Ronald Takaki, pioneering scholar of race relations, dies at 70
We were saddened to hear this morning that Prof. Ron Takaki passed away yesterday. Below is the official statement from UC Berkeley and I set up a Facebook page so folks could share their thoughts about his legacy.
Ronald Takaki, a professor emeritus of ethnic studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and prolific scholar of U.S. race relations who taught UC’s first black history course, died at his home in Berkeley on Tuesday (May 26). He was 70.
Ronald Takaki During his more than four decades at UC Berkeley, Takaki joined the Free Speech Movement, established the nation’s first ethnic studies Ph.D. program as well as Berkeley’s American Cultures requirement for graduation, and advised President Clinton in 1997 on his major speech on race.
A descendent of Japanese plantation workers in Hawaii, Takaki left the islands in the late 1950s to study at Ohio’s College of Wooster, where he earned a bachelor’s degree. He went on to earn a Ph.D. in American history from UC Berkeley in 1967 and was hired at UCLA, where he taught the campus’s first black history course. He joined Berkeley’s Ethnic Studies department in 1971 and served as chair from 1975-77.
Among his numerous accolades for scholarship and activism, Takaki received a Pulitzer nomination for his book, “A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America” (Little Brown and Company, 1993); a Distinguished Teaching Award from UC Berkeley and the 2003 Fred Cody Award for lifetime achievement from the Bay Area Book Reviewers Association.
“When I think of Ron, the words that come to mind are: solidarity, justice, easy-going, self-effacing, generous, creative,” said Beatriz Manz, chair of UC Berkeley’s Department of Ethnic Studies. “He poked fun at himself and had a contagious laughter. He embodied kindness. He was agreeable, conciliatory and non-confrontational.”
He is survived by his wife, Carol, his three children and his grandchildren. Plans for a campus memorial service are pending. A complete obituary will be posted on Thursday.
By upholding Prop 8, the Court has diminished its legacy as a champion of equality
The California Supreme Court today in a 6-1 vote upheld Prop. 8, the ballot measure discriminating against marriage by same-sex couples.
We are relieved the Court protected couples who married before November 5. The presence of thousands of married same-sex couples across California will show those who don’t yet know us that marriage strengthens families and communities and threatens no one.
But by upholding Prop 8, the Court has diminished its legacy as a champion of equality. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot. The Court’s decision jeopardizes every minority group in California.
“As a racial justice organization, the Equal Justice Society opposes Prop. 8 – not only because it’s the right thing to do, but also because EJS strongly believes in working with others to ensure that the rights of all are expanded, rather than diminished, in our society,” said EJS President Eva Paterson in a previous statement on the issue. Eva participated this morning in a press conference in opposition to Prop. 8.
“We cannot just pigeonhole Prop. 8 as a ‘gay’ issue. By rolling back the fundamental rights of one group, Prop. 8 casts a threat that now looms over the civil rights of all.”
Because the Court upheld Prop 8, it is now crystal clear that we must go back to the ballot, and we are going to win.
Since the vote on Prop 8, there has been a tidal wave of momentum in favor of full equality. Five states now embrace marriage equality for same-sex couples, and several more are on the brink. We believe that California voters will reverse this injustice at the ballot. California has been a leader in standing up for equality, and it will be again.
Banning same-sex couples from marriage is unfair. Same-sex couples have the same hopes, dreams and concerns for their families as everyone else. They should be allowed the dignity, recognition, and responsibility that come with marriage, just like everyone else.
AFJ Statement on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
The following is a statement from Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
We are thrilled with this choice. Sonia Sotomayor will be a strong voice to uphold the Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, regardless of wealth, status, or popularity.
President Obama has nominated a highly qualified candidate with a compelling personal story and outstanding educational credentials. Furthermore, the president is making history by nominating the first Latina to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has more federal judicial experience than any justice nominated to the Supreme Court in the past 100 years.
Judges make a huge difference in our lives.
Courts protect our air and water, hold corporations accountable, ensure equal opportunity and fair pay, and safeguard our personal freedoms.
