#such as. being a disabled person of color in a discriminatory system

[queenofzan]

Like, what is so scary about rapists and murderers voting? I don't think there are enough of them to form any sort of threat to democracy. Are murderers more of the country than non-murderers? I don't think so.

And let's face it, we know from experience that many people will do things personally they don't endorse other people doing. Murder is wrong, except when I do it, because my murder is totally justified. Presumably most murderers would not vote for something wild like "legalize murder" on the grounds that those other murderers are the real danger.

Most votes are about really tedious stuff where, to be frank, a murderer or rapist's vote is just as valid as mine or yours. Should criminals forfeit all right to representation? Should they have no say in anything because they broke a law?

[yallcantread]

As a priviledged swiftie in many ways but a marginalized person in others: its such a difficult position to be in. I neither want to speak over girls who have routinely had their voices silenced to tell them how they should or shouldnt feel about this, nor do i want to exclaim that things like the attacks on trans rights and womens rights in the US are a far bigger deal that affects the lot of us more than who Taylor choses to date.

Many of the swifties i know are minority, lgbtq and/or disabled, and the risk of being ostracized from the only part of the community to accept me is a very real one. Unfortunately to those with strong feelings in the matter, even well sourced definitive facts have less bearing than what the loudest/most popular members have to say.

I understand your position, but it’s important to remember that no one else gets to decide how you should feel about something. Your feelings matter too, and it’s not fair for others to dismiss them. I’m a person of color, and while I acknowledge the existence of systemic racism and its impact, I don’t define myself solely based on my skin color or census identification.

Identity goes beyond external factors; it encompasses our thoughts and beliefs. What affects one person may not affect another in the same way. True friends should respect and understand that you have your own opinions, especially if they are not harmful or discriminatory.

When I mention harm, I’m referring to opinions that directly impact the lives of others. For example, if someone’s opinion on housing prevents low-income families from accessing essential housing, it becomes harmful. Such opinions can influence legislation and affect entire communities. Voting, by nature, is opinion-based, and it’s crucial to consider the consequences of our choices when they have a real impact on people’s lives.

In contrast, making fun of someone or not aligning with your preferences is merely mindless behavior. I appreciate you bringing this up because it highlights the need to focus on more significant issues. It doesn’t mean that one issue is more important than the other; rather, it suggests that some matters don’t warrant extensive conversations or discourse.

In the case of Matty, he isn’t involved in shaping legislation, nor are you for supporting his actions. He isn’t actively promoting harmful things; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. It’s important to recognize the distinction between harmful opinions that affect laws and opinions that differ but do not cause harm.”

[freehawaii]

KE AUPUNI UPDATE - JUNE 2020

Keeping in touch and updated on activities regarding the restoration of Ke Aupuni o Hawai`i, the Hawaiian Kingdom.  

Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka `Aina I Ka Pono.

Ending Discrimination Against Hawaiian Nationals

“[U.S.] Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. …[Thus, it is] illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associated with people of a certain national origin.” — The U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division

In violation of their own Federal laws, the State of Hawaii has been constantly harassing, persecuting, arresting, prosecuting and jailing Hawaiian nationals, treating us as if we are criminals or illegal aliens and preventing us from leading normal, ordinary lives. The State denies Hawaiian nationals services that are otherwise available to anyone else living in the Hawaiian Islands — unless we say we are “U.S. citizens” and that we reside in the “State of Hawaii.” Thus, the State has been forcing us Hawaiian nationals, through coercion, to assume U.S. citizenship in order to be able to live and function normally in our own country. Forced citizenship is a huge violation of international law.

Senate Resolution 159 on Hawaiian Nationality is being heard at the State Legislature. It is a rude awakening for lawmakers. It had never occurred to them that this shocking form of discrimination is going on, imbedded throughout the State government system. Senate Resolution 159 not only brings the violation to their attention, it forces them to create a remedy. SR 159 is predicated on the presumption that we Hawaiian nationals already exist and as such, have the right to live freely in our own country. The fact of Hawaiian nationality is yielded. All the State has to do is figure out how to make way for us.

The resolution calls upon the State to form a commission to recommend what the State should implement to treat Hawaiian nationals (and Hawaiian nationality) with proper respect and fairness under their own law. The good thing is, whether Senate Resolution 159 passes or not, the cat’s already out of the bag… This means the State’s discriminatory acts against Hawaiian nationals have to stop immediately, even before they figure out how they are going to adjust to us.

-------

Celebrating the Hawaiian Kingdom

If you are (or if you know of someone who is) interested in being a facilitator for any aspect of Celebrating the Hawaiian Kingdom, please contact: info@HawaiianKingdom.net

The campaign to Free Hawaii continues to grow ... as soon as this pandemic subsides, we expect significant movement in gaining support from the global community. Your kokua is vital to this effort...

———

Your kōkua, large or small, is much appreciated and will help greatly to move this work forward.

To contribute, go to GoFundMe.com/FreeHawaii  

To contribute in other ways (airline miles, travel vouchers, clerical help, etc...) email us at Info@HawaiianKingdom.net  

Also... Check out the great FREE HAWAII products you can purchase HERE  

All proceeds go to help the cause.

Mahalo Nui Loa!

--------

Malama Pono,

Leon Siu

Hawaiian National

[snazzymolasses]

If you live in the United States and are applying for a Federal civil service job, you can apply through the Schedule A process, which is designed specifically for disabled people to circumvent the normal hiring process, precisely because the normal hiring process is discriminatory toward disabled people.

Applying through the Schedule A process is how I got my current job. When I first applied for my federal job, I had a 4-year college degree in Computer Science, plus 5 years of professional experience working as a programmer for two private companies. I am a damn good programmer. I am garbage at office social rules. My two previous jobs always gave me annual reviews like "Outstanding technical skills, communication needs work." I was fired from both jobs for "personality conflicts", even though my bosses all agreed that my actual work was excellent. But because I didn't attend the annual Holiday Party, I was somehow no good at my job.

When I applied to my federal job the regular way, the automated system told me I wasn't qualified. Not qualified for a programming job, even though I have a degree in it and had been doing it for 5 years. It didn't make sense to me, and immediately I knew it was because I'd answered some question "socially wrong."

Then I found out about Schedule A. Instead of a cold, heartless website that fed my resume into an algorithm looking for specific words, my resume was handed to...a person. A person, who was my "Application Coordinator" or something like that (I forget the exact term now). She was a human. I could email her questions, such as "What is the answer they want for this?" and she would help me.

She helped me gather all the forms I needed, helped me fill out everything, told me what the next steps were. And, while the federal government isn't known for being fast, within six months of applying through Schedule A, I was offered a position.

Without doing an interview. At all. They hired me based solely on my skills, which I had put on my resume. They hired me without ever looking at me physically. Which is how it SHOULD be!

It still took another six months for them to do all the paperwork to hire me (you do have to go through a background check, where they verify that all your documents are real and not forged and a bunch of other things, and you have to provide medical documentation for your disability, etc).

But then I had a job! In fact, I had the exact same job that the automated website algorithm had told me I didn't qualify for when I had tried to apply on my own. So that was the proof to me right there- the hiring process is not about your work skills. It isn't there to help recruiters find people with the right skills. It's just a gatekeeping system to keep out the disabled, the neurodiverse, people of color, etc, anyone who isn't part of the social "in" crowd.

So yeah. Try it. Schedule A. The biggest held secret in the USA federal jobs world.

Applying for jobs is a hell designed specifically to torment autistic people. Here is a well-paying task which you know in your heart and soul if they just gave you a desk and left you alone and allowed you to do it you would sit there and be more focused and enthusiastic and excellent at it than anyone else in the building. However, before they allow you to perform the task, you must pass through 3-4 opaque social crucibles where you must wear uncomfortable clothes and make eye contact while everyone expects you to lie, but not too much (no one is ever clear exactly how much lying is expected, “over” honesty is however penalized). You are being judged almost entirely on how well you understand these very specific and unclear rules that no one has explained. None of this has anything to do with your ability to perform the desired task.

[nataliaelking]

Intersectional Feminism

American professor of law, civil rights advocate and widely revered feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw first introduced the theory of intersectionality in her 1989 paper written to describe black women who were in court because they were being discriminated against for being both black and women. While the theory began as an exploration of the oppression of women of color within society, today the analysis is often applied to all social categories, the individual dynamics of which have been historically overlooked in feminist movements and theory. Crenshaw’s scholarship was essential in the development of intersectional feminism as a subcategory of intersectional theory, the study of how intersecting social identities, particularly minority identities, relate to systems and structures of oppression or discrimination and how interconnected systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society. it examines the overlapping systems of oppression to which people are subject due to their ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, disability and economic background.

