In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 11, creating California’s first-ever citizens redistricting commission. The 14-member commission is responsible for drawing the state Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization districts. The legislative lines drawn by the commission will determine political representation in California for the next decade.

Online applications are due on February 12, 2010. Please join us to discuss the role of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission and how to apply to serve on it. For more information, visit http://WeDrawTheLines.ca.gov or http://RedistrictingCA.org.

Here’s details of the forums in San Francisco and Sacramento:

SAN FRANCISCO
Monday, January 25, 2010
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Bingham McCutchen LLP
3 Embarcadero Center Promenade, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=253282782559

Panelists include:
Thomas A. Saenz, President & General Counsel, MALDEF
Janis Hirohama, President, League of Women Voters of California
Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Counsel, MALDEF
Sharon Reilly, Chief Legal Counsel, California Bureau of State Audits
Eva Paterson, President, Equal Justice Society (Moderator)

SACRAMENTO
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Auditorium
1500 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=409474785243

Panelists include:
Thomas A. Saenz, President & General Counsel, MALDEF
Elaine Howle, California State Auditor
Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Counsel, MALDEF
Trudy Schafer, Senior Program Director, League of Women Voters of CA
Samuel E. Walton, Redistricting Consultant, California NAACP (Moderator)

For more information, please contact Nancy Ramirez at 213-629-2512 x121 or at nramirez@maldef.org.

Space is limited. Please confirm your attendance for these events to Martin Muñoz at 213-629-2512 x143 or at mmunoz@maldef.org by Friday, January 22, 2010.

Eva Paterson and EJS board member Tobias Barrington Wolff appeared at the Hammer Forum on Sept. 10 to discuss the uncertain future of marriage equality in California. While more states move to legalize same-sex marriage, California has instead eliminated this right with the passage of Proposition 8.

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.

EJS joins the Writers Guild of America West, