Community and peace advocate and Executive Director of Homies Unidos in Los Angeles, Alex Sánchez was arraigned last week in federal court, accused of conspiracy under the RICO statutes for crimes he allegedly committed over the past 15 years. He was denied bail on June 30th despite an outpouring of support from the community.
These types of federal ‘conspiracy’ charges always endanger civil rights because they tend to be overbroad, vague and often times, outright false when the accusers have a long history of corruption, such as the LAPD.
In fact, in the late 1990s, Alex led a community grassroots campaign to shed light on police corruption and successfully exposed the CRASH Ramparts scandal where LAPD were found to have falsely framed Latinos on bogus charges.
This became one of the largest police corruption scandals in U.S. history with over 70 officers named as corrupt. Homies Unidos made an issue out of holding police liable to California state and federal law.
As a result, Alex was arrested and handed over to then INS (today known as ICE). After being deported, Alex successfully secured asylum in the U.S. Now that authorities in Los Angeles cannot attack Alex based on his immigration status, we are faced with his indictment.
I for one do not believe the charges. Rather, I think that these recent accusations are but the most recent in the long, rotten chain of attempts by law enforcement officials to frame Alex, who was regularly beaten, framed, falsely arrested, deported, and harassed by the Los Angeles Police Department since founding Homies Unidos in 1998. First and foremost, I spent the evening calling those who know and have worked most closely with him, and they ALL share that sense that, as one of his best friends told me, “He really is a good person.” I’ve known him for years and will be sending a strongly worded support letter like the many I’ve sent over the course of the many years and many frame-ups law enforcement has ravenously pursued. Those close to Homies and Alex know and are again feeling that cloud of anger and concern that comes with being harassed by authorities abusing the power delegated to them.
Also, Alex is alleged to have conspired to kill Walter Lacinos, who sources in the Salvadoran and gang communities tell me had, in the words of one gang expert interviewed, “many, many enemies in the U.S.-and El Salvador.” While most of charges levelled against most of the the 24 other plaintiffs point to physical acts and evidence, the one and most serious indictment (see full indictment here)naming Alex alleges that he participated in “a series of phone conversations” in which the possibility of killing Lacinos is discussed. No proof is offered to corroborate the charges relating to managing narcotics operations for MS.
Lastly, the sensationalistic judgements of many media and some law enforcement officials raises serious concerns, as well. Close scrutiny of the media coverage reveals an definite disposition to judge and convict Alex even before his trial begins. For example, almost all of the coverage follows uncritically the logic laid out in the indictment. No attempt is made to notice that, for example, Alex is not named in most of the 66-page indicment. Other plaintiff’s names appear throughout. Those reading reporting in the LA Times and other outlets might come away believing that Alex might be involved in the murder of seven people or in conspiring to kill another 8. Consider this note from today’s LA Times:
The arrests cap a three-year investigation into the gang and its cliques, which operated in the Lafayette Park area, west of downtown. Among the most serious allegations contained in a 16-count federal indictment unsealed today was the claim gang members conspired to murder veteran LAPD gang officer Frank Flores.
Those named in the indictment include Alex Sanchez, a nationally recognized anti-gang leader and executive director of Homies Unidos.
Notice how there’s zero attempt to clarify or give greater context to Alex’s story, even though he headlines most of these stories. Even worse is the way that law enforcement authorities like L.A. Police Chief Bill Bratton, who the Times tells us has a big “I told you so” for the city, use Alex’s case to build the case for punitive-and failed-anti-gang policies, LAPD Chief William J. Bratton said the Sanchez case reinforces the thinking behind the city’s efforts to consolidate and more strongly regulate anti-gang funding.
Today, the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5, the core provision of the Voting Rights Act, said the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (http://www.naacpldf.org) in a press release.
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court recognized that “[t]he historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.”
Today’s ruling, which was joined by seven other Justices, recognizes Section 5’s critical importance in addressing voting discrimination faced by citizens throughout our country.
“The entire thrust of LDF’s argument was that Section 5 remains critical to our democracy and, however grudgingly, the Court acknowledges that in its opinion today. In an unusually harmonious opinion, today’s decision upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection in our democracy,” said John Payton, LDF Director-Counsel.
