I then came to the plaza in front of Oakland City Hall. The last time I had been there was to hear Senator Obama in May of 2008 ask for our support for his candidacy. Last night, the plaza was filled with hundreds of people talking in small circles. I heard earnest conversations about how the Occupy Oakland folks were interacting with each other. As I continued walking around, I was struck by how serious these folks were.

Two young women then told those assembled that they had to wrap up their conversations. They asked one representative from each group to come up and talk about the topic they had all been given to discuss: “How is privilege a part of the Occupy Oakland movement?” Folks were instructed to line up behind a man named Sweet Potato. I loved that and wondered if he often said “Who yam I?”

The crowd was filled with young people, but the first speaker was a 70-year-old woman who did not start off talking about race or class. She said that she envied the energy and physical dexterity of the young. She also said that the activists should make sure that those with physical impairments or with hearing difficulties were treated with respect and had their needs taken into account during the occupation. I smiled.

I then left feeling conspicuous in a dress and stockings. I had started the evening at a wake for the daughter of a friend whose 22-year-old daughter had suffocated after having an epileptic seizure. It was a very sad, sad moment. All the parents had a common refrain. “This is a parent’s worst nightmare.”

We hugged each other and cried and let old grievances and hurts wash away with our tears. A colleague and a friend had a similar reaction to seeing young people look at one of their friends in a coffin. They both said that young people in Oakland frequently are in funeral homes and mortuaries viewing the bodies of fallen friends. That realization deepened our collective grief.

Yet later that evening at Occupy Oakland, I brushed by young Black men walking through the encampment. I thought that perhaps the Occupy Wall Street movement might provide a way out of the misery and despair that sometimes leads to violence. One can only hope.

Life is good and goes on in Oakland.

A few weeks ago, Sara came into my office to let me know that she and her fiancé, Danielken, were moving to D.C., where he recently was hired for a new job. The couple had been growing their relationship long-distance and the work opportunity in our nation’s capital would finally allow them to enjoy life living in the same place.

As an incurable romantic, I was thrilled for Sara and Danielken. As the head of EJS, I was deeply saddened to lose Sara.

Sara is that wonderful blend of an amazing advocate and a wonderful human being. Since her days as a Motley Fellow, she has been an invaluable part of the team here. Her work and her soul are in large part responsible for our success.

Last month was particularly eventful for Sara. She learned on March 23 that a judge had granted summary judgement in our Caltrans contracting case. She and Motley Fellow Fabián Rentería labored many hours on that case, working weekends and long evenings. Sara’s understanding and advocacy of the implicit bias work we have championed here at EJS was instrumental in this wonderful outcome. Later that day, she got to see our friend and colleague Michael Begert sworn in as a Superior Court Judge here in San Francisco. Prior to his appointment, Michael had been part of the Caltrans litigation team.

We have very mixed feelings about our dear Sara’s next move. Love trumps work, so we are happy for her. But we will miss her dearly.

Sara’s last day with us will be May 12, after which she can be reached at sarakjackson@yahoo.com.

All of us are profoundly grateful to you, Sara, for your fantastic work here. We wish you the absolute best in this next chapter of your life and remain proud that you will always be part of the EJS family.

- Eva

P.S. – Will you join us in recognizing Sara’s efforts and achievements during her time here at the Equal Justice Society? Donate to EJS in her honor!

Murder is something I know well. In November of 1997, three days before Thanksgiving, my fiancé, Steve Henry was murdered execution style on the streets of Kingston, Jamaica. His body was stuffed in a barrel. I later learned that 1000 people were murdered in Jamaica that year. The pain and grief is hard to remember now.  I felt as though someone had taken a meat cleaver to my heart.  I remembered screaming in anger at God: “Why? Why?”

I have many memories of that dreadful time but one memory is of relevance to the topic at hand. I remember knowing that despite this grievous loss, I still was opposed to the death penalty, to the state taking someone’s life.

Sadly, my experience is shared by many murder victim family members across California, particularly people of color. The majority of murder victims in California are African-American or Latino, and 45% of murder cases in the state are not even solved.

While cities like Los Angeles can’t afford to pay homicide investigators overtime to investigate and close murder cases, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the state’s broken and biased death penalty system.

The Radelet-Pierce study, the first statewide study on race, ethnicity and geography in California death sentencing, found that those who kill whites are over three times more likely to be sentenced to die as those who kill African-Americans. And, those who kill whites are over four times more likely to be sentenced to die as those who kill Latinos.

A new study just released by the ACLU of Northern California found that Latinos comprised a staggering 50 percent of new death sentences in 2007, 38 percent of death sentences in 2008, and 31 percent of death sentences in 2009. In contrast, Latinos comprised only 16 percent of those sentenced to death in 2001.

In order to address bias in our capital punishment system, Senator Gil Cedillo and the Equal Justice Society introduced SB 1331, the California Racial Justice Act, in January 2010. Modeled after a similar law recently enacted in North Carolina, the California Racial Justice Act allows a defendant to challenge a death sentence on the grounds that race was a significant factor in the choice to seek or impose the death penalty. The bill recently cleared the California Senate Public Safety Committee and will soon appear before the Appropriations Committee.

