#Civic engagement strategies

[citizenv2pt1]

Website: https://www.citizen-v2pt1.us

CITIZEN Version 2.1 is an initiative focused on enhancing the American democracy by empowering citizens with direct participation in national policy decision-making. Advocating for a reformed democratic process, it proposes the establishment of the Citizenry as the fourth branch of government. The platform offers insights into political reform, encourages civic engagement, and provides resources for understanding and participating in the democratic process, including a series of novels titled "The Democracy Saga."

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CitV21

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/citizen_ver2.1/

Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/citizen-v2pt1

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CitizenV2pt1

Keywords: Participatory governance Community engagement projects Accountability in governance Building civic capacity Civic engagement strategies Good governance practices Government transformation Grassroots involvement Political innovation Political restructuring Accountability in public office Citizen-led initiatives Civic engagement platforms Decentralized decision-making Effective decision-making processes Evidence-based policy-making Policy reform advocacy political reform initiatives reforming political systems progressive political changes modernizing political processes legislative reform efforts structural political changes enhancing democratic values democratic principles advancement democracy building strategies empowering democratic institutions democratic development programs democracy strengthening initiatives fostering democratic culture promoting democratic ideals advancing participatory democracy active citizen involvement empowered citizenry inclusive citizen participation citizen led initiatives encouraging civic participation public involvement efforts open government initiatives government accountability measures transparent policy making enhancing government transparency open decision making processes public access to government information transparent political practices promoting government openness evidence based policy making effective decision making processes policy formulation strategies democratic policy decisions public participation in policymaking inclusive policy discussions transparent policy choices decentralized decision making participatory policy processes strategic national policies national governance strategies policies for national development coherent national policy framework policy alignment with national goals inclusive national policy dialogue national policy effectiveness holistic national policy approach national policy implementation effective democratic governance strengthening democratic institutions democratic governance models inclusive democratic governance strengthening democratic leadership democratic governance reforms democratic governance best practices sustainable democratic governance active civic participation strengthening civic involvement fostering civic responsibility empowering civic leaders civic participation programs inclusive civic initiatives strengthening political accountability transparency and accountability in politics political accountability mechanisms enhancing political responsibility citizen oversight in politics political accountability reforms political responsibility initiatives

[lifes-little-corner]

Strategies for Motivating Volunteers in Immigrant Support Programs

I remember the day I first stepped into a local immigrant support center. The energy was high, but so was the challenge. How could we keep our diverse volunteers engaged and motivated? This question has guided my volunteer management ever since. Motivating volunteers in immigrant support programs is tough. It needs a deep understanding of human nature, cultural sensitivities, and the challenges…

[captainjonnitkessler]

I firmly believe that any movement focused on how you *think* people should act instead of how they *actually* act is doomed to failure. In light of that I think it's clear that Democrats have failed to engage voters and drive turnout, and they desperately need a new strategy before 2026.

My sympathy for the absolute children who think it's a candidate's responsibility to get them "excited" about politics in exchange for spending the time to vote one day out of every 1460 instead of viewing being an educated voter as a civic responsibility is at an absolute fucking zero right now

[centrally-unplanned]

If you find yourself asking "what even is the Biden campaign strategy", think back and realize you have watched zero of the dozens of ads he has released, listened to zero of his speeches, read zero of his statements from the White House, and so on. 100% of the information you get about Biden is from at best viral clips or w/e, and otherwise its other people, who do not work for his campaign, doing commentary, analysis, and probably memes and dunks. How would a candidate even begin to campaign to you? You don't want them to, you don't care.

Which is correct by the way, for you its all pointless. You actually should just look at his policy platform and make a decision in a day on whether or not it matches you enough. Or more importantly skip that step and vote for Biden no thoughts head empty because his opponent is Donald Trump this is not a debatable proposition why waste any time on it.

But hopefully that makes you realize A: how difficult campaigning is at all now, and B: how different a life the kind of people who *are* undecided about this are from you such that campaigning on them can actually reach them.

(And a bit of C: how inadequate the current political system is vis a vis the idea of consensus formation & civic engagement, but for another time)

[alainamama17]

The Shadows of History: Parallels and Warnings in American Democracy

As a historian, I am acutely aware that while history does not repeat itself, it often presents echoes that serve as warnings for the future. The United States today stands at a crossroads, with certain elements reminiscent of 1930s Nazi Germany and the ambitious plans of Project 2025, raising concerns about the direction in which the country is heading.

The 1930s in Germany were marked by the rise of authoritarianism, a period where democratic institutions were systematically dismantled in favor of a totalitarian regime. The parallels drawn between that era and the current political climate in the United States are not to suggest an identical repetition of events, but rather to highlight concerning trends that, if left unchecked, could undermine the very foundations of American democracy.

**Project 2025 and the Unitary Executive Theory**

Project 2025, a conservative initiative developed by the Heritage Foundation, aims to reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda of the Republican Party, should they win the 2024 presidential election. Critics have characterized it as an authoritarian plan that could transform the United States into an autocracy. The project envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly in economic and social policies, and the role of federal agencies.

This initiative bears a resemblance to the early strategies employed by the Nazi Party, which sought to consolidate power and align all aspects of government with their ideology. The unitary executive theory, which asserts absolute presidential control over the executive branch, is a central tenet of Project 2025. This theory echoes the power consolidation that occurred under Hitler's regime, where legal authority was centralized to bypass democratic processes.

**The Erosion of Democratic Norms**

In both historical and contemporary contexts, the erosion of democratic norms is a precursor to the loss of liberty. The United States has witnessed a polarization of politics, where partisan interests often override the common good. The Supreme Court, once a non-partisan arbiter of the Constitution, has been accused of partisanship, with decisions increasingly influenced by political ideologies rather than constitutional law. This shift mirrors the way the judiciary in Nazi Germany became a tool for enforcing the will of the regime, rather than a protector of the constitution.

**The Role of Propaganda and Media**

Propaganda played a crucial role in Nazi Germany, shaping public opinion and suppressing dissent. Today, the media landscape in the United States is deeply divided, with outlets often serving as echo chambers that reinforce ideological beliefs. This division hampers the ability of citizens to engage in informed discourse and make decisions based on factual information, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

**Civil Liberties and Minority Rights**

The targeting of minority groups was a hallmark of Nazi policy, justified by a narrative of nationalism and racial purity. In the United States, there has been a rise in xenophobia and policies that discriminate against certain groups. The protection of civil liberties and minority rights is essential to prevent the kind of societal divisions that can lead to the marginalization of entire communities.

**Conclusion**

The parallels between the United States today, Project 2025, and 1930s Nazi Germany serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy. It is imperative that as Americans, we remain vigilant against the forces that seek to undermine democratic institutions and principles. The lessons of history implore us to safeguard the values of liberty, equality, and justice, lest we allow the shadows of the past to shape our future.