Payton observed that “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act protects and shields the rights of minority voters from discrimination. Section 5 has long been symbolic of our nation’s long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protections, our nation would unnecessarily face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made.”
The Court’s ruling today ensures that minority voters will continue to have the safeguards provided by the Section 5 preclearance process.
The Court expanded the number of places that can seek to “bailout” or exempt themselves from preclearance. However, no Section 5-covered jurisdiction can do so without demonstrating a clean bill of health for a ten-year period.
The bailout provision has proven workable and achievable for those jurisdictions that have sought it. It remains to be seen how the Court’s interpretation of the bailout provision will impact enforcement of Section 5. If, for any reason, today’s ruling renders Section 5 unworkable in the future, Congress could always amend the statute.
“The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congress’s greatest legacies,” said Debo P. Adegbile, LDF Director of Litigation, who argued the case on behalf of Appellee-Intervenors.
It is with a mixture of great sadness and deep gratitude that we announce that Kimberly Thomas Rapp, our Director of Law and Policy, will be leaving us.
We feel sadness because Kimberly’s contributions to EJS and to the cause of social and racial justice have been immense. We are grateful because her presence here for the past four years has been a true pleasure. We will miss her.
Those of you who have been lucky enough to work with Kimberly fully understand the depth and breadth of the loss we have suffered. Our EJS board member, Professor Eric Yamamoto, put it best when he said after hearing the sad news: “You bring such deep intelligence, people insight, dedication and heart to all you do.” We second that emotion.
During her time with us she has worked closely with the California Teachers Association on the issue of unconscious bias in the classroom. She also was the key moving force in three meetings of folks who litigate in the United States Supreme Court.
Her combination of scholarly understanding of equal protection jurisprudence coupled with a preacher’s kid’s comfort with making arrangements for large groups of people contributed to the success of these events that took place twice at Duke University and once at UC Irvine.
Kimberly supervised countless law clerks and younger attorneys. She always took the time to help them develop their skills as they also contributed to the legal work here at EJS. There were countless things that Kimberly worked on while she was here. She did them all with style, depth, intelligence and grace.
We were also continually astonished at the work Kimberly and her family does in the community. Her father is the pastor of a church in Richmond, Calif. The church makes sure that people in the community were fed and clothed and loved.
We joked about the fact that Kimberly and her family routinely cooked Thanksgiving meals for hundreds of people. We wanted her to cater our events but she drew the line there.
As you can readily see, Kimberly is an amazing woman.
Kimberly will continue working with us here at EJS on race and gender conscious contracting issues so she will not be leaving us completely, but her official last day in the office is June 25. She can be reached via email after that date at kdtrapp@comcast.net.
We wish her the best and know that we will be hearing about her next successes as she moves on to the next challenge.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (EJS board member Kate Kendell is NLCR’s executive director), Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, GLAD and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force issued a statement today objecting to the Obama administration’s recent filing in support of the a law that discriminates against LGBT.
(San Francisco, CA, June 12, 2009)—We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.
We disagree with many of the administration’s arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.
We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be “neutral” with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states.
There is nothing “neutral” about the federal government’s discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of “neutrality” ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive.
It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA. For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality.
When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.
The Equal Justice Society mourns the loss of Luke W. Cole, founder of the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment. Luke passed away June 6 in Uganda while on sabbatical.
The social justice movement is filled with many wonderful and effective advocates. Many of us have friends who are not part of this world who are just heaven to be with. Their presence brings a smile to your lips and lifts your heart.
Luke Cole was both—a great and fierce advocate and a great man. Many knew him for his yearly root beer parties. Others knew of the ground breaking work he did in the field of environmental justice. He made sure that the concerns of people of color and poor and working people were addressed when environmental issues were raised.
He also clearly loved his wife and his son and his life. I remember his trying to figure out how to get to France a couple of years ago and remember his absolute delight when he was able to pull it off.
Little did any of us know that this would be his last trip. It is both heart breaking and somehow life affirming that he died while on a trip that brought him so much pleasure. He was dedicated to the work that we all do but he also knew that a fully lived life encompasses much more than work. He knew how to live.