My organization, the Equal Justice Society, is a sponsor of this bill. We are a national legal and policy group working to identify and eradicate racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. We have chosen to zealously support SB 1331 because it represents a significant step toward identifying and eradicating racial discrimination in California’s capital punishment system.

But my interest is personal, too. As someone who has been touched by violent crime, I know this bill is important. Many people assume that the death sentences in our state are imposed based on the gravity of the crime, rather location or race. We all would like to think that prosecutors, jurors and judges leave their biases at the courthouse door in order to ensure that every defendant gets a fair trial.
Unfortunately, statistics show this often isn’t the case.

The problems deeply embedded in our legal process have been pointed out before – the race of a murder victim is the factor with the most weight when it comes to who California determines to sentence to death. African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented on California’s death row.

One prosecutor in California testified that his office routinely dismissed African-American women from juries in death penalty cases. And the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice has found it is likely we will execute an innocent person under our current death penalty system unless we pour millions of additional dollars into the system.

The California Racial Justice Act would help bring fairness to our system. It would enable defendants who were likely sentenced to death because of racial bias to demonstrate that in court, and request a fair sentence. It would increase the integrity of the California criminal justice system and help ensure that the punishment always fits the crime.

Two states, Kentucky and North Carolina, have already implemented Racial Justice Acts. There is increasing support for the notion that, as long as a state continues to impose the death penalty, it should make sure to impose it only in cases where it is warranted by the crime. The California Racial Justice Act would be a major step toward achieving that goal.

More and more Californians are convinced that the death penalty should be replaced by permanent imprisonment to ensure swift and certain punishment for those who commit the most serious crimes. We must investigate all murders equally and give grieving families equal due – no matter their race or background.

UPDATE: Also cross-posted on HuffPo!

After smearing White House special advisor Van Jones for days on his show, Glenn Beck said on August 27, 2009: “I want to point out the silence; no one has challenged these facts — they just attack me personally.”

Well, the White House is wise to stay above the fray but someone has to set the record straight. And as the person who first hired Van Jones, initially as a legal intern and later as a legal fellow, I am in a unique position to know the truth.

And the truth is: Beck is fabricating his facts.

For instance: several times on his show, Beck has said or implied that Van went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riots.

NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS

Van has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime. And just to be clear: Van was not even in Los Angeles during those tumultuous days.

I know because he was working for me – in San Francisco – when the four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. I was the Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area when Van was an intern.

The verdicts came down on April 29, 1992. I remember Van (who was then a legal intern working with me from Yale Law School) coming into my office in San Francisco. Many of us, including Van, sat there together, listening to the news and weeping. We were all in a state of shock. That night, TV showed the tragic images of LA burning.

The next day, when an initially peaceful march in downtown San Francisco devolved into chaos, Van left the area in tears. He was not involved in any destructive activity. He even penned an essay despairing of the violence and the state of the country.

So how can Beck make such unsubstantiated claims?

THE TRUE STORY (FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE)

This is what really happened. On May 8, 1992, the week AFTER the Rodney King disturbances, I sent a staff attorney and Van out to be legal monitors at a peaceful march in San Francisco. The local police, perhaps understandably nervous, stopped the march and arrested hundreds of people – including all the legal monitors.

The matter was quickly sorted out; Van and my staff attorney were released within a few hours. All charges against them were dropped. Van was part of a successful class action lawsuit later; the City of San Francisco ultimately compensated him financially for his unjust arrest (a rare outcome).

So the unwarranted arrest at a peaceful march – for which the charges were dropped and for which Van was financially compensated – is the sole basis for the smear that he is some kind of dangerous criminal.

Van has spoken often about that difficult period 17 years ago – and its impact on him, as a young law student. But to imply that he was somehow a rioter who went to prison is absurd. Beck also bizarrely claims that Van was arrested in the Seattle WTO protests. That is just a flat-out falsehood.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Arrests and convictions are all a matter of public record. Beck is at best relying on internet rumors or even inventing claims to boost his ratings.

Beck is no more accurate with present facts than he is with past ones.

NOT A MYSTERIOUS “CZAR”

Beck has said repeatedly that Van is some kind of a mysterious “czar,” accountable to no one but the President. A simple internet search shows that this claim is false. A March 10, 2009, press release announced that Van was hired by the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – to work on her staff as a “special advisor.”

In other words, Van is within the normal White House chain of command, reporting to an office confirmed by the United States Senate, just like most White House staffers. Media outlets sometimes use the “czar” shorthand. But the facts show that Van has no mysterious role or extra-constitutional powers.

Beck has implied on two occasions that Van Jones and other Obama appointees were not vetted by the FBI. False. I was interviewed in my own office by an FBI agent, dutifully vetting Van. Yet another fabrication on the part of Mr. Beck.

