Category Archives: Uncategorized

NCORE Reflection

Posted on by

by Isaac Lorton

Well first and foremost, the food was the most important thing on the trip. It was delicious. It spoke to me and was very inspiring to me as I move forward in my life and future career. I now know where I will be taking my business trips.

On a more serious note, I did not make many connections, but the few I did will be helpful to NASAND, myself, and Notre Dame as a whole. One of the connections made was a former NASAND president Lakota Mowrer. She was at NCORE with the Teach for America group as a former teacher and facilitator with the organization. Teach for America presented its American Indian initiative and how they are attempting to recruit Native students to teach in areas densely populated by Native students, like New Mexico, South Dakota, Hawaii and Oklahoma. The Peace Corps was supposed to come and talk to NASAND this year, but it fell through twice; so one possibility, would be to have someone from the Teach for America’s Native Achievement Initiative come in and speak to NASAND. As for MSPS, most groups under MSPS are socially conscious, but often times the plight of the modern Native American goes unnoticed. It would be a good idea to have Teach for America come in and speak about the Native Achievement Initiative to all groups because many people do consider teaching after college for groups like Teach for America or Americorps and are socially aware.

Another connection I made was to Ariel Luckey. He is a hip hop theatre artist, director, poet, scholar, and organizational consultant whose works have an aim for social change. He performed part of his work “Freeland” which highlights his unknown connection to U.S. and Native American relations in history. Other than “Freeland,” Luckey also does work about other social issues, including immigration. For NASAND it would be interesting to do a possible event with Luckey some time throughout the year, possibly during the big Spring Visitation weekend. It would incorporate modern music with Native American issues. Since we are such a small group, we could possibly team up with some acting/dancing troupe at Notre Dame to put on a show. That way we are getting our message across in an entertaining way and getting other groups involved. Right now, NASAND does not have a huge event which is able to draw all of the prospects or students in, so it would be cool if we had a larger event that weekend. I think it would also be an idea if MSPS contacted Luckey to help with the big events like Latin Expressions.

In a similar vein to Luckey, I heard the talk “Contemporary Native Music and Identity” by Alan Lechusza Aquallo, PhD. His works are more scholarly, he wrote his dissertation on Native Americans in the Hip Hop industry. His presentation highlighted some of his findings and research from his work “Without reservations: Native Hip Hop and identity in the music of W.O.R. (With Out Rezervation).” I was unable to make a connection with him, but he would be a great person to invite to speak. His talk was both scholarly and entertaining. It was engaging, interesting, and involved hip hop and rap music – how can you go wrong with that? Again, NASAND could benefit from having a speaker like him come to campus, team up with us, and give a presentation as one of the talks during Native American History Month in November. It would be beneficial for NASAND, MSPS, students in the American Studies program, and Notre Dame as a whole.

 

The best talk I heard at the conference and possibly ever in my life, was given by Candy Chang. She is a community developer and has done projects in numerous cities all around the world. She is a TED senior fellow, whose works aim at bringing communities closer together by establishing common grounds and interests. Some of her work was inspiring and helpful for my internship this summer at Experience Baseball, an urban community development organization in cities home to baseball. I just hope some of my work will be even half as good as hers. She would be a great person to bring in and speak not only to MSPS but to Notre Dame as a whole. On a larger picture, as Notre Dame continues to reach out to the South Bend community and work with them to create a better relationship, I think Chang would be a great asset to have in the process. There is definitely a divide between the Notre Dame’s “bubble” on campus and the immediate surrounding community. It is my understanding that Notre Dame and South Bend have been working towards a more “college-town feel.” Why not bring in someone, like Chang, who has a vast amount of experience and still a modern perspective on community development. Even on campus, I think Chang could help establish a gathering place for everyone to feel welcome. I was sadly unable to meet with Chang, but I am pretty sure Ally met with her.

Overall, my experience at NCORE was extremely beneficial. I was able to relate with the Native representatives there during the preconference sessions. NASAND and I am pretty sure MSPS and the school shared similar concerns involving Native students in higher education with other colleges. There was a lot of administrative stuff that was talked about which went over my head, but it makes me feel like Notre Dame needs to get Laurie Arnold, or someone like her, back.

 

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?