As a historian and educator, I believe it is our responsibility to draw upon these parallels not to incite fear, but to inspire action. We must engage in civic education, promote critical thinking, and encourage participation in the democratic process. Only through collective effort can we ensure that the American experiment continues to be a beacon of hope and freedom for the world.

[probablyasocialecologist]

According to documents obtained by Grist and Type Investigations through a Freedom of Information Act request, the FBI’s Minneapolis office opened a counterterrorism assessment in February 2012, focusing on actions in South Dakota, that continued for at least a year and may have led to the opening of additional investigations. These documents reveal that the FBI was monitoring activists involved in the Keystone XL campaign about a year earlier than previously known.  Their contents suggest that, long before the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines became national flashpoints, the federal government was already developing a sweeping law enforcement strategy to counter any acts of civil disobedience aimed at preventing fossil fuel extraction. And young, Native activists were among its first targets. “The threat emerging … is evolving into one based on opposition to energy exploration related to any extractions from the earth, rather than merely targeting one project and/or one company,” the FBI noted in its description of the Wanblee blockade. The 15-page file, which is heavily redacted, also describes Native American groups as a potentially dangerous threat and likens them to “environmental extremists” whose actions, according to the FBI, could lead to violence. The FBI acknowledged that Native American groups were engaging in constitutionally protected activity, including attending public hearings, but emphasized that this sort of civic participation might spawn criminal activity.  To back up its claims, the FBI cited a 2011 State Department hearing on the pipeline in Pierre, South Dakota, attended by a small group of Native activists. The FBI said the individuals were dressed in camouflage and had covered their faces with red bandanas, “train robber style.” According to the report, they were also carrying walking sticks and shaking sage, claiming to be “Wounded Knee Security of/for Mother Earth.” “The Bureau is uncertain how the NA group(s) will act initially or subsequently if the project is approved,” the agency wrote.  The FBI also singled out the “Native Youth Movement,” which it described as a mix between a “radical militia and a survivalist group.” In doing so, it appeared to conflate a specific activist group originally founded in Canada in the 1990s with the broader array of young Native activists who opposed the pipeline decades later. Young activists would play an important role in the Keystone XL campaign and later on during protests against the Dakota Access pipeline at Standing Rock, but the movement had little in common with militias or survivalists, terms typically used to describe far-right groups or those seeking to disengage from society.  The FBI declined to respond to questions for this story. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the Minneapolis field office said the agency does not typically comment on FOIA releases and “lets the information contained in the files speak for itself.”

[...]

Environmental activists and attorneys who reviewed the new documents told Grist and Type Investigations that law enforcement’s approach to the Keystone XL campaign looked like a template for the increasingly militarized response to subsequent environmental and social justice campaigns — from efforts to block the Dakota Access pipeline at Standing Rock to the ongoing protests against the police training center dubbed “Cop City” in Atlanta, Georgia, which would require razing at least 85 acres of urban forest.  The FBI’s working thesis, outlined in the new documents, that “most environmental extremist groups” have historically moved from peaceful protest to violence has served as the basis for subsequent investigations. “It’s astonishing to me how such a broad concept basically paints every activist and protester as a future terrorist,” said Mike German, a former FBI special agent who is now a fellow at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

[max1461]

Ok, the crux of my views on voting are this:

In a large national election, millions of people are going to vote. I do not know this by way of game theoretic calculations, I know it empirically. Each election, millions of people turn out to vote, and so barring evidence to the contrary I expect it to happen that way again. In light of this, should I consider voting to be an effective way for me to influence politics? I think the answer is unambiguously "no". There are millions of votes! Election margins are in the millions! The chance that my vote will change the outcome (and thereby, causally affect politics at all) is imperceptibly small. If my vote does not change an outcome, it has not causally affected politics. It hasn't even changed the margins in a perceptible way, so it can't be said to indirectly influence policy by indicating the popularity of my side, or whatever.

If my goal is to causally influence any aspect of the political process, voting in a national election is not an effective strategy to achieve this goal. I think this is basically undeniable.

I should note (as I usually do when I talk about this) that I do vote, but I do it for purely personal reasons. I find it fun to participate in the electoral process, in a civics nerd sort of way. So I vote in every national election, even though I don't think it does anything.

Anyway, here are some common objections to the point I've raised above, and why I don't think they hold water.

1. "If everyone thought like you, no one would vote, and that would be a problem for all sorts of reasons"

Very true, but also a non sequitur. Clearly, empirically, not everyone does think like me. Lots of people vote. "If everyone though like you, blah blah blah" is a conditional whose antecedent is false, so its truth value has no bearing on actual reality. Millions of people vote; in light of this, mine is functionally irrelevant. I think that's just objectively the case.

2. "If the winning candidate got N votes, then each voter contributed a 1/Nth of their success, so your vote did do something" (and similar arguments)

I don't know what this means. I don't know what a "1/Nth of a success" is. Let's say that I have three choices in front of me: A, B, and C. These might correspond to "voting Democrat, voting Republican, or not voting" or so on. Suppose that no matter which choice I pick, the outcome will not differ in any way. In the case of a national election, this is true: other people are going to vote how they vote, and the candidate who overall gets the most votes will win, and my vote will not do anything. The choices A, B, and C in front of me lead to identical outcomes. Does my choice do anything? Does it do "1/Nth of a thing"? I think making a choice in which all outcomes are identical cannot be said to be "do something"; even if you want to quibble over the semantics here it cannot be said to be a rational strategy for achieving any particular outcome.

3. "You're falsely assuming everyone's vote is uncorrelated!"

No, I'm assume everyone's votes are causally unrelated; no one's vote causes another person's vote. Because we have secret ballots, this is true. You're falsely conflating "voting" with "rhetoric around voting". I totally believe you can change other people's votes by using rhetoric on them, if you're good, but this is a totally distinct issue from how you vote yourself. In any case, unless you have a large platform I don't think your rhetoric will have a big enough effect to matter either.

4. "But an argument like this implies that all collective action is irrational!"

Yes. That's the whole reason collective action problems exist, because collective action would be "good if it happened" but actually participating is irrational for each individual (even, depending on the problem, if those individuals are altruistically motivated). But if you have a large enough platform, convincing other people to engage in collective action might be rational, and a part of this might involve participating yourself so that you don't look hypocritical. But most people don't have such a platform, so for them it doesn't matter.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

Donald Trump apparently gets that women aren’t going vote for the guy who is an adjudicated rapist and who was “honored” to strip women of the constitutional right to reproductive freedom. It didn’t help that Trump’s hand-picked running mate JD Vance has mocked women without children as “childless cat ladies”  and agreed that the primary role of post-menopausal women is to help raise other people’s children. Consequently, Vice President Harris is crushing Trump when it comes to the support of female voters--especially in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania which shows Harris with 55% of the support of women to Trump’s 41%.