Beck also claims that Van has somehow gained control over $500 million in Green Jobs Act funding and can hand out millions of dollars at his whim. Again, that is patently ridiculous.

NO AUTHORITY TO HAND OUT BILLION$

The law is clear that the Department of Labor has authority over the program, with normal rules governing the funds. Anybody who thinks that a lone government official can pass out money, arbitrarily and without oversight, knows nothing about our legal system. A blizzard of lawsuits would stop any such scheme in its tracks, if one were ever put in place.

Perhaps more importantly: final authority at the Department of Labor lies with the Secretary of Labor. Anyone who thinks that a Senate-confirmed, Cabinet-level Secretary would cede control of a $500 million program to some mid-level White House staffer knows nothing about our political system. It is ridiculous.

PROMOTING BUSINESS-BASED SOLUTIONS

But I have to take on the worst one: Beck repeatedly and mistakenly asserts that Van is presently a communist.

Once again, this charge is easily refuted – most obviously by the pro-business, market-based ideas Van has promoted for years, including in his best-selling book, The Green Collar Economy. Van’s book is a veritable song of praise to capitalism, especially the socially responsible and eco-friendly kind.

Yes, for a while, Van and his student-aged friends ran around spouting 1960s rhetoric and romanticizing revolutionary icons. But that was years ago. Way back then, I counseled him to rethink his tactics and to work for change in wiser ways.

In time, he jettisoned his youthful notions and moved on to seek more effective and attainable solutions.

Fortunately for all of us, it looks like he has found some. Over the past several years, Van has emerged as the perhaps the nation’s chief proponent of using business-based solutions to create jobs and clean up the environment. In his book and his speeches, he highlights the key role of entrepreneurship in solving our nation’s problems.

THE ‘GREEN’ JACK KEMP?

Van believes in government clearing the way for private-sector innovation. In a YouTube clip, he said recently that progressives and conservatives should work together to find common ground and create a clean energy economy.

Van said: “We are not promoting welfare. We are promoting work. … We are not expanding entitlements. We are expanding enterprise and investment. … We are not trying to redistribute existing wealth. We are trying to reinvent an existing sector, so that we can create NEW wealth – by unleashing innovation and entrepreneurship. This should be common ground.”

He has been preaching that gospel, in various forms, for years and years. Van Jones is the nation’s “Green” Jack Kemp – using business-based solutions to attack poverty.

I found it interesting that Bill O’Reilly in his interview repeatedly asked Glenn Beck whether Van Jones’ youthful views had changed over time. Beck never answers those inquiries and instead keeps insisting that Van has championed these ideas recently. Again, that is simply not true.

QUOTES TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

Upon investigation, it turns out that Beck is quoting (out of context) an article that in fact makes the OPPOSITE point.

The 2005 profile that Beck is flogging actually makes it crystal clear – even in the headline – that Jones has “renounced” his earlier views, matured and moved on. Van’s transformation is the entire point of the piece, and it is impossible that Beck does not know this.

Fortunately, O’Reilly seemed to sense the truth. I remember seeing O’Reilly interview Van Jones some time ago and was struck by how much respect O’Reilly showed for Jones. Perhaps O’Reilly’s knowing queries were prompted by that encounter.

When Van worked for me, he did exhibit that “know it all” quality that so many of us – myself included – have when we are young. Over the years, I have enjoyed watching him grow and blossom into a loving father and husband – and a creative, effective leader.

VAN JONES: A TRUE PATRIOT

Mr. Beck’s unfounded attacks are misleading and false. All of us who know Van are so very proud of him and the work he is doing to improve the lives of ALL Americans. He has touched and improved thousands of lives in the course of his career. Now he is in a position to help millions.

He will do well because Van is a true patriot, who loves his country. He has dedicated his life to trying to make it better – especially trying to uplift the poor, the left-out and the left-behind.

In his book, Van draws a distinction between “cheap patriotism” and “deep patriotism.” I highly recommend that chapter to Mr. Beck.

I do hope Van is keeping his head up, walking tall and continuing to fight for green businesses and green jobs. Our country needs more of them – and more people like Van.

Inspired by Dr. King’s strategist, Bayard Rustin, and his dream of the Grand Coalition, EJS is pursuing the creation of a Grand Alliance filled with individuals and groups who are moving beyond issue area silos.

One of the aspects of the Grand Alliance is the notion that “Ideas Matter.” Forward progress is made when transformative ideas are translated into reality. One of these ideas is that regulation of business by government can be a good thing. We feel that the current economic crisis is, in part, the result of the failure of regulation.

On Wednesday night, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart featured the fabulous Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School. She gives an incredibly cogent and historically based analysis of the choice we as a nation are facing in the next six months about whether or not business should be regulated.

You may have heard Terry Gross interview Professor Warren on Fresh Air on abuses of credit card companies and on the lack of transparency vis a vis the bailout. This interview is amazing. It even made Jon Stewart feel better about the current state of affairs. Enjoy.