Intersectional feminism also seeks to critique a feminism that is exclusionary and discriminatory against people of colour, trans people, ethnic minority’s, cisgendered men and people of low social class.

The principles and values that intersectional feminism encapsulates perfectly reflect the politics that occupy my mind which is why I am proud to be an intersectional feminist and am choosing this political concept as the basis for my final creative outcomes for this project.

I want my creative output from this project to be carefully considered and to ensure that it is I will be researching and documenting further nuances and movements and art that is connected to intersectional feminism. I think political art should strive to help the viewer understand the incentives and experiences of people other than yourself which is what I will strive to do for this passion and politics project with the concept of intersectional feminism.In my opinion, art that calls the viewer to be a more attentive, well informed and compassionate person is critical to social progression. Political art encourages us to constantly reframe our values, to reconsider what we hold to be right or wrong. Political artistry is needed to create transformative change in attitudes.

[ngarces19ahsgov-blog]

The 3Ps Assessment: Parties, Political Interest Groups, and PACs

1. 

Republican: Against gay, transgender and intersex rights. Absolutely do not agree with them, as they as it’s against my core values, hurts people I love, and goes back on necessary rights needed for mental, medical, and psychological reasons.

Democrat: For gay, transgender, and intersex rights. I do agree with them, for the same reasons above.

Libertarian: For gay, transgender, and intersex rights. It seems they want to abolish the marriage licensing system entirely and the government’s power over personal relationships though, which I disagree on, because the official marriage agreement provides methods and powers to partners so that they may take care of each other. Also, appropriate regulation on relationships allows for things like restraint orders and child care.

Green: For LGBTQ, and I agree with them because it goes with my core values, helps and protects people I love, and they intend to push necessary rights needed for mental, medical, and psychological reasons.

Peace and Freedom: For LGBTQ, for same above reasons.

I think it’s most likely I would vote for a Democratic candidate, as third parties candidates winning are extremely rare, and it’s not a good idea to divide the vote either. 

2. 

National LGBTQ Task Force

Progressive, liberal, aims to promote LGBTQ rights and protections in ever aspect of the US.

The Task Force called for the US Census Bureau to include a question on sexual orientation, says it’s too late to reverse transgender rights, strongly opposes Kavanaugh and Trump’s Muslim ban, supports the rights of free journalism.

House Bill No. 4689, an act to define civil rights, prohibit improper discriminatory practices, policies and customs in the exercise of those rights based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, familial status, or martial status. Also, to preserve the confidentiality of records regarding arrest, detention, or other disposition in which a conviction does not result; to prescribe the powers and duties of the civil rights commission and the department of civil rights; to provide remedies and penalties; to provide for fees; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts.

Opportunities to take action and volunteer come in the form of petitions, requests for anecdotes, and information to other pro-lgbt projects and movements you can support.

They have a lot of corporate sponsors, including Hilton, Comcast, and Bacardi.

3.

American Civil Liberties Association of Northern California

Progressive, firm focus on civil rights, pro-immigration, lgbt, privacy, abortion

The ACLU NorCal believes in defending and improving the civil rights of Americans, and those visiting and immigrating to the US. It would like to see the Muslim Ban lifted, more civil right and anti-discriminatory laws passed, and resist the current national administration.

The organization sent a letter to a school district that had failed to treat a black disabled student who was being abused and failing, defended students who wearing protest messages shirts that referred to the death of Eric Garner in police custody, defended the rights of homeless in Tulare, supported SB 1186, a state bill that restores power at the local level against surveillance, and provides information to women on where to get free and low-cost sexual health insurance

Assembly Bill 1266, a passed law that requires CA schools and their organizations and facilities to respect and and accommodate students’ gender identity.

The ACLU NorCal is divided into chapters throughout the Northern California region.

There are petitions, and volunteers opportunities to help people vote, and vote properly informed.

The organizations provides a useful post of information of which bills they support have been passed and vetoed by the governor.

4.

The National LGBT Task Force works on the entire country, and they work on issues that disadvantage and hurt lgbt people. The ACLU seems to be doing a lot more action, and they focus on the civil rights of the Northern California region. 

5.

LGBTQ Victory Fund

Supports LGBT, and aims to increase the number of openly lgbt officials in government.

This year of 2018, so far, they have raised 795K$, and 432.1K$. The end cash they have on hand is 364,515$.

All of their money has been spent on Democrats.

The highest donor is a retiree donating 100,000$, and the rest shown are investment, law groups, a family foundations, and other people working for well known companies.

[your-dietician]

Effects of gender discrimination on mental and physical health

New Post has been published on https://tattlepress.com/health/effects-of-gender-discrimination-on-mental-and-physical-health/

Effects of gender discrimination on mental and physical health

Gender discrimination has a significant impact on mental and physical health worldwide. It can limit peoples’ access to healthcare, increase rates of ill health, and lower life expectancy.

While it is true that women live longer than men on average, they experience higher rates of ill health during their lifetimes. It is likely that gender discrimination and inequity contribute to this.

In this article, we look at what gender discrimination is and include specific examples. We then explore the effects of this discrimination on mental health, physical health, and healthcare.

Gender discrimination is any action that excludes or disadvantages people based on their gender. It includes actions that are deliberately unfair and actions that are unintentionally unfair.

Gender discrimination is fueled by sexism, which is prejudice based on sex or gender. In most countries, sexism devalues women and femininity and privileges men and masculinity.

Because gender relates to how someone feels, rather than their biological characteristics, anyone who identifies with a gender that their society deems less valuable can experience gender discrimination. This includes trans and other gender-expansive people.

Learn more about different types of sexism.

Gender discrimination can take place in person-to-person interactions, as well as at an institutional or state level. It can occur:

In the workplace: Deciding not to hire or promote someone, treating employees differently, or paying them less based on their gender are all examples of workplace discrimination. Peers can participate by excluding women colleagues from important meetings, for example.

In schools: Preventing or discouraging girls and young women from participating in traditionally male-dominated fields, such as science, math, and sports, is an example of gender discrimination. Schools may also enforce gendered dress codes, punish those who do not conform to gender norms, or fail to punish bad behavior on the basis that “Boys will be boys.”

In relationships: People who prevent their partners from doing things on the basis of their gender are also acting in a discriminatory way. This might include stopping women from working, managing their money, and driving, for example.

In public: Sexual harassment and catcalling are unwanted, and they are forms of discrimination. These behaviors can make people feel unsafe, and they can restrict how people use public spaces. This limits a person’s freedom.

In institutions: Organizations, governments, and legal and healthcare systems can enact policies that discriminate against certain genders, either intentionally or unintentionally. Examples include laws that allow gender-based violence to thrive, that punish people for expressing their gender, or that disadvantage certain groups financially.

It is important to understand that discrimination based on gender can be coupled with discrimination based on race, class, disability, and sexuality.

Read more about the effects of racism on health.

Gender discrimination is a source of stress, and like any other stressor, it can directly affect mental health.

Research from 2020 refers to a study in which women who reported experiencing gender discrimination in the past 12 months scored more highly than others on a depression screening tool.

Depending on the situation, facing discrimination can also result in anxiety and psychological trauma.

The authors of the research paper argue that discrimination plays a key role in the “gender gap” in rates of mental illness. Women experience higher rates of most mental health conditions, including:

Women are also 1.5 times more likely to attempt suicide than men, although men are more likely to die by suicide.

For people assigned female at birth, biological factors may play a role in these differences. However, studies have found fewer gender differences in the rates of mental illness in societies with more equality among men and women. This suggests that inequity and discrimination play a major role in these disparities.

As the World Health Organization (WHO) notes, gender inequality is also a risk factor for gender-based violence.

Thirty percent of women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives. The rate is higher, 47%, among trans people, and even higher among trans people of color and those who have done sex work, experienced homelessness, or have a current or past disability.

Experiencing any type of abuse or assault can lead to a mental health condition, as well as further complications that are traumatic in themselves. For example, if a person survives sexual assault, they may become pregnant, contract a sexually transmitted infection, or become excluded from their community.

Gender discrimination has direct and indirect effects on physical health. These include:

Illness

Some research suggests that experiencing discrimination is correlated with worse physical health.