It's so bad for Trump that as Politico reported Friday, the Trump campaign has “given up on the idea that they can get women.” That is why Trump’s new strategy to counter the strong support of women for Harris is to court the “bro vote”--which is young men who are primarily (but not exclusively) white. As Politico notes, “Trump is betting that support from young men will help propel him to the White House.” To that end, Trump has appeared on podcasts that attract a large audience of young men—as we saw this week with his appearance on a podcast hosted by several male comedians. Although that appearance didn’t go as well as Trump had hoped because the headline from it was that one of the co-hosts, comedian Andrew Schulz, literally laughed in Trumps’ face when Trump declared that he’s, “basically a truthful person”

But here’s the spoiler: If Trump is counting on young men to come out in big numbers to save him from the power of female voters, he has already lost.

Before I get into the data, let’s be brutally honest. We all know young men-in fact, I used to be one. No group of people is less reliable than young dudes who are 18 to mid 20’s. Sure, there are exceptions, but as a group, young men are the easiest to distract, least focused people I know. They may tell Trump campaign workers they will vote, but if there is a big game on TV, or someone brings over some weed, a pizza gets delivered, etc., we know what the result will be. They will not stop having fun to get off their couch, travel to the voting location, stand on a line and cast a ballot. The data backs this up. In the 2020 presidential election, guess who came out to vote more: Young women or men? You know the answer.  Fifty five percent of young women cast a ballot compared to just 44% of young men—as documented by Tufts University Center that studies “Youth Voting and Civic Engagement in America.” In fact, that gender gap of 11% more women voting was “true for every racial/ethnic group for which we have reliable data,” as Tufts noted. And it gets worse for Trump. If men and women of all ages turned out to vote in the same percentages, the similar gender gaps we are seeing with Trump leading men and Harris leading women would in essence cancel themselves out. But as the data tells us, that has not been the case for decades.

[...] As opposed to Trump who has gone full “toxic masculinity” and written off attracting more women voters, Harris is still working hard to attract male voters.  In fact, on Friday, Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, kicked off a campaign to secure more male voters that includes new ads and interviews in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin focused on hunting and high school football. In addition, the Harris campaign recently roll out endorsements by Hall of Fame athletes. There’s something else at play here that undermines Trump’s “Bro-vote” strategy. The women voting for Harris are not casting a ballot for simply a politician. Many of them are casting a ballot for Harris in the effort to protect their own self-determination. They don’t want Republicans like Trump, JD Vance etc., passing a national law that would force them to carry a fetus against their will. They want to make those type of personal health decisions based on what is right for each of them. In contrast, where is the skin in the game for the young “bros” Trump is courting?! To them it’s nothing more than rooting for a favorite sports team. I would predict the percentage of women who will vote in 2024 will eclipse what we saw in 2020 given this is the first presidential election since Trump/GOP Supreme Court ended Roe v. Wade. It’s actually fitting that women will be leading the charge to defeat Trump—the avatar for misogyny—while making history electing the first female President in our nation’s history

Donald Trump’s bro culture-centric campaign by frequenting podcasts with heavily male audiences that lean right such as Nelk Boys’ Full Send Podcast and Adin Ross’s could end up being either a genius move for him or be the move that kills his chances at the election.

See Also:

Politico: Inside Trump’s push to win over the ‘bro’ vote

[fandomtrumpshate]

2024 Supported Org: Voteriders

The United States has a very patchy history when it comes to voting rights, especially for minoritized people. Black men only secured the right to vote in 1870, and women in 1920. In practice, Black women were still effectively banned from voting until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1975. Among the many strategies used to discourage minoritized citizens from exercising their right to vote are unnecessarily strict ID requirements. Although a 2014 study by the GAO found that requiring photo IDs reduces consistently reduces voter turnout by 2-3%, many states continue to require photo IDs. Many other states have implemented time- and resource-intensive processes for acquiring even a basic state ID, creating hurdles for potential voters.

The requirement for government ID can often pose a particular challenge for trans and nonbinary voters. For people whose ID doesn’t match their name and gender, voter ID laws can make the experience of casting a ballot invalidating and intimidating. Many transgender voters report verbal harassment as a result of an ID with a name or gender marker that did not match their gender presentation.

VoteRiders is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with a mission to ensure that all citizens are able to exercise their freedom to vote.

VoteRiders' vision is a thriving American democracy with an empowered, civically engaged, diverse, and representative electorate. In such a democracy, voter ID laws do not prevent any eligible voters from having a voice at the ballot box. They make it a special priority to help

VoteRiders and HeadCount’s Vote with Pride team are there to make sure everyone has everything they need to vote safely and confidently. They help people figure out what documents they need to get ID; request and pay for those documents; cover the DMV fees for getting an ID; and even find a lawyer to help, if necessary.

You can support Voteriders as a creator in the 2024 FTH auction (or as a bidder, when the time comes to donate for the auctions you’ve won.)

n.b. VoteRiders is one of two voting justice organizations on our list this year! You can read about the other one, Spread the Vote, here.

[rosszulorzott]

Reading Journal

After reading Why Civil Resistance Works, The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan (2011), I'm now on to the update from 2021, Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know by Erica Chenoweth. This link is from the author's page and you will find many more resources there.

"Written by leading experts in their fields and with over 100 subjects to explore Oxford University Press's acclaimed What Everyone Needs to Know® series offers authoritative discussions of complex contemporary issues from gender to sustainability to robots in a lively question-and-answer format."

I'm now halfway through this book and I thought to share some quotes and commentary.

I have evolved from being a detached skeptic of civil resistance to becoming an invested participant in nonviolent movements. I now study the history and practice of resistance with much greater urgency, for the sake of my own democracy and in solidarity with human rights defenders around the world.

