Equal Justice Society

Apply for the 2009-2010 Motley Fellowship

The Equal Justice Society is accepting applications for its 2009-2010 Judge Constance Baker Motley Fellowship, named after the first African-American woman to serve on the federal bench. Applicants for the one-year paid fellowship should be recent law school graduates with zero to five years of work experience after law school. The application deadline is December 16, 2008.

Download a PDF of this announcement 

The Equal Justice Society (”EJS”) is a national strategy group heightening conscious on race in the law and popular discourse.  As heirs of the innovative legal and political strategists of Brown v. Board of Education, the organization broadly models its programmatic efforts after the late Honorable Constance Baker Motley and the Brown litigation team.  Using a three-prong strategy of law and public policy advocacy, cross-disciplinary convenings and strategic public communications, EJS seeks to restore race equity issues to the national consciousness, build effective progressive alliances, and advance the discourse on the positive role of government. 

Motley Fellowship applicants should demonstrate experience in civil rights advocacy and a strong commitment to racial justice.  The Fellow will work under the supervision of staff attorneys for a twelve-month period.  During the fellowship period, the Fellow may lead new research, advocacy, coalition building, and public education efforts related to transforming anti-discrimination law and policy.  The Fellow will be a full participant in office events and activities, including staff meetings and strategic planning sessions.

Fellowship Location: San Francisco, California
Fellowship Period: October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010 (flexible)
Application Deadline: December 16, 2008 (Application must be received in our office by the date listed.)

Fellowship Application:
To be considered for the Judge Constance Baker Motley Civil Rights Fellowship, please send a COVER LETTER, RESUME, list of FOUR (4) REFERENCES, and a WRITING SAMPLE (on a racial/social justice topic) to info@equaljusticesociety.org with the subject line “Motley Fellowship Application”

OR

Mail to:
Motley Fellowship Applications
Equal Justice Society
220 Sansome Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

Please use either email or postal mail for applications, not both. Applications must be received in the office by the date listed above.

Requirements:
Applicants should be recent law school graduates with 0-5 years of work experience after law school. Bar passage is not required. Candidates will be evaluated based upon criteria including:
· Demonstrated commitment to racial and social justice.
· Demonstrated interest in civil rights law and policy.
· Excellent research and oral /written communication skills.

Race in the Presidential Race on Meet the Bloggers

From Robert Greenwald: Since the race-baiting and fear-mongering from the McCain campaign have intensified in recent weeks, we have escalated our campaign to end the politics of hate. This week on Meet the Bloggers, we will discuss race in the presidential race with special guest Rinku Sen, executive director of The Applied Research Center and author of the recently released book, The Accidental American: Immigration and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization.

Watch Rinku Sen on Meet the Bloggers at 1pm ET: http://meetthebloggers.org/?utm_source=rgemail

Joining Sen will be bloggers Adia Harvey Wingfield (Racism Review), Joshua Busch (Double Take 08), and Liliana Segura (AlterNet). All three have written extensively about this topic, as you can see from the material below. Check out their articles, and join them in the live blog discussion today at 1pm ET/10 am PT at Meet the Bloggers.

George Will: Country Eager to “Feel Good About Itself” by Voting for a Black Man

Sam Stein on HuffPo today writes about George Will’s comments on the Powell endorsement of Obama.

There will be “some impact,” Will declared. “And I think this adds to my calculation — this is very hard to measure — but it seems to me if we had the tools to measure we’d find that Barack Obama gets two votes because he’s black for every one he loses because he’s black because so much of this country is so eager, (a) to feel good about itself by doing this, but more than that to put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric.”