For example, a 2018 study found that women who experience discrimination at work are more likely to report ill physical health, and particularly women who have experienced sexual harassment.

Stress from any source can also contribute to many chronic conditions, including chronic pain, high blood pressure, and diabetes.

Less healthy living conditions

Gender discrimination can also lead to a person having worse living conditions and less access to the things that they need to survive and thrive.

For example, in the United States, the gender pay gap means that women earn less than men overall — even when performing the same jobs. The pay gap is wider for women of color.

Women also have higher levels of student debt, lower savings in retirement, and higher rates of poverty, in comparison to men.

Not only does this cause more stress, it also reduces a person’s ability to afford fresh food, safe housing, and health insurance. This results in health inequity — avoidable and unfair differences in the health of marginalized groups, compared with privileged ones.

Learn more about health inequity.

Injury and death

Discrimination in the form of violence also directly impacts health. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is just one example of this.

FGM is unnecessary surgery to remove part or all of the genitalia of young females, who are typically younger than 15. Communities that practice FGM may believe that it will make girls more pure and suitable for marriage, and less likely to have extramarital sex.

People who survive the procedure can experience severe pain, bleeding, infections, and lifelong sexual health problems. Some die as a result of complications.

Gender discrimination has a profound effect on healthcare, reducing the speed, accuracy, and quality of treatment. It affects diagnosis and treatment in many ways, including:

Dismissal of symptoms: According to a 2018 review, doctors are more likely to view women’s chronic pain as psychological, exaggerated, or even made up, in comparison with men’s pain. This can leave people without support or treatment.

Incorrect or delayed diagnoses: Prejudices about gender can result in people getting incorrect diagnoses or having to wait for years for any diagnosis. For example, a 2020 article found that it takes doctors 6.5 months longer to diagnose moderate hemophilia in females than in males, and 39 months longer to diagnose severe hemophilia. This is despite the fact that females are more likely to notice symptoms of bleeding disorders, such as hemophilia.

Withholding care: Research from 2017 found that doctors routinely deny cis women access to birth control until they undergo annual pap smears. This form of manipulation is unethical and harmful, as it denies a person the ability to choose what happens to their body when.

Obstetric violence: This involves forcing medical interventions onto a person who is giving birth, without their consent. The term also refers to verbal and physical abuse during labor. A 2019 study found that out of 2,016 observed births taking place in Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea, and Myanmar, 41.6% of women experienced obstetric violence or abuse.

Gender discrimination also affects healthcare workers, the majority of whom are women. For example, a 2019 report on the British Medical Association found that the organization engaged in widespread discrimination against women, including bullying and sexual harassment.

In the face of this discrimination, doctors who are women are just as capable as doctors who are men. A 2017 study, for example, found that patients of female surgeons were 4% less likely to die within 30 days of a procedure, compared with patients of male surgeons. Each patient in the study had undergone one of 25 types of surgery.

Learn more about gender bias in medical diagnosis here.

Sexism reduces the health and well-being of everyone. If a person experiences discrimination and this damages their health, it has a knock-on effect on their family, friends, and the wider community.

A 2017 report notes that gender inequality contributes to unemployment and poverty among women and has adverse effects on child health and development.

Indirectly, sexism also harms men. The need to live up to masculine stereotypes can result in men not seeking medical help when they need it, behaving in ways that damage their health, and becoming involved in violence.

The economic cost of this is huge. Research from 2016 found that institutional gender discrimination costs the global economy $12 trillion, or 16% of the world’s total income.

Everyone has a responsibility to learn about and help end gender discrimination — it directly or indirectly harms everyone. People can learn more from:

UN Women, a United Nations entity that provides educational resources about the rights of women and girls

the WHO, which publishes reports, fact sheets, and articles about the impact of sexism on health

Birth Monopoly, Human Rights in Childbirth, and ImprovingBirth.org, which are working to educate about and end obstetric violence

SisterSong, which focuses on healthcare and maternal mortality among Black and Indigenous women

The Trevor Project, which works to end suicide and provide crisis intervention and other support for LGBTQIA+ youth

The effects of gender discrimination are global. This discrimination harms mental and physical health, leads to poverty, creates and enforces cycles of abuse and violence, and restricts access to healthcare.

Anyone can counter gender discrimination by learning about its causes, manifestations, and effects — and by taking action to stop it.

Source link

[woman-on-the-edge-of-time-eds340]

The Ideal Family and Relationships.

This novel does more than just relay the superior lifestyle of the future generation. It pushes the boundaries of the traditional ideal family. Piercy exhibits this in both the society from the future as well in the 1970’s society. Piercy’s writing style consisting of a combination of both beautiful metaphors and blunt perceptions from the characters demonstrates the stark contrast between the inferior and superior societies. In the future, we read about the androgynous Lucinette, living in a time where the goals of the Civil Rights movement have been more than fulfilled. Connie’s depiction of the 1970’s is one that abides strictly by labels, forcing the reader to remember those big “buzz words” which insinuate why Connie is struggling so much. Single, female, Hispanic, and impoverished- if Connie was perhaps married, male, white, and rich, her life would be more than ideal. Unfortunately this is is the society that we live in, one that has yet to be inclusive of all races and social classes. This aspect of the novel in my opinion is absolutely crucial to the plot. If we were to read about the perspectives of rich white male in the 1970’s, the reader would be unable to see why the future society is far more superior than the current one. Again, this contrast pushes the reader to explore the elements of an unjust society even further. Demonstrating that since Connie lives in a discriminatory society, alongside those who are thriving just because they differ in gender and skin tone, relays just how biased and prejudiced the current society is. However, no matter what Connie’s background is we still see her positive character traits for her love of her own family. This is where Piercy starts hinting that the traditional family is not necessarily equated to a perfect family. In our society, the traditional American family is one that consists of a white male caregiver, a white female caregiver, and perhaps one or two children. Whether this ideology is depicted in film, novels, advertisements, or through the education system, this has been considered the norm for many years. In doing such, our society completely neglected families who have two fathers, two mothers, adopted children, parents of color, couples of different races, those with disabilities, and more. This is why the future society is deemed to be so much more advanced (and rightfully so). Because the society does not pay attention to these aspects of the human race, it relies on skill sets and general character, resulting in a thriving society. This future society pushes typical norms even further when demonstrating that the traditional family is no longer existent. Perhaps this is so astounding to the reader at first because the traditional family is the one that tends to thrive in a society. It is depicted as perfect, the most loving, and the most successful. The future society demonstrates that is by no means the truth, and that race, class, ethnicity, and gender have no impact on how successful or loving the family may be. This is one element of the text that I appreciate so deeply. The novel does more than just demonstrate that racism, classism, and sexism are apparent issues in a society- but that they are issues that we have simply made up. These elements of a person have absolutely no correlation to how kind or unique they are as individuals. This is also where Piercy ties the superior society in with the inferior one. She demonstrates that Connie is a loving, caring, and trying person. But she lives in a society which strictly prohibits her from fully being capable of demonstrating such. Whether this is through literal means like being locked up in a mental institution or symbolically in which an individual may perceive Connie as an inferior parent for not having a significant other or for being lesser educated. Overall, it was a very intriguing concept to unpack on the basis that the book does so much more than state that discriminatory practices exist in a society- it shows these deeply rooted unjust ideals can ruin a family, especially one that could have been happy if the society let them.

Written by: Emma Rigby

[galaxyholly]

Let’s talk about labels.

So, with all the “political” discourse around minority groups lately, I’ve noticed something that’s left a sour taste in my mouth every time I hear it. (Or really a lot of things)

Labels.

Every minority group has them. “Gay” vs. “Straight”, “Black” vs. “White”, “disabled” vs. “abled”. 

Usually, labels are used as handy signifiers for a distinguishing trait, such as being homosexual. They’re used to distinguish something from a group, usually as some kind of utility of understanding. And they can be useful! Saying, “I’m gay” rolls of the tongue a lot easier than, “I am an X, and I am sexually attracted to X.”

But lately every time I hear labels like that, I can’t help but wonder if labelling is counter-productive to everything these groups stand for.

Language is powerful, its meanings, usage, and implications can change peoples’ minds like the snap of a forefinger and thumb. Obvious examples are like Cold War propaganda. We still have the majority of Americans assigning everything left of killing the homeless for sport as socialism (That’s a quote from somewhere, lemme know if you guess it.) 