Although many cases don’t make headline news, the past decade—2010 to 2020—has seen more revolutionary nonviolent uprisings around the world than in any other period in recorded history. In fact, there have been more such campaigns in the first two decades of the twenty-first century than there were during the entire twentieth century. ... Even though nonviolent resistance is now ubiquitous as a leading strategy for creating change worldwide, the data also suggest that governments are defeating revolutionary nonviolent movements more often than in prior decades ... since 2016, far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Germany have been relying on the work of nonviolent resistance scholar Gene Sharp to better understand how to build and wield people power to pursue their racist and exclusionary aims. ... Just because people are protesting in the streets does not mean they are engaging in civil resistance. Spontaneous, improvised street actions that are not coordinated across various civic groups as part of a broader strategy rarely have staying power or capacity for long-term transformation. ... Few if any civil resistance campaigns have succeeded using protest alone. ... The first known feminist rebellion in North America was a sixteenth-century civil resistance campaign by Iroquois tribal women to end unregulated warfare within the Iroquois nation. Men exclusively controlled declarations of war, along with other political powers. Iroquois women coordinated a sex and childbearing strike, refused to harvest and prepare crops, and refused to produce moccasins necessary for war-making. Ultimately Iroquois women won the power to veto war declarations. ... Since World War II, very few civil resistance movements that excluded women at the front lines succeeded. ... No movements have failed after getting 10% of the nation’s population to be actively involved in their peak event. Most succeed after mobilizing 3.5%. ... successful movements do not necessarily need to turn mortal enemies into active supporters. Civil resistance is not about converting the opponent or melting the hearts of brutal dictators. It is about pulling their supports away in key moments—and taking away their options. ... Digital technology makes it easy to skip the critical steps of building relationships, developing ongoing coalitions, planning strategies, building alternative institutions, and preparing a population for a long struggle. With the convenience of social media, many movements may fall into the trap of organizing only in the short term, moving from one event to another, while failing to absorb their base of supporters into long-term movement adherents. Every movement faces the temptation to put tactics before strategy. Social media dramatically increase that temptation. ... Civil rights organizer Bernice Johnson Reagon once said that if you’re comfortable with everyone in your coalition, you’re not in a coalition. Maintaining a winning coalition is much more difficult than selecting a clear and concrete objective; it often requires skilled mediators and a movement-wide willingness to resolve conflict through some accepted process. ... we know from historical studies that people tend to be more willing to put themselves in harm’s way than to actively hurt others. ... even more important than tactical discipline may be narrative discipline

I have grouped some of these quotes by topic, because the book is written in a very detailed and recursive style, repeating key findings in different contexts and in varying depths. No matter what question the reader wants to explore first, they will find the answer substantiated by research and other background info. This also makes the book hard to read, more like a study course - but one we desperately need to take. Maybe when translating it we could create a shorter version from the essentials (localized for each region's own political environment) and referenced back to the full text. This way we could have a format better suited for general education and organization needs.

[rabbitcruiser]

Olympic Plaza, Calgary

The Olympic Plaza is an urban park and gathering place in downtown Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Located around Macleod Trail and 7 Avenue South, it was created as the venue for the medal ceremonies at the 1988 Winter Olympics. In 2004, over 30,000 people packed the plaza to celebrate the Calgary Flames' run to the 2004 Stanley Cup Finals.

Olympic Plaza serves as a meeting place, and an outdoor event area, hosting concerts and festivals. In the winter, it is used as a public ice skating area. The plaza is accessible by Calgary's C Train system at the City Hall station.

Due to its location, directly across from Calgary City Hall and at the head of major pedestrian thoroughfare Stephen Avenue, the plaza is often the site of protests. The plaza has raised concerns with residents due to the large concentration of the homeless around the plaza, as well as a significant increase in violent crime and opioid overdoses.

Olympic Plaza Cultural District Engagement & Design Report (October 2016)

The Olympic Plaza Cultural District (OPCD) in Calgary, Canada, celebrates the city's legacy as an Olympic host and serves as an essential public gathering space. As the district approached its 30th anniversary, the City of Calgary initiated a review and redesign of the OPCD to reimagine its future. This initiative followed the Civic District Public Realm Strategy approved by Calgary City Council in early 2016, emphasizing the importance of Olympic Plaza and its surrounding areas within the city's public realm.

Source: Wikipedia

[hellyeahscarleteen]

"The Internet can be a risky place. There are endless feeds filled with posts that contain graphic sexual and violent content, glamorize eating disorders, encourage self-harm or promote discriminatory and offensive diatribes. People often share too much personal information with a too-public audience that includes cyberbullies and strangers with ill intent. And they also risk losing time: by spending hours online, they might miss out on experiences and growth opportunities that can be found elsewhere. These problems are particularly acute for children and teenagers, and new laws that attempt to protect youth from the Internet’s negative effects have their own serious downsides. Scientific American spoke with experts about the best evidence-backed ways to actually keep kids safe online.

...

But these controversial policies aren’t the only way to promote online safety. Other legislative actions that are less focused on censorship, along with clear content guidelines and better social media design, could help. Plus, digital safety researchers and psychologists agree that getting families, schools and young people themselves involved would make a big difference in keeping kids safe.

Digital privacy legislation is one alternate policy path that might shift the online landscape for the better. “If people’s data is treated with respect in ways that are transparent and accountable, actually, it turns out a whole set of safety risks get mitigated,” says social psychologist Sonia Livingstone, who researches children and online media at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

A comprehensive data privacy bill could require social media companies to disclose when user data are being collected and sold—and to obtain consent first. This would help users make better choices for themselves, Livingstone says. Limiting the data that tech platforms amass and profit from could also help block the proliferation of algorithms that emphasize increasingly extreme content in order to hold social media users’ attention. Additionally, privacy legislation could ideally enable users to request the removal of content or data they no longer want online—potentially protecting kids (and everyone else) from their own short-term choices, Alvord says.

Beyond privacy, national guidelines for social media sites could help. Livingstone and Alvord suggest that a content rating system like those used for movies, TV shows and video games might help young people avoid inappropriate content—and allow families to set firmer boundaries. Design features that let users block others and limit the audience for specific posts allow kids and teens to take the reins of their own safety—which is critical, says Pamela Wisniewski, a Vanderbilt University computer scientist, who studies human-computer interaction and adolescent online safety.

Parental controls can be appropriate for younger kids, but teens need the chance to exercise autonomy online, Wisniewski says. Such freedom lets them engage in some of the Internet’s positive aspects: civic engagement opportunities, community and educational resources, identity exploration and connections beyond one’s own social bubble. To ensure these benefits are accessible to all, youth should be directly involved formulating regulations and safety strategies, Wisniewski adds. As part of her research, she holds workshops with teens to involve them in co-designing online safety interventions. Though this program, called Teenovate, is in the early stages, some ideas have already emerged from it. Among them: social platforms could provide “nudges” that would ask users to think twice before sharing personal data and prompt would-be bad actors to reconsider personal requests or bullying behavior."