All the people I have communicated with are so sad, so sincerely sad. There is such a sense of loss. We have lost a good friend. A man with a wonderful spirit is no longer with us. We send our prayers and thoughts to his wife Nancy Shelby Cole who lost an eye in the horrible accident that took place on a road in Uganda at 7:30 a.m. on June 6. Their son Zane is on his way to Amsterdam to be with his Mom while doctors fight to save the orb of her eye.
At times like these, the petty concerns of the day fade away. One wants to reach out to everyone you know to let them know that you love them.
Luke’s death is somehow unbelievable. We are all so sad.
I stumbled upon an intriguing June 7 post by Tamara K. Nopper, Ph.D., Adjunct Assistant Professor, Temple University and the University of Pennsylvania. She discusses the racial dynamics of the popular reality TV show Top Chef on the cable network Bravo. How the entertainment industry deals with race is an element of our communications strategy here at EJS. We developed a focus on this knowing that popular culture has a powerful impact on Americans; and the way that TV shows, movies and other entertainment platforms frame race is an area that we must continue to engage in. Her blog post is re-posted here from the Everyday Sociology blog with Dr. Nopper’s permission.
“Top Chef and the Black/Non-Black Divide”
I love the show Top Chef. I watch it religiously and regularly chat about it with fellow fan and friend Kevin Eddington. Although more of a foodie than me—he actually knows what sous videmeans—we share concerns about the show’s racial dynamics, some of which I want to discuss here. Specifically, I want to explore how Asian Americans and African Americans are represented on Top Chef and in the process, draw from approaches emphasizing the Black/non-Black divide.
The Black/non-Black framework is proposed by George Yancey in his book Who is White?: Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide. According to Yancey, this framework is more helpful for analyzing racism than a white/non-white paradigm because Blacks experience a unique degree of social isolation, as evidenced by how whites, Latinos, and Asian Americans reject them as potential neighbors and marriage partners yet remain open to each other. Yancey’s conclusion bears out on the show.
Asian Americans are present as contestants, chefs, judges, and of course, hosts, and Hung Huynh won the title on season three. Yet Asian Americans face particular racial expectations: they’re encouraged to talk about their ethnicities or immigration histories, badmouthed for cooking too many Asian-influenced dishes, or expected to cook Asian food regardless of training. For example, Huynh was told that despite his skill and “technique,” his food lacked “soul.”
White head judge Tom Colicchio, reminding Huynh of Huynh’s Vietnamese background,said he didn’t “see” him in his food. Such comments reinforce the model minority myth, which celebrates “Asian” work ethic and mechanical productivity while denying us unconditional subjectivity, sociability, and authority automatically afforded whites.
Ultimately Huynh incorporated Asian-influenced flavors into his final meal in hopes of revealing his “authentic” (ethnic) self to the judges. As Huynh tried to express “soul,” his (aired) image shifted from a technically efficient, ultra-competitive, and unlikable Asian to a more humbled Asian eager to take advantage of American opportunities available to him and other immigrants, making one blogger conclude, “he seemed to…acquire social skills in front of my eyes.”
Whereas Asian Americans are racialized in ways that whites aren’t— white contestants aren’t expected to cook foods of their ethnicities so that judges “know” them—African Americans, for the most part, are physically absent from the show. Yet as Frank B. Wilderson, III explains in the anthology Biko Lives!, even when physically present, Blacks remain absent. Despite the popularity and skills of Tre Wilcox and Carla Hall, they exemplify what Wilderson describes as “the absence of a subjective presence.” Unlike Asian Americans, who could explicitly reference their ethnic backgrounds, they could not. They couldn’t talk about Black marginalization in the culinary industry, but were forced to adopt de-racialized tropes of gender and class marginalization used by whites, particularly women and those who are not classically trained.
Black participants also lacked what Wilderson describes as “political presence” in that they were denied cultural and institutional authority. Although Blacks don’t automatically cook (or eat) “soul food,” they are often relegated to doing so regardless of training. While “ghettoizing,” such gestures, as my friend Kevin points out, also imply that soul food has little value to the non-Black culinary world.