Labelling isn’t an exception to this. There was a study done in recent years that illustrated this power in ways not really studied before. It involved telling a group of kids that they were gifted, and telling another that they didn’t achieve the gifted status. Both groups were taught using the same curriculum and methods, and by the end of the study, the “gifted” group had an IQ difference of 10-15 points. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just labelling these students caused sort of a “placebo” effect on their academic performance/ intelligence. 

[Citation at the bottom]

What does this have to do with minority groups? Well, I think it contributes to their perceived abnormality in our society. Most of these groups just want to be normalized, or treated just as well as the most well off groups and classes of society. Equality.

But the irony of campaigning for equality under a label, is that the label and the group status inherently separates and de-normalizes the group itself. If gay people are equal to straits, why do we even need a name for it? Can’t just saying, “I like X.” do the job? It’s nearly the same amount of effort to express, and it doesn’t involve boxing yourself into a narrow definition, nor does it separate. Does that make sense? You might have heard of this, but its called Heteronormativity and it sucks. As a wlw myself, I get tired of the label.

Maybe a more clear example would do good. If the color of your skin means nothing about who you are, why then do we call people “black”,”white”,”yellow”?

Before anyone tries to tell me that my idea is heading into culture erasure, give me a moment to explain. I do think culture is important, and I am by no means trying to force anyone to let go of any labels, or adopt others. I just want to open conversation as to what could be more helpful than the labels we have.

For instance, what do I think about when hearing the words black vs. white?

As a physicist, I would think of white as being the combination of all wavelengths of light, and black being no light present at all.

As someone indoctrinated into a protestant Christian belief system (I’ll be healing from that one for a while), white reminds me of all the imagery associated with god and angels, and black as associated with satan and demons (red too).

I mean, anyone can attest, it’s just classic symbolism. So what does it do when we assign groups of people those colors as labels. Well, it brings a lot of those connotations with them. Labelling in this way, using a noun as the label makes the label into something inherent in people. Think of the difference between, “I am a black person” vs. “I am a person comes from a unique culture and background.” In the first example, the person is black. It’s read as an inherent quality of someone. In a movement that’s saying that the color of your skin means nothing of who you are, the label of “black” only signifies a difference, which isn’t true. I don’t think POC or “People of Color” helps much either. It still plays into classic imagery, of white being pure, and other being less pure. It still makes the label out to be something that’s inherently part of the person. Which, yes, my skin color is a part of me, but as it means nothing about the content of my personality, so it seems odd to even mention its existence in reference to myself or my life.

This is my suggestion. Since skin pigment has no bearing on a persons life, why not just never mention it? Obviously this doesn’t do justice to the fact that people are severely oppressed due to their skin color. Fighting for rights or talking about culture that stemmed from oppression are the instances where sometimes a label is needed. So why not develop a better language model. Calling someone a “person affected by systemic oppression” doesn’t roll off the tongue, but the connotations are infinitely better. It conveys nothing inherent about the person, and the only separator is easily demonstrated to come from others, which means its not inherent, and not really a separator.

I think this can be applied to so many other groups. The most egregious example I can think of would be the term “transgender.” 

This language, much like racial language is extremely outdated and inaccurate, and as always, created by WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). The fact that a label exists at all, much like with poc, really irks me.

This is a group of people who are essentially just forced into the incorrect gender/presentation from birth, and many are self and medically-described to have been born in the wrong bodies.

One such sub-group is called “Trans Women.” These people are just women. They were assigned the wrong gender/gender roles/gender presentation at birth due to the archaic ideas of gender in Western society. Science, all accredited medical institutions, and psychology all confirm that “trans women” are just women. It’s the same with the men of the movement.

So, if you haven’t seen the issue yet, let me point it out. If “Trans women are women”, then why on earth do we need so say the “trans” part in the first place? Mathematically speaking, if [trans women = women], then the trans part is equal to zero. It’s a useless term. And yet, it’s everywhere. If you go to the reddit forum r/asktransgender, you literally can’t find a single person referring to a woman as just a woman. There’s this obsessive need to always attach “trans” in front of everything these men and women are associated with.

This isn’t even getting into what “transgender” implies in the first place. Much like POC is to black, transgender is to transsexual. People fighting to get rid of discriminatory and antiquated language with a history of use in disparagement only to replace with another useless label that just has less bad history of use.

“Transgender” is defined as:   denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

If everything says that these people are who they are, then why does “birth sex” even factor in? The use of this word makes it even worse. These people have to say, “I am transgender.” This is again, making the label inherent to the person’s being. Essentially relegating their whole life to being that person whose internal sense of identity and gender doesn’t align with their “birth sex”. 

How about, “I am a woman”, or “I am a man”, or “I am a nonbinary person.

The label carries around so many connotations. If someone is a woman, then why do they need the classifier, “trans” before her description? What does that confer? Their genitalia? No, some get surgery, and some don’t, so how is that helpful. Also, why do people think they have a right to any information on a person’s genitalia? That’s so weird and creepy. I would argue that these women know more about womanhood, and have a more intimate relationship with it than women without the experience of having a gender incongruence.

It also implies that they are going from one gender to another, hence the “trans” part. Which, is just inaccurate, considering that these people just are who they are from birth. Looking like a man doesn’t make you one, and vice versa. Nor does genitalia. Hopefully I don’t have to explain that one to you. 

So, why not say something like this instead. “I am a woman and I have a gender incongruence.” Gender incongruence is defined as the mismatch an individual feels as a result of the discrepancy experienced between their gender identity and the gender they were assigned at birth (GIRES, 2018, 2018).

First, this definition has nothing inherent about the person. “Having” a gender incongruence isn’t the same as saying, “I’m gender incongruent.” Once the person has fixed this incongruence through medical, social, or presentational means, they no longer have an incongruence, and are just a man/woman/enby.

Like said, if they’re just men and women, why the trans part? It only separates, and since they’re the same, the separator means nothing.

There are intersex women, infertile women, women who were brought up with tons of brothers, not being allowed to be “girly”, who never had a gender incongruence. So don’t try to say that there’s anything that can separate women who’ve had a gender incongruence to those who haven’t. 

I know this was really long, but I hope you got something out of it. Let’s stop labeling everything we see. It’s often inaccurate, and a really poor way of approaching. Let’s use the framework of oppression and culture instead.

If you’re in any of the minorities I talked about and you want to correct me or talk about this post, let me know.

Love, Holly

-xoxo

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/alternative-truths/201005/why-its-dangerous-label-people label theory readup

[epacer]

Education

In a major step away from punitive discipline for students, the San Diego Unified School Board is replacing in-school suspensions with alternative-to-suspension programs and requiring that schools exhaust so-called “restorative” interventions before suspending a student out of school.

The board unanimously approved the new discipline policy Oct. 27, two weeks after it approved sweeping changes to the district’s grading practices, which include separating non-academic factors from academic grades and giving students chances to re-do assignments and learn from their mistakes.

San Diego Unified also will negotiate with the teachers union by next year, to eliminate student suspensions across all grade levels for “willful defiance.” Advocates say willful defiance is a subjective rationale for discipline that has helped fuel discriminatory discipline of Black and Latino students.

California prohibits willful defiance suspensions for elementary and middle grades, though the ban for middle grades expires in 2025.

The changes are meant to address wide racial disparities that exist in discipline and grading.

For example, African Americans made up 8 percent of the San Diego Unified student body two years ago but 18 percent of suspended students, while Latinos made up 44 percent of students but 53 percent of suspended students.

Those numbers are in line with a nationwide trend of Black and Latino students being disproportionately disciplined. Students with disabilities in San Diego Unified also are disproportionately suspended at a rate twice the district average.

Black and Latino San Diego Unified students, as well as students with disabilities, also are much more likely to get D’s and F’s than their peers, district data show.

School officials and experts have said that those disparities are often fueled by bias or other factors outside a student’s control.

For example, a student living in poverty who has to work or take care of their siblings may be more likely to fail on a test due to a lack of time or concentration. And a student who is homeless or lacks food may be more likely to have an outburst in class.

The point of “restorative” discipline, proponents say, is to get at the reason why students are acting out, rather than simply punishing them for it without giving them a chance to address the root cause or make amends.

San Diego Unified officials say they also want to keep students in school rather than suspend them and deprive them of education.