[genderoid]

Canguilhem’s emphasis on adaptation over deviation situated the body as a historically contingent phenomenon. Bodies were not the product of averages, but rather interdependent vessels that shaped and were shaped by their environments. Within this formulation, the proper medical study of the body would be a concise description of organismic adaptive strategies. The norm thus becomes little more than a hostile imposition upon necessarily fluctuating organisms. Canguilhem argued that anomaly offered medicine a more appropriate gauge than dysfunction because it surrendered the violence of evaluation that infused any notion of deviance. Rather than interpret bodily and cognitive differences in terms of their degree of deviation from a standardized norm, anomaly recognized difference as the neutral expression of a biologically diverse species adapting to the pressures of environmental and internal forces.

By the late 1960s, a profound reorientation of conceptions of the body was under way in the academy. The new field of body studies would critique the disciplinary penchant for evaluating deviance on a scale set by standards of civic and economic functionality. The “able body” had become a quantifiable ideal that provided for the subjection of all bodies to its fictional standards. Although the able body served as the quantifiable medical measure of functionality, its flawed mimesis of any specific, lived body unmoored its hold in corporeality. Consequently, Foucault’s influence on body studies came about primarily through his ability to provide a working methodology for historicizing the institutional production of embodied subjectivities. Body theorists began to follow his lead in inverting the traditional operations of medical empiricism by positioning the able body as a phantom materiality.

Sharon L. Snyder & David T. Mitchell, Re-engaging the Body: Disability Studies and the Resistance to Embodiment (2001)

[engagepro-social]

Navigating Law and Politics on Social Media: A Guide to Sharing Constructive Information and Avoiding 'Fake News'

In today's digital age, social media has emerged as a formidable force in shaping public opinion and discourse, particularly in law and politics. With their unparalleled reach and influence, social media platforms have become indispensable tools for informing and engaging citizens about critical issues such as pending legislation, electoral processes, and the performance of political leaders. However, this virtual landscape has its pitfalls, chief among them being the proliferation of misinformation and the spread of 'fake news.' As such, the need for responsible engagement with social media in law and politics has never been more pressing.

Topic Area:

The topic area of this discussion revolves around the responsible use of social media in navigating law and politics. The intended audience includes individuals actively participating in online discussions on legal matters, political developments, and societal issues. This audience may comprise citizens, activists, policymakers, journalists, and others interested in staying informed and engaged in the digital public sphere.

Current State of Social Media:

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Snapchat have become integral to modern communication. These platforms offer diverse features and functionalities catering to user preferences and engagement styles. Facebook and Twitter, for instance, are popular choices for disseminating news articles, sharing opinion pieces, and fostering discussions among users with varied ideological leanings. Conversely, LinkedIn serves as a professional networking hub where individuals can exchange insights, build professional connections, and access industry-specific information.

Moreover, the emergence of visual-centric platforms like Instagram and Snapchat has transformed how information is absorbed and shared online. These platforms leverage visual storytelling through images, videos, and infographics, making complex topics more accessible and engaging to diverse audiences.

Research supports the widespread adoption of social media platforms, particularly during significant events such as elections. According to a report by the Pew Research Center (2020), smartphones have become indispensable tools for accessing information during electoral campaigns, with a substantial portion of the population relying on social media platforms for news consumption and political discourse.

Attention and Engagement:

In social media, capturing and maintaining users' attention is paramount to effectively conveying information and fostering meaningful engagement. Two fundamental principles that underpin successful engagement strategies on social media include:

Visual Storytelling: Visual content, such as images, videos, and infographics, has been shown to enhance user engagement on social media platforms significantly. Research indicates that posts containing visual elements receive higher levels of interaction, including likes, shares, and comments (Smith, 2019). Visual storytelling techniques can convey complex legal and political concepts in a more digestible and memorable format, enhancing audience engagement and comprehension.

Interactive Content: Interactive content, such as polls, quizzes, and live Q&A sessions, fosters active participation and dialogue among users. Social media users can create a sense of community and ownership around the topics discussed by soliciting their audience's feedback, opinions, and contributions. Additionally, interactive content encourages users to invest their time and attention, leading to deeper levels of engagement and interaction (Kumar, 2018).

Benefits of Social Media Use:

Despite the inherent challenges associated with social media, there are several potential benefits to its use in the context of law and politics:

Enhanced Civic Engagement: Social media platforms give citizens unprecedented opportunities to engage with political processes, express their opinions, and advocate for change. By facilitating real-time communication and information-sharing, social media empowers individuals to participate actively in democratic discourse and civic affairs (Boulianne, 2019).

Information Accessibility: Social media platforms serve as democratizing agents by democratizing access to information and breaking down traditional barriers to knowledge dissemination. Users can access a diverse array of perspectives, opinions, and sources of information, thereby fostering a more informed and nuanced understanding of legal and political issues (Groshek & Al-Rawi, 2018).

Risks of Social Media Use:

However, the pervasive nature of social media also poses significant risks and challenges, particularly in the realm of law and politics:

Disinformation and 'Fake News': The ease of content creation and dissemination on social media has led to the proliferation of disinformation, misinformation, and 'fake news.' False or misleading information, deliberately spread to deceive or manipulate users, can undermine public trust in institutions, sow discord, and distort political discourse (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017).

Echo Chambers and Polarization: Social media algorithms often prioritize content based on user preferences and engagement patterns, leading to echo chambers—virtual spaces where individuals are exposed only to information that aligns with their beliefs and viewpoints. This phenomenon exacerbates ideological polarization, stifles constructive dialogue, and reinforces confirmation bias (Sunstein, 2018).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, social media has emerged as a double-edged sword in law and politics, offering opportunities and challenges for informed citizenship and democratic engagement. By leveraging the power of social media responsibly—through fact-checking, critical thinking, and constructive dialogue—individuals can contribute to a more informed, inclusive, and resilient public sphere. Navigating the complexities of social media requires vigilance, discernment, and a commitment to upholding democratic values and principles in the digital age.

References:

Boulianne, S. (2019). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 873-900.

Buffer. (2019). State of Social 2019. Retrieved from https://lp.buffer.com/state-of-social-2019.

Groshek, J., & Al-Rawi, A. (2018). Social media and political participation: Crowdsourcing civic engagement in online political communities. Social Science Computer Review, 36(6), 707–725.

Kumar, S. (2018). Interactive content marketing: Using interactive content to engage your audience. Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... & Schudson, M. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.

Smith, A. (2020). Social Media Use in 2021. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/.

Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe Report.

[visit-new-york]

The Williamsburg Bridge remains a dynamic and integral part of the fabric of New York City, continually evolving to meet the changing needs of its residents and visitors while preserving its historical and cultural significance.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety: Ensuring the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the bridge has been an ongoing concern. Improvements to walkways, bike lanes, and signage have been implemented to enhance safety and accessibility for these users.

Public Transportation Integration: The bridge plays a crucial role in New York City's public transportation system, with several bus routes connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn via the Williamsburg Bridge. This integration helps reduce traffic congestion and provides options for commuters.