This nomination shows that President Obama is appointing judges who understand that the role of the courts is to give everyone a chance to be heard, to stand up for their rights, and get justice.
Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court
President Barack Obama today nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to succeed David Souter as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the “respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court and the adoration of her clerks, who look to her as a mentor.”
She would be the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court.
The following is a backgrounder issued by the White House:
Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America’s leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.
An American Story
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.
Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.
At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: “She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.” [Washington Post, 5/7/09]
A Champion of the Law
Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system – yielding a depth of experience and a breadth of perspectives that will be invaluable – and is currently not represented — on our highest court. New York City District Attorney Morgenthau recently praised Sotomayor as an “able champion of the law” who would be “highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character could be assets.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09]
A Fearless and Effective Prosecutor
Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved “street crimes,” such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09] She was cocounsel in the “Tarzan Murderer” case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.
A Corporate Litigator
She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that “she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.” [Washington Post, May 7, 2009]
A Sharp and Fearless Trial Judge
Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball. Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined “the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.”
A Tough, Fair and Thoughtful Jurist
President Clinton appointed Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998. She is the first Latina to serve on that court, and has participated in over 3000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions. Sitting on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has tackled a range of questions: from difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations. In this context, Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine. “’She appreciates the complexity of issues,’ said Stephen L. Carter, a Yale professor who teaches some of her opinions in his classes. Confronted with a tough case, Carter said, ‘she doesn’t leap at its throat but reasons to get to the bottom of issues.’” For example, in United States v. Quattrone, Judge Sotomayor concluded that the trial judge had erred by forbidding the release of jurors’ names to the press, concluding after carefully weighing the competing concerns that the trial judge’s concerns for a speedy and orderly trial must give way to the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press.
Sotomayor also has keen awareness of the law’s impact on everyday life. Active in oral arguments, she works tirelessly to probe both the factual details and the legal doctrines in the cases before her and to arrive at decisions that are faithful to both. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts. For example, In United States v. Reimer, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion revoking the US citizenship for a man charged with working for the Nazis in World War II Poland, guarding concentration camps and helping empty the Jewish ghettos. And in Lin v. Gonzales and a series of similar cases, she ordered renewed consideration of the asylum claims of Chinese women who experienced or were threatened with forced birth control, evincing in her opinions a keen awareness of those women’s plights.
Judge Sotomayor’s appreciation of the real-world implications of judicial rulings is paralleled by her sensible practicality in evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. For example, in United States v. Falso, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant should not have been issued, but the agents did not know that, and Judge Sotomayor wrote for the court that the officers’ good faith justified using the evidence they found. Similarly in United States v. Santa, Judge Sotomayor ruled that when police search a suspect based on a mistaken belief that there is a valid arrest warrant out on him, evidence found during the search should not be suppressed. Ten years later, in Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. In her 1997 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor spoke of her judicial philosophy, saying” I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.” Her record on the Second Circuit holds true to that statement. For example, in Hankins v. Lyght, she argued in dissent that the federal government risks “an unconstitutional trespass” if it attempts to dictate to religious organizations who they can or cannot hire or dismiss as spiritual leaders. Since joining the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has honored the Constitution, the rule of law, and justice, often forging consensus and winning conservative colleagues to her point of view.
A Commitment to Community
Judge Sotomayor is deeply committed to her family, to her co-workers, and to her community. Judge Sotomayor is a doting aunt to her brother Juan’s three children and an attentive godmother to five more. She still speaks to her mother, who now lives in Florida, every day. At the courthouse, Judge Sotomayor helped found the collegiality committee to foster stronger personal relationships among members of the court. Seizing an opportunity to lead others on the path to success, she recruited judges to join her in inviting young women to the courthouse on Take Your Daughter to Work Day, and mentors young students from troubled neighborhoods Her favorite project, however, is the Development School for Youth program, which sponsors workshops for inner city high school students. Every semester, approximately 70 students attend 16 weekly workshops that are designed to teach them how to function in a work setting. The workshop leaders include investment bankers, corporate executives and Judge Sotomayor, who conducts a workshop on the law for 25 to 35 students. She uses as her vehicle the trial of Goldilocks and recruits six lawyers to help her. The students play various roles, including the parts of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, Goldilocks and the jurors, and in the process they get to experience openings, closings, direct and cross-examinations. In addition to the workshop experience, each student is offered a summer job by one of the corporate sponsors. The experience is rewarding for the lawyers and exciting for the students, commented Judge Sotomayor, as “it opens up possibilities that the students never dreamed of before.” [Federal Bar Council News, Sept./Oct./Nov. 2005, p.20] This is one of many ways that Judge Sotomayor gives back to her community and inspires young people to achieve their dreams.