“Although we are living in a virtual environment, our students are dealing with trauma and ongoing crises that may manifest themselves in attention-seeking behaviors,” said San Diego Unified Instructional Support Officer Nicole DeWitt at the Oct. 27 board meeting.

“It is important now, more than ever, that we take a restorative and supportive approach to identify why the behavior is occurring and what additional assistance the student may need.”

A new mandate

The district already has a restorative discipline policy, dated 2017. But that old policy was more of a recommendation than a mandate; schools could follow it if they chose.

For the example, the policy encouraged schools to avoid unnecessarily criminalizing students by bringing in law enforcement, and it encouraged schools to look at reasons why students might have acted out, but it didn’t say that schools had to do so.

The new policy makes these mandatory for schools.

One of the key parts of the new policy is that it creates four severity levels of behaviors that schools will follow, and each of the levels outline specific behaviors and supportive responses.

Nina Bonaventure, a student at La Jolla High School who spoke during the board meeting on discipline, said she believes these standardized, clear levels of behavior will help reduce discriminatory discipline.

For example, if a student bullies or harasses students or staff or frequently disrupts class or uses profanity, the student could be given after-school counseling, a classroom suspension, mentoring, peer mediation, Saturday school or a referral to a support program, according to the policy.

Or if a student assaults an employee or makes a terroristic threat, the student could be given community service, counseling or a behavioral assessment. The student could also be suspended from school for one to three days.

The policy says school police should be involved only in behavior incidents that state law requires be reported to police, such as unlawfully possessing or selling drugs or having a firearm at or near school.

Teachers’ rights

Teachers are pushing back on some of the discipline and grading changes.

Multiple teachers said at the Oct. 27 board meeting that while they believe the district’s intent to address racial inequity is worthwhile, the changes are coming too quickly, without sufficient input and at a time when they are already stressed trying to provide distance learning.

“Educators are currently overwhelmed teaching online,” said Elizabeth Frohoff, a teacher at University City High School, in a written comment.

“The board’s energy should be focused on supporting teachers, students and families during this chaotic time instead of creating more uncertainty and an unreasonable amount of additional workload on the already-burdened teachers who are working longer hours, trying to adapt to distance learning and supporting their students.”

San Diego teachers union President Kisha Borden said she’s concerned the new discipline policy could limit teachers’ rights for suspending students for disruptive behavior.

“The District is attempting the commendable work of addressing systemic inequities; however, the way they are going about it is generating confusion and consternation amongst educators,” Borden said in an email. “Undertaking yet another massive change, without sufficient educator input or training, on the heels of their last massive change, which also lacked sufficient educator input or training, is just bad.”

Numerous schools across the country have been adopting restorative discipline in recent years, but the implementation has not always been successful. In some cases it has raised frustrations among teachers who said they were forced to keep disruptive students in class, making it harder for them to manage the classroom and for other students to learn.

State law protects teachers’ right to suspend students from their classroom — provided it’s for one of a list of reasons, such as bullying or attempting to physically injure another person.

San Diego Unified’s new policy says teachers can still suspend students from class for good cause. Teachers must report the suspension to the principal, and the principal or another administrator will assign an intervention, according to the policy.

In response to the teachers’ concerns, DeWitt said the district will offer teachers anti-bias and restorative practices training throughout the school year to help them implement restorative discipline.

For grading, DeWitt said teachers should be meeting with their administrators and other teachers at their schools to discuss together how to give students second chances to improve their grade.

DeWitt said she isn’t expecting teachers to do that for every classroom assignment, just the important ones.

“Whenever a policy like this comes out there’s a feeling that you have to tackle everything at once, and that’s definitely not something that we’re asking,” DeWitt said. “We realize that has to be manageable for everyone.”

Other people who wrote public comments criticized the grading changes, saying they think the changes will lower expectations for students by, for example, preventing students’ academic grades from falling if they turn in work late. They said lowering the bar for students of color is racist.

Board members said they are not lowering the bar for students.

Trustee Sharon Whitehurst-Payne, who is African American, said that, as a minority, she takes offense at those comments. She said the district is not lowering standards but changing them to meet the needs of students.

Addressing the comments on grading, Trustee Kevin Beiser also disputed the idea that the district is going easy on students.

“This idea of allowing students the opportunity for redemption is nothing new,” he said. “We’re just saying that this is a great idea, now let’s expand it and establish it as a policy so that we can lift all students up. And if it lifts up Black and brown students, then that is even more reason to implement the policies.” *Reposted article from the UT by Kristen Taketa of November 8, 2020

[douglasacogan]

Lots and lots of notable (and very consequential?) new criminal justice reforms now law in California

California has long been a very big and very interesting and very complicated state when it comes to criminal justice and sentencing reform. This fascinating state story continued with a lot of new bills being signed yesterday by Gov Gavin Newsom. This local article (which somewhat tracks this official document from the Governors office) provides some of the details and provides especially helpful links to the underlying legislation.  Here are excerpts focused on criminal justice reforms with my bolding added for follow-up comments:

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed landmark bills into law on Wednesday, the last day available for the governor to sign legislation.  The docket included racial justice, criminal justice, and policing reform, as well as legislation related to cannabis, rental housing, and banning hazardous chemicals and ingredients in cosmetics. 

AB 3121 and AB 3070 by Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber, PhD (D-San Diego) will establish anti-discrimination jury selection and "will advance the conversation of Reparations and develop ideas for how to overcome implementation challenges," respectively, according to the CA State Assembly Democratic Caucus. 

AB 2542, also known as the California Racial Justice Act, by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) prohibits the use of race, ethnicity or national origin to seek or obtain convictions or sentences....

Newsom signed bills related to criminal justice and police reform as well on Wednesday.

AB 1185 authorizes counties to establish a sheriff oversight board.

AB 1196 bans police use of chokeholds.

AB 1506 creates a division within the Department of Justice to review the use-of-force policy of the agency and make recommendations, as well as require a state prosecutor to investigate officer involved shootings.

AB 901 will make sure youth are referred to community programs rather than placing them on probation or having them be a "ward of the court."

SB 203 establishes stronger protections for minors who are interrogated by police.

AB 2542 requires judges to reconsider convictions and sentences if defense attorneys were able to prove that people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity or national origin were routinely charged with a more serious offense, or sentenced more harshly, than defendants of other races.... 

SB 1290 will expand on earlier efforts to decrease fines and fees on youth and families involved with the justice system.

SB 203 ups the age of right to legal counsel for youth aged 15 and younger to youth aged 17 and younger.

SB 480 standardizes police uniforms, making specific mention that police cannot wear a uniform with a camouflage print or other patterned material that closely resembles an army or state active militia uniform.... 

SB 823 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review takes the first, formal step of closing the Division of Juvenile Justice, which will help to provide youth rehabilitative services closer to home.

AB 901 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson), which will end the practice of referring youth who are having problems at school to probation programs.

AB 1950 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager (D-Los Angeles), which caps probation terms to a maximum of one year for misdemeanor offenses and two years for felonies....

Newsom also signed the following bills:...

AB 732 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – County jails: prisons: incarcerated pregnant persons....

AB 1304 by Assemblymember Marie Waldron (R-Escondido) – California MAT Re-Entry Incentive Program. 

AB 1775 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – False reports and harassment.

AB 2321 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – Juvenile court records: access.

AB 2425 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) – Juvenile police records.

AB 2512 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) – Death penalty: person with an intellectual disability.

AB 2606 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) – Criminal justice: supervised release file.

AB 3043 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – Corrections: confidential calls.

AB 3234 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) – Public Safety. 

SB 1126 by Senator Brian W. Jones (R-Santee) – Juvenile court records.

This long list of signed bills has my head spinning, and the title of this post highlights that I am particularly curious and particularly uncertain about how consequential all these bills are likely to be.  I have bolded the two bills that, as a sentencing fan, strike me as particularly intriguing and potentially very consequential. 

AB 1950, which caps the duration of probation terms, has been described by REFORM Alliance as the "most transformative probation reform bill in the country."  This new Fox News article, headlined "Jay-Z, Meek Mill's REFORM Alliance celebrate 'major victory' with Calif. Gov. Newsom passing probation bill," talks about this new bill and the efforts and people behind making it law.  Here is a snippet:

On Wednesday, REFORM announced on Instagram it was celebrating a "MAJOR REFORM VICTORY." Through its verified Instagram account, the alliance thanked California Gov. Gavin Newsom for signing AB 1950 into law.  "This bill will help put hundreds of thousands of Californians on probation in positions to succeed and exit the criminal justice system for good.  Thank you @GavinNewsom!" the Instagram post reads.  In a follow-up post, the organization wrote, "This is just the beginning. This is how we #fightdifferent."...