Cultural Events: The Williamsburg Bridge has served as a backdrop for cultural events and festivals. Its location and grandeur make it an ideal setting for outdoor concerts, art exhibitions, and community gatherings.

Historical Tours: Guided tours and educational programs centered around the Williamsburg Bridge are offered to the public, allowing people to learn about its history, engineering, and cultural significance.

Sponsorships and Partnerships: Private companies and organizations have sometimes sponsored events or initiatives related to the bridge, further highlighting its role as a civic and cultural landmark.

Community Gardens: Near the Williamsburg Bridge, there are community gardens and green spaces that contribute to the neighborhood's quality of life and provide residents with opportunities for urban gardening and relaxation.

Traffic Management: To alleviate congestion and ensure smooth traffic flow, transportation authorities have implemented various traffic management strategies, such as reversible lanes and real-time traffic monitoring.

Maintenance Downtime: Periodic maintenance and repair work require temporary closures or lane restrictions on the bridge. These closures are typically scheduled during off-peak hours to minimize disruptions to commuters.

Historical Documentation: The history of the Williamsburg Bridge has been documented in books, documentaries, and academic research, making it an essential subject for those interested in the history of urban development and infrastructure.

Adaptive Reuse: The Williamsburg Bridge's strong structure has led to discussions about potential adaptive reuse projects. Ideas have been proposed to repurpose some of its spaces for public use, cultural exhibitions, or commercial ventures.

Community Engagement and Advocacy: Local community boards and organizations have played an active role in advocating for the needs and interests of the neighborhoods connected by the bridge, including issues related to transportation, infrastructure, and safety.

Bridge Artifacts and Memorabilia: Various artifacts, memorabilia, and historical documents related to the Williamsburg Bridge are often on display in museums, historical societies, and archives. These items help tell the story of the bridge's construction and significance.

Special Events and Festivals: The Williamsburg Bridge has been a focal point for special events and festivals celebrating the diverse cultures and communities it connects. These events often feature music, food, and cultural activities.

Architectural Awards: The bridge's distinctive architectural features and historical importance have earned it recognition from architectural and engineering organizations. It has received awards and accolades for its design and historical preservation efforts.

Lighting Innovations: Technological advancements have allowed for innovative lighting schemes on the bridge, creating stunning visual effects and contributing to the bridge's iconic nighttime appearance.

Educational Outreach: Educational programs and initiatives related to the Williamsburg Bridge often target local schools and educational institutions, fostering an understanding of its significance and inspiring future generations of engineers and architects.

Community Art Projects: Local artists and community members have collaborated on art projects that involve the bridge and its surroundings, contributing to neighborhood beautification and artistic expression.

Urban Development: The Williamsburg Bridge's influence extends beyond transportation; it has also played a role in shaping urban development in both Manhattan and Brooklyn, influencing the placement of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces.

Emergency Preparedness: The Williamsburg Bridge serves as a critical component of New York City's emergency preparedness plans, with protocols in place for its use in the event of a disaster or large-scale emergency.

Public Safety Measures: Regular safety inspections, security measures, and maintenance work are essential for ensuring the bridge's structural integrity and the safety of all who use it.

Global Symbol: The Williamsburg Bridge is not only a symbol of New York City but also of urban engineering excellence and the enduring human spirit to overcome challenges through innovation and collaboration.

Community Resilience: The bridge's role as a vital lifeline has been evident during times of crisis, highlighting its importance as a symbol of community resilience and unity.

The Williamsburg Bridge stands as a testament to human ingenuity and the enduring impact of infrastructure on communities, culture, and the urban landscape. It continues to bridge the gap between past and present, history and innovation, and the diverse communities of New York City.

<Previous page  - Williamsburg Bridge -  Next page>

[reasoningdaily]

Late one night several years ago, I got out of my car on a dark midtown Atlanta street when a man standing fifteen feet away pointed a gun at me and threatened to “blow my head off.” I’d been parked outside my new apartment in a racially mixed but mostly white neighborhood that I didn’t consider a high-crime area. As the man repeated the threat, I suppressed my first instinct to run and fearfully raised my hands in helpless submission. I begged the man not to shoot me, repeating over and over again, “It’s all right, it’s okay.”

The man was a uniformed police officer. As a criminal defense attorney, I knew that my survival required careful, strategic thinking. I had to stay calm. I’d just returned home from my law office in a car filled with legal papers, but I knew the officer holding the gun had not stopped me because he thought I was a young professional. Since I was a young, bearded black man dressed casually in jeans, most people would not assume I was a lawyer with a Harvard Law School degree. To the officer threatening to shoot me I looked like someone dangerous and guilty.

I had been sitting in my beat-up Honda Civic for over a quarter of an hour listening to music that could not be heard outside the vehicle. There was a Sly and the Family Stone retrospective playing on a local radio station that had so engaged me I couldn’t turn the radio off. It had been a long day at work. A neighbor must have been alarmed by the sight of a black man sitting in his car and called the police. My getting out of my car to explain to the police officer that this was my home and nothing criminal was taking place prompted him to pull his weapon.

Having drawn his weapon, the officer and his partner justified their threat of lethal force by dramatizing their fears and suspicions about me. They threw me on the back of my car, searched it illegally, and kept me on the street for fifteen humiliating minutes while neighbors gathered to view the dangerous criminal in their midst. When no crime was discovered and nothing incriminating turned up in a computerized background check on me, I was told by the two officers to consider myself lucky. While this was said as a taunt, they were right: I was lucky.

People of color in the United States, particularly young black men, are often assumed to be guilty and dangerous. In too many situations, black men are considered offenders incapable of being victims themselves. As a consequence of this country’s failure to address effectively its legacy of racial inequality, this presumption of guilt and the history that created it have significantly shaped every institution in American society, especially our criminal justice system.

At the Civil War’s end, black autonomy expanded but white supremacy remained deeply rooted. States began to look to the criminal justice system to construct policies and strategies to maintain the subordination of African-Americans. Convict leasing, the practice of “selling” the labor of state and local prisoners to private interests for state profit, used the criminal justice system to take away their political rights. State legislatures passed the Black Codes, which created new criminal offenses such as “vagrancy” and “loitering” and led to the mass arrest of black people. Then, relying on language in the Thirteenth Amendment that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude “except as punishment for crime,” lawmakers authorized white-controlled governments to exploit the labor of African-Americans in private lease contracts or on state-owned farms.1 The legal scholar Jennifer Rae Taylor has observed:

While a black prisoner was a rarity during the slavery era (when slave masters were individually empowered to administer “discipline” to their human property), the solution to the free black population had become criminalization. In turn, the most common fate facing black convicts was to be sold into forced labor for the profit of the state.