Indeed, no chefs were expected to know foods that are culturally associated with Black people, with the exception of the final competitions held in New Orleans on season five. Yet at both dinners, all of the judges were white except for Asian host and judge Padma Lakshmi. Because Bravo TV, which airs Top Chef, doesn’t have all five seasons archived on its website, I can’t say for certain, but I only remember one Black person, chef Govind Armstrong, ever sitting at the judges’ table during deliberations. I only remember four other Black people—and only one of them a chef—serving as guest diners: chef Marcus Samuelsson (whom my friend Kevin points out was not born or raised in the United States), actress and comic Aisha Tyler, sociologist Mary Patillo (who was never introduced to viewers but who I recognized from being in the same profession), and musician Branford Marsalis—who was the lone Black guest at the final New Orleans dinner.
Marsalis even drew attention to his lack of political presence: after listening to others discuss how dishes tasted good but didn’t “pop,” he remarked that chefs talk just like musicians. Although the others tittered, Marsalis, perhaps inadvertently, alluded to the absurdity of his physical presence as a musician at a food competition where all of the other guests were esteemed members of the culinary world—and all non-Black.
Consistent with Yancey’s and Wilderson’s arguments, then, Asian Americans are more present in multiple ways compared to African Americans on Top Chef. Asian Americans compete, host, sample, and judge. We’re recognized as having an identifiable culture and permitted narratives of “Asian Americanness.” Intrusive, limiting, and racist, these narratives nevertheless serve to endear us to non-Asians because they affirm our presumed ethnic “exoticness” while simultaneously re-institutionalizing “universal” ideas related to the white immigrant experience that emphasize outsider status (but not social inequality). And, Asian cuisine is treated as a legitimate cuisine with history, culture, and place as demonstrated by whites citing it as their specialty, talking about taking classes in Asian cooking, or traveling to Asian countries to learn flavors and techniques. Finally, Asian cuisine is racialized as simultaneously traditional and global and therefore marketable to non-Asians.
Enjoyable to watch, Top Chef is, like many pleasures experienced in a racist society, an opportunity for sociological reflection. When the soon to be launched Top Chef Masters airs, I am sure my friend Kevin and I’ll have lots to dish about. And I am certain that the Black/non-Black divide framework will still be useful for understanding the show’s dynamics. The program’s website already tells me as much. Announcing the competition of “24 world-renowned chefs,” its pictures do indeed speak a thousand words. As images of participants reveal, a few Asian Americans will be featured as competitors and host/judge; but this time around, there are literally no Blacks on the show.
The Equal Justice Society announced the selection of Brando Starkey as our Judge Constance Baker Motley Civil Rights Fellow for 2009-2010.
The Judge Motley Fellowship was established to invigorate the next generation of progressive legal practitioners seeking to transform anti-discrimination law and policy. Proceeds from the annual Judge Motley Fellowship luncheon support the fellowship.
Brando Simeo Starkey graduated in June of 2008 with a J.D. from Harvard Law School. There, he was a research assistant at both the Jamestown Project, a think tank, and at the Law School’s library researching various matters for professors. He was also was an opinion editorialist for the Harvard Law Record, the school’s newspaper.
Brando also participated in the Human Rights clinic working for the Center for Constitutional Rights and Alternatives for Community & Environment. During his final year, he did some archival research for Philip Hamburger’s book Law and Judicial Duty.
His first year summer experience involved investigating poverty, arbitrary arrest and constitutional issues in Sierra Leone for the Sierra Leone Citizens’ Rights Association. The following summer, he interned at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Boston, Mass.
He received his undergraduate degree from Ohio State University in 2004 where he participated in the Students Research Opportunities Program and was a grant recipient for the STARS Research Program.
Additionally, he has published several works: The Veil of Fair Representation: Maurice Clarett v. NFL, “Acting White” and the Achievement Gap: Burden or Myth?: A Research Brief & Recommendations for Educators, Policymakers & Members of the Media, and Drastic Action: The 1983 Course Boycott at Harvard Law School.
Brando is finishing his first book on how the epithet Uncle Tom illustrates the various manners in which the law impacts Black culture. He has also delivered speeches on his written works at related academic conferences.
In addition to finishing his book, since graduation, Brando participates in the Post-Graduate Research Fellowship at HLS and was a Harvard Law Summer Fellow in 2008.
Brando starts his fellowship at EJS in October 2009.
It is with a mixture of great sadness and deep gratitude that we announce that Kimberly Thomas Rapp, our Director of Law and Policy, will be leaving us.