REFORM's CEO Van Jones explained in a video statement that the law will essentially "make people be on probation for much less time" and will "give people a much better shot at getting out of that system, getting what they need and getting on their way."  The premise is to reduce the number of probation violations.

AB 2542, which provides for a California Racial Justice Act, seems to be the biggest and broadest racial justice act ever passed by any state because it seems to apply to all convictions and sentences and not just death sentences as did comparable Racial Justice Act passed in Kentucky and North Carolina years ago.  Notably, Michelle Alexander wrote this op-ed last week endorsing this bill and explaining its reach this way (with my emphasis added):

The new law will make it possible for a person charged or convicted of a crime to challenge racial, ethnic, and national-origin bias in their case through relevant evidence, including: 

▪ Explicit racial bias by an attorney, judge, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror involved in the case.

▪ Use of racially discriminatory language in court and during the criminal proceedings, whether or not intentional.

▪ Racial bias in jury selection, such as removing all or nearly all Black, brown, Native, Indigenous and people of color from the jury.

▪ Statistical disparities in charging and convictions — that is, evidence that people of one race are disproportionately charged or convicted of a specific crime or enhancement.

▪ Statistical disparities in sentencing — that is, evidence that people of one race receive longer or more severe sentences, including the death penalty or life without parole.

I believe that the new California Racial Justice Act only applies prospectively, and so we will not see extensive litigation over past sentences as we did in North Carolina (and which led to the repeal of that state's Racial Justice Act). But even as just a prospective measure, I am inclined to predict that this new statute could prove highly consequential in all sorts of ways.

I am hopeful that smart folks who focus on the California criminal justice system might soon blog about to these bills and their potential impacts. And, of course, another wave of reform in California might not be far away: as this article highlights under the headline "Three ballot measures test attitudes on crime in California," a set of criminal justice initiatives being put to California voters next month will add to this remarkable 2020 reform chapter in the Golden State.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247011 https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2020/10/lots-and-lots-of-notable-and-very-consequential-new-criminal-justice-reforms-now-law-in-california.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

[districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog]

Questioning The Death Penalty

By Emory Loescher, George Washington University Class of 2021

July 22, 2020

After the closing scene of Just Mercy, the film based on the best-selling novel by Bryan Stevenson, audiences learn that 1 in every 10 prisoners on death row was convicted on faulty evidence. In the last week, there were three federal executions, a significant increase coming after the government’s 17-year hiatus.[1]

The Supreme Court ruled the death penalty is not practiced in violation of the eighth amendment; barring cruel and unusual punishment.[2]In light of the government’s quick executions of these death row inmates, a federal court in D.C. concluded that the federal government likely violated the 8th amendment.[3]

Potential violations of the 8th amendment is alarming on its own, however, inflicting the death penalty on an individual is inherently faulty.

The Innocence Project has worked to exonerate death row inmates. Across 11 states, 18 individuals have been proven innocent of crimes for which they were sentenced to death via DNA testing with their legal aid.[4] According to one study, a conservative estimate of false death row convictions is four percent.[5] This means of the 2,620 death row inmates in the U.S. in 2020,[6] 105 of them will likely have been wrongfully convicted.

Supreme Court Rulings have narrowed the scope of the death penalty, included banning its use for mentally disabled offenders and juvenile offenders. There has been a large amount of legislature introduced since 2015, with 65 new laws across 25 states addressing capital punishment.[7]

In 1972, the Supreme Court briefly banned use of the death penalty, however, it was reinstituted in 1976. Many non-profit organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are in favor of abolishing the death penalty altogether, particularly as the punishment disproportionately affects people of color.[8]

An important legal objection to the imposition of the death penalty is that capital punishment effectively denies individuals due process of law. While those sentenced to life have the opportunity to appeal their sentence, once an individual is put to death, that as an irrevocable act. In considering the legality of this criminal consequence, due process is a critical question. Further due to the discriminatory nature of the penalty’s application, there is no doubt that due process is being denied in more ways than one.

In evaluating the death penalty as a form of consequence, the key question is not simply “is this legal?”, but rather, “how could this violate the law?” The death penalty violates several aspects of the legal process that are essential to the U.S. judicial system, and therefore, should be reconsidered.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Crowder, C. (July 17, 2020) Meth kingpin is the third person executed by federal government this week. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/17/dustin-honken-third-person-executed-federal-government-week/5462083002/

[2] Death Penalty. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty

[3] Stetson, C., & Friedman, R. (July 17, 2020). The justice department’s shameful rush to federal executions. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/opinion/justice-department-federal-execution.html

[4] The innocent and the death penalty. Innocence Project. https://www.innocenceproject.org/the-innocent-and-the-death-penalty/

[5] Von Drehle, D. (April 28, 2014). More innocent people on death row than estimated: Study. TIME. https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

[6] Death Penalty Fast Facts. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/us/death-penalty-fast-facts/index.html

[7] States and Capital Punishment. (March 3, 2020). NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/death-penalty.aspx

[8] The Case Against the Death Penalty. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty

[californiaprelawland]

Affirmitive Action Takes The Polls Alongside Opponent Donald Trump

By Frances Conci, University of San Francisco Class of 2021

July 10, 2020

Affirmative action- a significant touchstone of a culture war within the United States is back in the head-lines amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Last week, the California Legislature voted to put an initiative on the statewide ballot in November that would repeal Proposition 209, which voters adopted in 1996 to ban affirmative action in government institutions, employment and contracting. If adopted by California voters, the new proposal known as ACA 5, would allow affirmative action in the University of California college system as well as in state hiring and contracting.ii

Affirmative Action A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment. In modern American jurisprudence, it typically imposes remedies against discrimination on the based on, at the very least, race, creed, color, and national origin.iii

The concept of affirmative action has existed in America since the 19th century, but made its first appearance during the time of President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 (1961). "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”v

Employment For government contractors, President Kennedy issued an executive order in 1961, mandating that government contractors to take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regards to their race, creed, color or national origin.” Since vi1965, government contractors have been required to document their affirmative action programs through compliance reports, to contain "such information as to the practices, policies, programs, and employment policies, programs, and employment statistics of the contractor and each subcontractor.”vii

General Employers who contract with the government or receive federal funding are required to document their affirmative action practices. Affirmative action is also a remedy under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where a court finds that an employer has intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces the fol-lowing employment anti-discrimination laws:  1.Equal Pay Act of 19632.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19643.Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 19674.Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 501 and 5055.Title I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 19906.Civil Rights Act of 1991ix

Education Recipients of federal funds are again required to document their affirmative action practices. Educational institutions that have acted discriminatory in the past must take affirmative action as a remedy.x As a nation, we have had a handful of Supreme Court decisions related to affirmative action and education. One example would be Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. The Supreme Court held that public schools might not exclude minority students from white schools by sending minority students to a school that separately services minority students. This decision acted as a precursor to many of the education-based affirmative action movement and cases in the Supreme Court.  More recently, in 2016, the University of Texas at Austin used a Top Ten Percent Law. Any student who graduated in the top 10% of his or her high school class would be granted admission to the University. If an applicant were not in the top 10% of his or her high school class, the University would create an Academic Index (AI) and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI) for each student. 

The PAI considered applicant’s essays, as well as a full-file review" which included leadership and work experience, extracurricular activities, community service, and other “special characteristics” that might give the admissions committee insight into a student’s background; race was included as one of these special characteristics. The Court found that the University's use of race constitutes a "factor of a factor of a factor," which, as one factor in the University's holistic review process, is narrow enough to meet strict scrutiny. The Court also held that there is a compelling interest in "obtaining the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity." As such, strict scrutiny is satisfied, and the Court held that the use of race in the University's admissions efforts was constitutional.xiv

In the past week, a small group gathered at San Francisco’s Ferry Building before marching to City Hall. Hassan Zee, a film director and medical doctor living in San Francisco, said, “I decided to come and participate in Black Lives Matter because I am a brown person. It is very important in America that we sup-port the Black, brown, Asian, Middle Eastern, Pakistani ... America is a country where our forefathers came here from different countries.”