She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Op-ed: ‘AG’s Prop 209 stance in sync with Constitution’
The following op-ed, titled “AG’s Prop 209 stance in sync with Constitution,” by Dennis Herrera, Eva Paterson and Oren Sellstrom was published in The Recorder today.
The Pacific Legal Foundation continues its assault on equal opportunity and fairness by attacking the California state Department of Justice’s brief to the California Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Prop. 209 (“AG Takes Fire on Prop 209,” May 11).
The Foundation employs hyperbole to counter the arguments posed by the Attorney General, when in fact his letter brief only outlined the specific circumstances when article I, section 31 of the California Constitution (Prop. 209) would be misaligned with the protections afforded by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Attorney General was correct in questioning whether Prop. 209 serves a compelling governmental interest, saying in his letter that “there appears to be no factual basis to support a governmental interest in denying preferences that are permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“Ironically,” continued the letter brief in Coral Construction Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, S152934, “by effectively disadvantaging racial minorities and women in the political process, without an evident compelling governmental reason for doing so, section 31 seems to accomplish the very evil it purported to eliminate, viz. racial and gender discrimination.”
We believe that Prop. 209 is invalid on its face, and that this was clear from the moment it was passed. But the experience of California since the proposition’s passage demonstrates even more clearly how the measure has distorted the political process by placing remedial legislation out of the reach of minorities and women, and the devastating effect that this has had on California as a whole.
Prop. 209 Created More Barriers to Opportunity
In the public contracting arena, minority- and women-owned businesses have been decimated by Prop. 209. Without the ability to appeal to their local or state representatives to enact legislation to remediate demonstrated discrimination and exclusion, minority- and women-owned businesses have seen a return to the “old boys network” where majority-owned firms monopolize virtually all of the contracting work and often do not even allow minority- and women-owned firms to compete for contracting opportunities.
A comprehensive study of the California Department of Transportation’s contracting showed that after passage of Proposition 209, minority businesses experienced a greater than 50 percent reduction of total awards and contracts on Caltrans projects, translating into millions of dollars in lost revenues.
Two-thirds of the certified transportation construction minority businesses that existed in California in 1996 are out of business. Women-owned businesses have been similarly adversely affected, experiencing a 40 percent decline in Caltrans contract dollars over the past decade.
Prop. 209 devastated other arenas as well. The repeal of inclusive admissions policies in the University of California system has led to dramatic decreases in under-represented minority student enrollment, particularly at the flagship campuses of UC Berkeley and UCLA. In the fall of 2006, the freshman class at UCLA had only 96 African-American students, the lowest number since the early 1970s.
The situation at the State’s graduate schools is equally bleak. Entering Black law students at Berkeley, Davis and UCLA in 2005 comprised less than three percent of the entering class, far below their enrollment levels in 1970 (let alone in the early 1990s). Latino enrollment at these law schools likewise dropped by nearly 50 percent in the wake of Prop. 209. At the UC medical schools, Prop. 209 led to a 43 percent drop in underrepresented minority enrollment between 1995-1996 and 2001-2002.
These numbers are troubling on many different levels. For individual minority students, they mean fewer educational opportunities overall and increased feelings of isolation for those who find themselves in non-diverse educational settings. On a broader level, these declines mean that many UC campuses are no longer even close to reflective of California as a whole. This in turn undermines one of the primary missions of the taxpayer-funded UC system – to train the state’s future leaders.
