -10, events providing historical context will be held at the Center for History and on the campus of University of Notre Dame. For more information, visit the MSPS website.

MSPS has adopted the 2013-2014 theme “We Got You.”  MSPS is here to support, to advise, to offer guidance and leadership development opportunities.  We are an integral component of the “village” to ensure that students thrive at Notre Dame.  This includes providing opportunities to learn outside of the classroom and establish networks for life after your matriculation. We hope you will join us at our upcoming events to enrich your ND experiences:

  •  September 4  Interrace Forum
  •  September 9 Spirituality, Birmingham Bombing, and Birmingham Civil Rights Movement
  •  September 12 Welcome Back Picnic.
  •  Hispanic Heritage Month Kick-Off
  •  October 4     Series of Diversity in the Arts –Evita in Chicago

 

Contact msps@nd.edu for information on these activities

Safe travels as you return to campus,

Iris L. Outlaw `90 MSA

Director

Supreme Court Deals a Voting Rights Act a Serious Blow – Diverse Issues

Posted on by

                 by Jamal Watson

National civil rights advocates are expressing dismay in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that designated that parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or the federal courts.

In a 5-4 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the mostly conservative wing of the high court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that “things have changed dramatically” in the South in the nearly 50 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965.

But civil rights advocates said that the court’s decision was a major step backward, particularly in light of voter suppression efforts in last year’s 2012 presidential election that aggressively targeted minority and college students.

“This is a devastating blow to Americans, particularly African-Americans, who are now at the mercy of state governments,” says the Reverend Al Sharpton, president of National Action Network and an MSNBC host. “Given last year’s attempts by states to change voting rules, it is absurd to say that we do not need these protections.”

Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, faulted Congress for failing to update the formula of the act when it last expired.

“Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so,” wrote Roberts. “Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare (Section 4) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

“The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective,” Ginsburg wrote in the minority opinion. “The Court appears to believe that the Voting Right (sic) Act’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclear­ance is no longer needed.”

In several Southern and battleground states, college students reported that they were denied access to the polls last year when they failed to present state-issued voter identification.

“This voting-rights rip-up is not unlike what is happening with the affirmative-action remedy,” said Amos Jones, a law professor at Campbell University in Raleigh, N.C., and a civil-rights attorney. “What we are seeing is a gradual chipping away by the Court of the bipartisan legislative protections that fostered substantial progress for nearly 50 years.

“Now, all of a sudden, these election safeguards are unconstitutional; they’re unconstitutional in light of the fact that they’ve succeeded in the opinion of the narrowest majority of justices. That reasoning smells fishy.”

President Obama expressed grave disappointment with the court’s decision and immediately called on Congress to pass new legislation aimed at protecting the rights of all voters at the ballot box.

“For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act — enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress — has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans,” says Obama. “Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.”

Although some groups have called for a constitutional amendment, legal experts say that is unlikely, particularly with a divided Congress.

Rep. John Lewis, who was present when President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965, said in an interview that he was “shocked, dismayed and disappointed” by the court’s action. “What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” says Lewis, who was a student leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the 1960s. “This act helped liberate not just a people, but a nation.”

Sharpton said that the National Action to Realize the Dream March that is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. on August 24, 2013 to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington will now be centered around the protection and restoring of voter protection.

“This ruling has, in effect, revoked one of Dr. King’s greatest achievements; the teeth of the Voting Rights Act,” says Sharpton.

Breaking News – Inside Higher Ed Affirmative Action Ruling on Fisher vs. University of Texas

Posted on by

 

 

BREAKING NEWS June 24, 2013

 

Court’s Ruling Sets Up Another Round on Affirmative     Action

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today issued     its long-awaited ruling on affirmative action — but didn’t offer a     definitive opinion on whether colleges may consider the use of race in     admissions.

Ruling 7-1, the court found that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth     Circuit erred in not applying “strict scrutiny” to the policies     of the University of Texas at Austin. The case is Fisher     v. University of Texas at Austin, in which Abigail     Fisher, a white woman rejected for admission by the university, said that     her rights were violated by UT-Austin’s consideration of race and ethnicity     in admissions decisions. Fisher’s lawyers argued that the University of     Texas need not consider race because it has found another way to assure     diversity in the student body.

The decision said that “good faith” by     the university would not be enough to justify the consideration of race.     But the decision — by Justice Anthony Kennedy — does not offer an opinion     on whether the University of Texas can produce sufficient evidence. Rather,     it faults the appeals court for not reviewing that question using the high     bar of “strict scrutiny” for the consideration of race.

It is likely that today’s ruling could mean that —     after another round at the Fifth Circuit — the case could return to the     Supreme Court.

Read more of our coverage on our website by clicking here.

Want to advertise here?