Lawmakers and advocates spoke in front of the crowd at City Hall, urging voters to pass a measure that they hope would create more diverse workplaces and education systems.  “We cannot just pretend that race doesn’t exist and say: ‘Oh, we live in this nirvana. We don’t have to pay attention to race.’We know that is false,” state Sen. Scott Wiener told the crowd.”Proposition 16 will be on the November ballot in this coming election, that if passed, will remove California’s 24-year old ban on affirmative action, overturning Prop. 209 and allow consideration of race and gender in public education, public hiring, and contracting. “Prop. 209 was one hundred and ten percent race-baiting,” Senator Wiener said. “It is a scar on the California constitution. We should be deeply embarrassed.” 

People have voiced that the overturn of Prop. 209 will help level the playing field for the black and brown communities. California’s move to embrace affirmative action, like Americans’ increased support for immigration and the recent spike in support for the Black Lives Matter movement, occurs in the climate of Trump’s presidency and his white nationalist MAGA movement. In many places across the country, the blunt pressure of Trump’s racial aggression is being met with blunt resistance. What he is for, large numbers of Americans are openly against.

________________________________________________________________

i Francis Wilkinson, “California Affirmative Action Gets Boost From Trump,” June 29, 2020,ihttps://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-29/california-affirmative-action-gets-boost-from-trump. See 1

ii“Affirmative Action,” Legal Information Institute (Legal Information Institute), accessed July 6,

iii2020, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action. See 3

iv See 3v Executive Order 10925

vi See 6vii Civil Rights Act of 1964

viii“Affirmative Action,” Legal Information Institute (Legal Information Institute), accessed July 6,

ix2020, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action.(34 CFR § 100.3(6)(ii))

xBrown v. Board of Education, 374 U.S. 483 (1954xiFisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. __ (2016),

xii See 12

xiii See 12

xiv Nicholas Chan, “Small, Impassioned Crowd Celebrates the Fourth of July with Protest for

xvAffirmative Action,” The San Francisco Examiner (The San Francisco Examiner, July 4, 2020), https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/small-impassioned-crowd-celebrates-the-fourth-of-july-with-protest-for-affirmative-action/. See 15

xvi See 15

xvii See 15

xviii See 1

xix Francis Wilkinson, “California Affirmative Action Gets Boost From Trump,” June 29, 2020,ihttps://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-29/california-affirmative-action-gets-boost-from-trump. See 1

Photo Credit: Joseluis89

[synthmusic91]

Dear Professor [REDACTED],

Inboxes are getting fuller and attention spans are getting shorter, so I'll keep this interesting, if not short.

After some thought, I've decided that I am deeply disappointed in the discussion of "cancel culture"  during last Wednesday's class. It was such a directionless, surface-level appeasement of white feminist ideals that I dropped the class. I re-enrolled, clearly, but going forward I would like to be explicitly clear on how I feel about certain topics, even if we don't get to the root of my ideas during discussion.

What the class seems to believe is cancel culture—the idea of ostracizing someone after a single Freudian slip—exists, though not in the way that they believe. That is, the well-intentioned but ignorant oppressor getting "cancelled" after a single mistake is not a situation that exists with systematic backing. Even if they wanted to, the oppressed would have a hard time, as an outsider, shutting the oppressor out of their own community. There are some nebulous subcategories of what is broadly, and ignorantly, known as "cancel culture" that warrant discussion, some of which I'll discuss below. Note that none of them include the aforementioned situation, which the class spent the majority of our time discussing.

The "cancelling" of oppressed people for speaking out against an oppressive system has existed for a long time, though shifts in language have removed it from historical search results. I believe, at least in Hollywood, that it was called blacklisting, which is why the emergence of "cancel culture" is seen as an online and novel phenomenon. Historically, the person who was blacklisted was, and still is, far more likely to be a member of an oppressed group speaking out against the status quo that the oppressing group believes to be normative and natural. Since the oppressed group believes the discriminatory status quo to be natural, they observe the oppressed person's justified complaint as a disruption, an attack on their way of life. Either I'm too young or blacklisting never made the mainstream because the victims were often women, people of color, disabled, queer, or any combination thereof.

Another type of cancelling, which invites some very interesting and challenging criticism of online activist circles and has gained traction with the parasocial nature of social media, usually involves public activist or marginalized figures. When an activist figure makes a perceived slight, no matter how small, that would compromise the unity of the allied oppressed group, they could be attacked by an angry online mob for their perceived transgression. This type of cancelling is particularly vitriolic for a variety of reasons, particularly because it's infectious, it mobilizes support networks against the victim, and it's all public.

The mainstream, high-profile version of cancelling that coined the term "cancel culture" is different from the others in that it's not really cancelling at all. If the term "cancelling" implies unjust, destructive consequences for the victim, then the mainstream rendition of cancel culture that has been pushed by powerful online figures like J.K. Rowling contains a critical flaw; namely, that none of the powerful figures being cancelled have faced any real consequences. J.K. Rowling might have been attacked by Twitter mobs, but she still has lots of money and a huge platform. Moreover, she was warned and criticized for her transphobia long before the Twitter mobs made their move. She was not cancelled and never will be, yet she insists on calling her experience one of the worst cases of cancel culture. Her perception should not be regarded as reasonable, but rather as a case study of the pantomimed victimhood of white women and the value of the oppressor's emotions over the oppressed's voice and justice.

The majority of the class seemed to have very limited knowledge regarding the topic of cancelling and, in their ignorance, stifled the discussion of intersectional feminism in favor of focusing on the nuances of the "well-meaning" oppressor class. There's a discussion there as well, but their knowledge of that topic was also painfully lacking in intersectional viewpoints and had the additional weakness of not being accompanied by the required reading.

I understand that the purpose of the discussion is for it to be student led, but the classroom is first and foremost a place to learn. Rather than indulge the class's ignorance, I believe it is necessary to direct conversation towards the topics rendered in detail in the readings for which students are guaranteed a base level of knowledge and nuance and away from where the class seems to steer itself, which is unproductive pop feminism with no purpose except to water down complex social issues and to provide excuses to avoid confronting one's own biases and faults. While more emotionally palatable, the refusal of the emotional labor of feminist theory makes it impossible to learn and grow.

I'd like to explore these ideas in more detail, either in office hours, on my projects, or even during class. Thanks for reading all of this, and my apologies if my tone was harsh; I simply want to get the most out of this course. See you in class!

Cheers,

𝓼𝓮𝓹𝓱𝓪

im so fucking iconic. so iconic and intelligent and beautiful

[transhumanitynet]

Artificial Intelligence and the Privacy Dilemma

Google and other big tech companies are watching you.

That’s the premise of all the debates and regulatory steps around the current privacy issues. After all, data is the new gold for companies like Google and Facebook. They thrive on collecting and using their users’ data to target audiences in their ads. Initiatives like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation aims to give the users the right to their data by making companies ask users for explicit consent. The assumption is that by knowing how Facebook collects your information, for example, you will have more control.

But with the advent of artificial intelligence, this has become more complex. The problem is, machine learning — the engine behind AI — can only improve itself by devouring data. As it uses big data, companies skirt around privacy regulations by saying they’re anonymizing data. AI also does not run on a rule-based system, so algorithmic transparency isn’t always possible.

Right now, machine learning is being used in phones, homes, sites, and even banks to detect fraud, predict behavior, and optimize experiences. This widespread data collection and personalization may seem harmless and useful even until it isn’t.

Consumer privacy and biases

Recently, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development sued Facebook for discriminatory practices in targeting housing related-ads on its platform. The lawsuit highlights how Facebook’s AI-powered platform unlawfully discriminates based on color, religion, origin, sexuality, and disability.

As AI platforms learn from the data it consumes, it can also perpetuate the societal biases and amplify them by serving them as “objective” and “rational” outcomes.

AI in the workplace

While consumer privacy regulations are catching up, employees are in a difficult position as privacy rights can be waived in the workplace. Increasingly, companies are employing AI-enabled RFIDs, trackers, and sensors to detect productivity, measure engagement, and monitor employee interactions.

In talent acquisition, companies are relying on AI to target potential employees who “fit” into their demands and work culture. But research suggests that these algorithms also show biases, which essentially creates glass ceilings for minorities and women.

Legal System and Predictive Policing

Biases in AI-enabled platforms can have even more harrowing outcomes. Some law enforcement authorities are using facial recognition and predictive policing to introduce data-based operations.