Prop. 209 Violates Equal Protection Principles
Under the precedent that the U.S. Supreme Court set forth in Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 and Hunter v. Erickson, Prop. 209 clearly violates federal equal protection principles by making beneficial race- and gender-based legislation more difficult to enact than similar legislation benefiting other groups.
Whereas, for example, disabled individuals or veterans or other groups may all petition their local government to enact laws to even out the playing field, minorities and women in California cannot. Their only recourse to achieve such legislation is to go to “the most inaccessible political level” and to seek a state constitutional amendment overturning Proposition 209.
Prop. 209 thus unquestionably reallocates political power in a manner that operates to the disadvantage of minorities and women: precisely the type of “political structure” distortion that the U.S. Supreme Court has held violates federal equal protection principles.
The real-world impact of Prop. 209 ’s distortion of equal protection principles is profound and is felt every day in neighborhoods and communities throughout California. These decreases in opportunity highlight how severely Prop. 209 has skewed the political structure of the State at a time when California itself is becoming increasingly diverse.
Attorney General Jerry Brown’s brief illuminates for the Supreme Court a sound legal foundation for eliminating Prop. 209, which has pushed disadvantaged groups farther away from equal opportunity.
Dennis Herrera is city attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, which is the appellant in the Coral Construction case. Eva Paterson is co-founder and president of the Equal Justice Society, which joined an amicus curiae brief in the case. Oren Sellstrom is associate director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Coalition for Economic Equity.
NABJ Statement on Future of Journalism Senate Hearing
Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, today issued this statement:
On Wednesday, a panel of digital and traditional journalism industry experts testified at a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and Internet Hearing on “The Future of Journalism” about the challenges and successes facing online news aggregators and newspapers today.
The National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) has worked on behalf of newspaper journalists for more than thirty years, yet many of our most talented members are rapidly becoming unemployed or leaving the profession out of necessity.
The intellectual property of journalists must be preserved, and NABJ supports any effort that seeks to afford news agencies a greater capacity to retain and compensate black investigative reporters, editors and other journalists while respecting the growth of digital journalism.
NABJ Board Member Charles Robinson, who attended the hearing, told Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) after the hearing that diversity needs to be a part of the overall discussion and a more diverse panel should be part of future discussions. Robinson also told the Senators that NABJ was available to help draft a diversity component of any future legislation affecting the newspaper industry.
The recently released 2009 ASNE newsroom diversity census is disconcerting for revealing that black journalists are losing their jobs at a greater rate than any other ethnic group, but it is especially disturbing that minority ownership or representation in newspapers was not a topic at Wednesday’s discussion.
Of the five panelists, there were no black representatives and only one minority. It is disgraceful that a discussion on Capitol Hill about the future of newspapers can happen without doing more to incorporate the perspectives of America’s increasingly diverse population.
NABJ will continue to work with news agencies, publishers, editors and others to promote diversity and affirm that our members are offered cutting edge training to keep them ahead of the curve.
At the same time, we call on our nation’s leaders to open their eyes to the communities that surround them and ensure that black media representatives have a seat at the table as new legislation is discussed.
Kimberly Thomas Rapp at ‘2009 Justice Summit: Defending the Public and the Constitution’
EJS Director of Law and Public Policy Kimberly Thomas Rapp participated as a speaker at yesterday’s 2009 Justice Summit: Defending the Public and the Constitution.
The Justice Summit was a public education event initiated by the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, Bar Association of San Francisco, California Public Defenders Association and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice to highlight the importance of protecting the right to counsel, particularly for people of color and modest incomes, during any economic downturn.
Kimberly spoke about the role of the public defender in fighting institutional racism in the criminal justice system. Others on the panel included Barbara Babcock, professor at Stanford Law School, Richard Goemann, director of defender legal services for National Legal Aid and Defender Association, Michael Judge, chief public defender for Los Angeles County, Cookie Ridolfi, director of Northern California Innocence Project, Barry Krisberg, director of National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Michael Hersek, State Public Defender, and Christine Voss, supervising public defender for Riverside County.
For more information on the Summit, visit http://sfpublicdefender.org/2009-justice-summit/
And a nice mention of Kimberly on this blog.