Beginning as early as 1866 in states like Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia, convict leasing spread throughout the South and continued through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Leased black convicts faced deplorable, unsafe working conditions and brutal violence when they attempted to resist or escape bondage. An 1887 report by the Hinds County, Mississippi, grand jury recorded that six months after 204 convicts were leased to a man named McDonald, twenty were dead, nineteen had escaped, and twenty-three had been returned to the penitentiary disabled, ill, and near death. The penitentiary hospital was filled with sick and dying black men whose bodies bore “marks of the most inhuman and brutal treatment…so poor and emaciated that their bones almost come through the skin.”2

The explicit use of race to codify different kinds of offenses and punishments was challenged as unconstitutional, and criminal statutes were modified to avoid direct racial references, but the enforcement of the law didn’t change. Black people were routinely charged with a wide range of “offenses,” some of which whites were never charged with. African-Americans endured these challenges and humiliations and continued to rise up from slavery by seeking education and working hard under difficult conditions, but their refusal to act like slaves seemed only to provoke and agitate their white neighbors. This tension led to an era of lynching and violence that traumatized black people for decades.

Between the Civil War and World War II, thousands of African-Americans were lynched in the United States. Lynchings were brutal public murders that were tolerated by state and federal officials. These racially motivated acts, meant to bypass legal institutions in order to intimidate entire populations, became a form of terrorism. Lynching had a profound effect on race relations in the United States and defined the geographic, political, social, and economic conditions of African-Americans in ways that are still evident today.

Of the hundreds of black people lynched after being accused of rape and murder, very few were legally convicted of a crime, and many were demonstrably innocent. In 1918, for example, after a white woman was raped in Lewiston, North Carolina, a black suspect named Peter Bazemore was lynched by a mob before an investigation revealed that the real perpetrator had been a white man wearing blackface makeup.3 Hundreds more black people were lynched based on accusations of far less serious crimes, like arson, robbery, nonsexual assault, and vagrancy, many of which would not have been punishable by death even if the defendants had been convicted in a court of law. In addition, African-Americans were frequently lynched for not conforming to social customs or racial expectations, such as speaking to white people with less respect or formality than observers believed due.4

Many African-Americans were lynched not because they had been accused of committing a crime or social infraction, but simply because they were black and present when the preferred party could not be located. In 1901, Ballie Crutchfield’s brother allegedly found a lost wallet containing $120 and kept the money. He was arrested and about to be lynched by a mob in Smith County, Tennessee, when, at the last moment, he was able to break free and escape. Thwarted in their attempt to kill him, the mob turned their attention to his sister and lynched her instead, though she was not even alleged to have been involved in the theft.

New research continues to reveal the extent of lynching in America. The extraordinary documentation compiled by Professor Monroe Work (1866–1945) at Tuskegee University has been an invaluable historical resource for scholars, as has the joint work of sociologists Stewart Tolnay and E.M. Beck. These two sources are widely viewed as the most comprehensive collections of data on the subject in America. They have uncovered over three thousand instances of lynching between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950 in the twelve states that had the most lynchings: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Recently, the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) in Montgomery, Alabama—of which I am the founder and executive director—spent five years and hundreds of hours reviewing this research and other documentation, including local newspapers, historical archives, court records, interviews, and reports in African-American newspapers. Our research documented more than four thousand racial terror lynchings between 1877 and 1950 in those twelve states, eight hundred more than had been previously reported. We distinguished “racial terror lynchings” from hangings or mob violence that followed some sort of criminal trial or were committed against nonminorities. However heinous, this second category of killings was a crude form of punishment. By contrast, racial terror lynchings were directed specifically at black people, with little bearing on an actual crime; the aim was to maintain white supremacy and political and economic racial subordination.

We also distinguished terror lynchings from other racial violence and hate crimes that were prosecuted as criminal acts, although prosecution for hate crimes committed against black people was rare before World War II. The lynchings we documented were acts of terrorism because they were murders carried out with impunity—sometimes in broad daylight, as Sherrilyn Ifill explains in her important book on the subject, On the Courthouse Lawn (2007)—whose perpetrators were never held accountable. These killings were not examples of “frontier justice,” because they generally took place in communities where there was a functioning criminal justice system that was deemed too good for African-Americans. Some “public spectacle lynchings” were even attended by the entire local white population and conducted as celebratory acts of racial control and domination.

Records show that racial terror lynchings from Reconstruction until World War II had six particularly common motivations: (1) a wildly distorted fear of interracial sex; (2) as a response to casual social transgressions; (3) after allegations of serious violent crime; (4) as public spectacle, which could be precipitated by any of the allegations named above; (5) as terroristic violence against the African-American population as a whole; and (6) as retribution for sharecroppers, ministers, and other community leaders who resisted mistreatment—the last becoming common between 1915 and 1945.

Our research confirmed that many victims of terror lynchings were murdered without being accused of any crime; they were killed for minor social transgressions or for asserting basic rights. Our conversations with survivors of lynchings also confirmed how directly lynching and racial terror motivated the forced migration of millions of black Americans out of the South. Thousands of people fled north for fear that a social misstep in an encounter with a white person might provoke a mob to show up and take their lives. Parents and spouses suffered what they characterized as “near-lynchings” and sent their loved ones away in frantic, desperate acts of protection.

The decline of lynching in America coincided with the increased use of capital punishment often following accelerated, unreliable legal processes in state courts. By the end of the 1930s, court-ordered executions outpaced lynchings in the former slave states for the first time. Two thirds of those executed that decade were black, and the trend continued: as African-Americans fell to just 22 percent of the southern population between 1910 and 1950, they constituted 75 percent of those executed.

Probably the most famous attempted “legal lynching” is the case of the “Scottsboro Boys,” nine young African-Americans charged with raping two white women in Alabama in 1931. During the trial, white mobs outside the courtroom demanded the teens’ executions. Represented by incompetent lawyers, the nine were convicted by all-white, all-male juries within two days, and all but the youngest were sentenced to death. When the NAACP and others launched a national movement to challenge the cursory proceedings, the legal scholar Stephen Bright has written, “the [white] people of Scottsboro did not understand the reaction. After all, they did not lynch the accused; they gave them a trial.”5 In reality, many defendants of the era learned that the prospect of being executed rather than lynched did little to introduce fairness into the outcome.

Though northern states had abolished public executions by 1850, some in the South maintained the practice until 1938. The spectacles were more often intended to deter mob lynchings than crimes. Following Will Mack’s execution by public hanging in Brandon, Mississippi, in 1909, the Brandon News reasoned:

Public hangings are wrong, but under the circumstances, the quiet acquiescence of the people to submit to a legal trial, and their good behavior throughout, left no alternative to the board of supervisors but to grant the almost universal demand for a public execution.