For example, the Los Angeles Police Department uses AI risk-assessment platform PredPol, whose algorithm is fundamentally flawed. Crunching data from current arrests, incarceration, probation and parole statistics show a risk-assessment biased towards minorities. There is a growing concern that the cycle of justice inequity will likely persist. In the legal industry, Special Counsel points out how personal data from social media, cell phones, and computers are becoming a necessity in litigations. AI-enabled eDiscovery platforms that can quickly comb through data are being used by firms to save on time and resources. But the fact that lawyers are now relying on AI’s judgment calls is also raising concerns, as machines, while efficient, can also make mistakes that can lead to bad decisions.

AI and health data

Another potentially controversial aspect of life where AI encroaches on privacy is health data. Fitness trackers and phones mine data from physical activities at our behest. Even Facebook has launched a program where it predicts suicidal tendencies based on your social media posts, while Google Home has similar patents where it identifies undiagnosed conditions of users from their emergent health data.

One studied showed that Facebook is also using its data to predict health conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and even gastrointestinal disorders. While this might be useful, it raises concerns about how these companies can now leverage users’ medical conditions and susceptibilities in serving behavioral ads.

Until AI remains a black box of data processing, no one has a clue how extensive and invasive its data collection and aggregation capabilities are. As it increasingly becomes a part of every aspect of our lives, the issue of privacy and regulation will continue to get even more complex.

Written by: Andrew Blank

Artificial Intelligence and the Privacy Dilemma was originally published on transhumanity.net

[lgbtq-families]

LGBT Terms & Definitions

Ally: person who confronts heterosexism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, heterosexual privilege, and so on, in themselves and others out of self-interest and a concern for the well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other queer-related people, and who believes that heterosexism is a social injustice

Bicurious: curiosity about having sexual relations with a same gender/sex person

Bisexual: person whose primary sexual and affectional orientation is toward people of the same and other genders, or towards people regardless of their gender

Cisgender: gender identity that society considers to “match” the biological sex assigned at birth. The prefix cis- means “on this side of” or “not across from.” A term used to call attention to the privilege of people who are not transgendered

Coming Out: describes voluntarily making public one’s sexual behaviors, or sexual or gender identity. Related terms include: “being out,” which means not concealing one’s sexual behaviors or preference or gender identity, and “outing,” a term used for making public the sexual behaviors or preference or gender identity of another who would prefer to keep this information secret

Closeted: refers to a homosexual, bisexual, transperson or intersex person who will not or cannot disclose their sex, sexuality, sexual orientation or gender identity to their friends, family, co-workers, or society. An intersex person may be closeted due to ignorance about their status since standard medical practice is to “correct,” whenever possible, intersex conditions early in childhood and to hide the medical history from the patient. There are varying degrees of being “in the closet”; for example, a person can be out in their social life, but in the closet at work, or with their family. Also known as ‘Downlow” or ‘D/L’

Dyke: derogatory term referring to a masculine lesbian. Sometimes adopted affirmatively by lesbians (not necessarily masculine ones) to refer to themselves

Fag: derogatory term referring to someone perceived as non-heteronormative

Family: the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children. Also any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family: single-parent family, spouse and children, group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head: Household, group of persons of common ancestry.

Gay: a person (or adjective to describe a person) whose primary sexual and affectional orientation is toward people of the same gender; a commonly used word for male homosexuals

Gender: a social construct used to classify a person as a man, woman, or some other identity. Fundamentally different from the sex one is assigned at birth

Gender Binary: the idea that there are only two genders – male/female or man/woman and that a person must be strictly gendered as either/or. (See also ‘Identity Sphere.’)

Gender Expression/ Presentation: how one expresses oneself, in terms of dress and/or behaviors that society characterizes as “masculine” or “feminine.” May also be androgynous or something else altogether.  Some people differentiate between the two terms

Gender Role: the role or behavior learned by a person as appropriate to their gender, determined by the prevailing cultural norms. Behaviors, values, and attitudes that a society considers appropriate for both male and female.

Genderfluid: being fluid in motion between two or more genders; shifting naturally in gender identity and/or gender expression/presentation. May be a gender identity itself. Refers to the fluidity of identity

Gender Identity: a person’s internal sense or self-conceptualization of their own gender. Used to call attention to the self-identification inherent in gender. Cisgender, transgender, man, woman, genderqueer, etc. are all gender identities

Hate Crime: hate crime legislation often defines a hate crime as a crime motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person

Heteronormativity: assumption, in individuals or in institutions, that everyone is heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality and bisexuality

Heterosexuality: sexual orientation in which a person feels physically and emotionally attracted to people of the “opposite” gender

Heterosexual Privilege: benefits derived automatically by being heterosexual that are denied to homosexuals and bisexuals. Also, the benefits homosexuals and bisexuals receive as a result of claiming heterosexual identity or denying homosexual or bisexual identity

Homophobia: irrational hatred and fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.  In a broader sense, any disapproval of homosexuality at all, regardless of motive. Homophobia includes prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought on by fear and hatred.  It occurs on personal, institutional, and societal levels, and is closely linked with transphobia, biphobia, and others

Homosexuality: sexual orientation in which a person feels physically and emotionally attracted to people of the same gender. This term originated within the psychiatric community to label people with a mental illness, and still appears within the current discourse, but is generally thought to be outdated

Hypermasculinity: sociological term denoting exaggerated forms of masculinity, virility, and physicality. Scholars have suggested that there are three distinct characteristics associated with the hypermasculine personality: (1) the view of violence as manly, (2) the perception of danger as exciting and sensational, and (3) callous behavior toward women and a regard toward emotional displays as feminine. The quality or exhibition of exaggerated masculine behavior or traits, especially strength and those of a violent, dominant, or sexual nature.  

Internalized Homophobia: fear and self-hate of one’s own homosexuality or non-monosexuality that occurs for many individuals who have learned negative ideas about homosexuality throughout childhood.  One form of internalized oppression is the acceptance of the myths and stereotypes applied to the oppressed group

Intersectionality: the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage 

Lesbian: a woman whose primary sexual and affectional orientation is toward people of the same gender

LGBT: abbreviation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.  An umbrella term that is used to refer to the community as a whole. There are other variations of this which mix up the letters (GLBT) or are more inclusive such as adding ‘queer’, ‘intersex’ or ‘asexual/ally’ in LGBTQIAA

Pansexual/ Omnisexual: terms used to describe people who have romantic, sexual, or affectional desire for people of all genders and sexes.  Used by many in place of “bisexual,” which implies that only two sexes or genders exist

Polyamorous: the desire or need to have multiple relationships or multiple people in a relationship

Second-Parent Adoption/ Co-parent Adoption/ Stepchild Adoption: legal procedure that allows a same-sex parent, regardless of whether they have a legally recognized relationship to the other parent, to adopt her or his partner's biological or adoptive child without terminating the first parent’s legal status as a parent.

Sex: categorization based on the appearance of genitalia at birth. Refers to the biological characteristics chosen to assign humans as male, female, or intersex.

Sexuality: components of a person that include their biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual practices, etc.

Sexual Orientation: an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, and/or affectional attraction. Terms include homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, non-monosexual, queer, and asexual, and may apply to varying degrees. Sexual orientation is fluid, and people use a variety of labels to describe their own.  Sometimes sexual preference is used but can be problematic as it implies choice.

Stigma: a strong lack of respect for a person or a group of people or a bad opinion of them because they have done something society does not approve of. A mark of shame or discredit. Mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one’s reputation. A strong feeling in society that being in a particular situation is something to be ashamed of.

Straight: a person (or adjective to describe a person) whose primary sexual and affectional orientation is toward people of the “opposite” gender

Transgender: used most often as an umbrella term, and frequently abbreviated to “trans” or “trans*” (the asterisk indicates the option to fill in the appropriate label, ie. Transman). It describes a wide range of identities and experiences of people whose gender identity and/or expression differs from conventional expectations based on their assigned biological birth sex. Some commonly held definitions: (1) Someone whose behavior or expression does not “match” their assigned sex according to society. (2) A gender outside of the man/woman binary. (3) Having no gender or multiple genders. (4) Some definitions also include people who perform gender or play with it. (5) Historically, the term was coined to designate a transperson who was not undergoing medical transition (surgery or hormones).

Transphobia: a reaction of fear, loathing, and discriminatory treatment of people whose identity or gender presentation (or perceived gender or gender identity) does not “match,” in the societally accepted way, the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgendered people, intersex people, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and other non-monosexuals are typically the target of transphobia