Jim Brosnahan: A Debate With Myself on Proposition 8

Jim Brosnahan’s commentary was published today on Law.com.  Mr. Brosnahan is a member of the Equal Justice Society board of directors.
This is a one-sided debate that is addressed to you, Richard Peterson. You have listed yourself as a faculty member of Pepperdine University School of Law and you have, as is your right under the First Amendment, broadcast your views throughout the state in a pro-Proposition 8 advertisement. 
I wrote you a polite letter and I asked you to debate the measure but I have heard nothing and I take it you’re not going to respond. Therefore, if you don’t mind, I would like to express to you and anybody who reads this my thoughts on the points that you make and what’s wrong with them. In my view, your points are deeply flawed, misleading and, at times, an attempt to play on the fear of the viewer unfairly. 
Here goes: 
First, in California, when there are two people who are in love and who are committed to each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, they should have, as declared under the law, every right to be married like anybody else. 
In support of Prop 8, you have falsely suggested that churches would have a tax problem if the initiative were not passed. Prop 8 should be defeated and its defeat will not cause any problem to churches. Churches have the protection of the First Amendment. They are free to marry or not marry anyone they wish and they would not lose their tax-exempt status as you suggest. Your point is unworthy of a law professor. 
In a similar vein of attempting to frighten people, you have suggested that somehow, if Prop 8 does not pass, little children will be taught about same-sex marriage in school, and that this will be bad for them. As others have pointed out, there is no requirement that schools have to teach anything about marriage, and furthermore, whatever is taught will be determined by the local school boards. 
I would have thought, sir, as I assume you are a religious person, that you understand and have indeed taught that God has made all of us, not just some of us. If we are in God’s image, then we must accept all of God’s children. This is fundamental and you should accept it. 
With regard to your religion, it has no place in the California Constitution, just as I am sure that you would not want me to enshrine my religion in our state’s laws. I not only respect your religion, but have, in court, defended people’s right to practice their religion. But it still should not be put into the Constitution. 
You have presented yourself as a law professor and indeed you are, but the courses you’ve taught seem to have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are not, as far as I can determine, a person who has studied the constitutional law of this country, taught it, or litigated it in cases involving it. Perhaps I am wrong, but your school Web site’s biography does not show it. Therefore, as you present yourself as an expert in the California Constitution, I would seriously question your credentials to do that. 
Your commercials attack the judges of California. This is despicable for a number of reasons. One, you are a law professor and you know better. Two, they cannot answer you, they cannot fight back because it’s against the rules that govern judges and you know that. More important is the fact that those judges did what they thought was right under the law and they deserve your respect and the respect of the people of California. They are learned, they are studious and they believe that people in California under the Constitution are entitled to equality and equal rights. It is one of the most fundamental constitutional principles that govern and indeed protects all of us. 
Equality itself involves the rights of citizens and the rights of minorities. As many Californians are minorities, this is fundamental to any understanding of our Constitution. As a lawyer, I am sure you have been told this many times. So the suggestion that the majority should be allowed to oppress a minority or to deny a minority equal protection is one that you ought to know is not governed by the California Constitution and should not be. 
Further, you should know that U.S. Supreme Court authority says that you can not write discrimination into a state constitution. There are cases that have held exactly that, which would mean that Prop 8 would be a dead letter. 
The history of marriage includes the history of using it as a weapon against unpopular or despised groups. I could give you many precedents and if we ever do debate, sir, I would be happy to suggest a few to you where certain groups were not allowed to marry as a manifestation of social opprobrium. This history has, for example, included race until it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. Before it was struck down, a white person could not marry a black person. That sad history should not be resurrected in Prop 8 and that is one of the reasons this initiative should be defeated. 
The people that you attempt to discriminate against are our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues. They are people who pay taxes, they are people who fight and die in our military, they serve in our police forces and our fire departments. In every way possible they participate in our society and our culture. They do everything that they can as citizens of California, and yet you want to put it in the Constitution that they be denied a fundamental right, the important right of marriage which is so central to one’s life. 
Sir, there is not enough love in this world and what love there is should be nurtured and not opposed by a state government and certainly by a state constitution. 
There are a lot more arguments but these will have to suffice. I am voting no on Prop 8 and I am asking anybody I can find to do the same. 
If you ever want to debate this issue before Nov. 4, please let me know. 
Very truly yours, 
Jim Brosnahan 
Jim Brosnahan is a senior partner at Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco. The views expressed are solely those of the author. As a matter of policy, Morrison & Foerster does not endorse political candidates or initiatives.

Bradley vs. Facebook Effect

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman seems to have boiled down the presidential contest to a battle between the Bradley Effect and the Facebook effect.

“But this year there is another force at work: young voters, especially those under 30. Most of them are more or less oblivious to race in their political thinking. They have grown up in an integrated world. Or, if they do take race into account, they like the fact that Obama is a mixed-race African-American with an international background.”

The Facebook effect is also related to race. So, add Fineman to the list of MSM folks saying that race will be the deciding factor in this election. And an important reason why analysis and correction of poor or malicious race-related coverage of the election is so critical.

An example is a TPM article that Prof. Camille Charles pointed out to us this morning. A Virginia GOP mailer is suspected of aligning Obama’s face with Osama bin Laden’s. The article has photos and explains how.

Bradley Effect? The Boogey Man is Under Your Bed

Allow me to get irritated for a minute.  The first article below (first link at the bottom) is an example of inciting unnecessary fear. 
 
The so-called “Bradley” (a.k.a., Wilder, a.k.a., Dinkins) effect, of which there is sparse evidence, has been assigned to Obama for one reason: because he’s an African American candidate (and race and drama go hand in hand).  Polls by their very nature are “retrospective” (snapshots of yesterday) not “predictive” (forecasts of tomorrow). 
 
Most in the media who are talking and writing about a possible Bradley effect with Obama have very little theoretical understanding of survey research methods, polling, or research on racial attitudes in America.  Moreover, there are plenty of times when black candidates run and there is no pre-election poll versus outcome discrepancy (see 2006, with Swann, Steele, Ford, and Patrick).
 
Read more

Rafael Olmeda Elected President of UNITY: Journalists of Color

Rafael Olmeda, immediate past president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), has been elected president of UNITY: Journalists of Color, Inc.
 
Mr. Olmeda was chosen by UNITY’s board of directors at its fall board meeting last month. Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) was elected vice-president, Michaela Saunders of the Native American Journalists Association (NAJA) was elected secretary and Jeanne Mariani-Belding, president of the Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) was elected treasurer. Their two-year terms begin on January 1, 2009.
 
Read more

Next Page »