Even in southern states that had outlawed public hangings much earlier, mobs often successfully demanded them.

In Sumterville, Florida, in 1902, a black man named Henry Wilson was convicted of murder in a trial that lasted just two hours and forty minutes. To mollify the mob of armed whites that filled the courtroom, the judge promised a death sentence that would be carried out by public hanging—despite state law prohibiting public executions. Even so, when the execution was set for a later date, the enraged mob threatened, “We’ll hang him before sundown, governor or no governor.” In response, Florida officials moved up the date, authorized Wilson to be hanged before the jeering mob, and congratulated themselves on having “avoided” a lynching.

‘The migration gained in momentum’; painting by Jacob Lawrence from his Migration series, 1940–1941. Credit: Museum of Modern Art, New York/© 2017 The Jacob and Gwendolyn Knight Lawrence Foundation, Seattle/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York.

In the 1940s and 1950s, the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund (LDF) began what would become a multidecade litigation strategy to challenge the American death penalty—which was used most actively in the South—as racially biased and unconstitutional. It won in Furman v. Georgia in 1972, when the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s death penalty statute, holding that capital punishment still too closely resembled “self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law” and “if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to die, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race.”

Southern opponents of the decision immediately decried it and set to writing new laws authorizing the death penalty. Following Furman, Mississippi Senator James O. Eastland accused the Court of “legislating” and “destroying our system of government,” while Georgia’s white supremacist lieutenant governor, Lester Maddox, called the decision “a license for anarchy, rape, and murder.” In December 1972, Florida became the first state after Furman to enact a new death penalty statute, and within two years, thirty-five states had followed suit. Proponents of Georgia’s new death penalty bill unapologetically borrowed the rhetoric of lynching, insisting, as Maddox put it:

There should be more hangings. Put more nooses on the gallows. We’ve got to make it safe on the street again…. It wouldn’t be too bad to hang some on the court house square, and let those who would plunder and destroy see.

State representative Guy Hill of Atlanta proposed a bill that would require death by hanging to take place “at or near the courthouse in the county in which the crime was committed.” Georgia state representative James H. “Sloppy” Floyd remarked, “If people commit these crimes, they ought to burn.” In 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s new statute and thus reinstated the American death penalty, capitulating to the claim that legal executions were needed to prevent vigilante mob violence.

The new death penalty statutes continued to result in racial imbalance, and constitutional challenges persisted. In the 1987 case of McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court considered statistical evidence demonstrating that Georgia officials were more than four times as likely to impose a death sentence for the killing of a white person than a black person. Accepting the data as accurate, the Court conceded that racial disparities in sentencing “are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system” and upheld Warren McCleskey’s death sentence because he had failed to identify “a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias” in his case.

Today, large racial disparities continue in capital sentencing. African-Americans make up less than 13 percent of the national population, but nearly 42 percent of those currently on death row and 34 percent of those executed since 1976. In 96 percent of states where researchers have examined the relationship between race and the death penalty, results reveal a pattern of discrimination based on the race of the victim, the race of the defendant, or both. Meanwhile, in capital trials today the accused is often the only person of color in the courtroom and illegal racial discrimination in jury selection continues to be widespread. In Houston County, Alabama, prosecutors have excluded 80 percent of qualified African-Americans from serving as jurors in death penalty cases.

More than eight in ten American lynchings between 1889 and 1918 occurred in the South, and more than eight in ten of the more than 1,400 legal executions carried out in this country since 1976 have been in the South, where the legacy of the nation’s embrace of slavery lingers. Today death sentences are disproportionately meted out to African-Americans accused of crimes against white victims; efforts to combat racial bias and create federal protection against it in death penalty cases remain thwarted by the familiar rhetoric of states’ rights. Regional data demonstrate that the modern American death penalty has its origins in racial terror and is, in the words of Bright, the legal scholar, “a direct descendant of lynching.”

In the face of this national ignominy, there is still an astonishing failure to acknowledge, discuss, or address the history of lynching. Many of the communities where lynchings took place have gone to great lengths to erect markers and memorials to the Civil War, to the Confederacy, and to events and incidents in which local power was violently reclaimed by white people. These communities celebrate and honor the architects of racial subordination and political leaders known for their defense of white supremacy. But in these same communities there are very few, if any, significant monuments or memorials that address the history and legacy of the struggle for racial equality and of lynching in particular. Many people who live in these places today have no awareness that race relations in their histories included terror and lynching. As Ifill has argued, the absence of memorials to lynching has deepened the injury to African-Americans and left the rest of the nation ignorant of this central part of our history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguably the signal legal achievement of the civil rights movement, contained provisions designed to eliminate discrimination in voting, education, and employment, but did not address racial bias in criminal justice. Though it was the most insidious engine of the subordination of black people throughout the era of racial terror and its aftermath, the criminal justice system remains the institution in American life least affected by the civil rights movement. Mass incarceration in America today stands as a continuation of past abuses, still limiting opportunities for our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

We can’t change our past, but we can acknowledge it and better shape our future. The United States is not the only country with a violent history of oppression. Many nations have been burdened by legacies of racial domination, foreign occupation, or tribal conflict resulting in pervasive human rights abuses or genocide. The commitment to truth and reconciliation in South Africa was critical to that nation’s recovery. Rwanda has embraced transitional justice to heal and move forward. Today in Germany, besides a number of large memorials to the Holocaust, visitors encounter markers and stones at the homes of Jewish families who were taken to the concentration camps. But in America, we barely acknowledge the history and legacy of slavery, we have done nothing to recognize the era of lynching, and only in the last few years have a few monuments to the Confederacy been removed in the South.

The crucial question concerning capital punishment is not whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit but rather whether we deserve to kill. Given the racial disparities that still exist in this country, we should eliminate the death penalty and expressly identify our history of lynching as a basis for its abolition. Confronting implicit bias in police departments should be seen as essential in twenty-first-century policing.

What threatened to kill me on the streets of Atlanta when I was a young attorney wasn’t just a misguided police officer with a gun, it was the force of America’s history of racial injustice and the presumption of guilt it created. In America, no child should be born with a presumption of guilt, burdened with expectations of failure and dangerousness because of the color of her or his skin or a parent’s poverty. Black people in this nation should be afforded the same protection, safety, and opportunity to thrive as anyone else. But that won’t happen until we look squarely at our history and commit to engaging the past that continues to haunt us.

Bryan Stevenson is the Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative and the author of “Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption.” This essay is drawn from the collection “Policing the Black Man: Arrest, Prosecution, and Imprisonment,” edited and with an introduction by Angela J. Davis, which will be published in July by Pantheon.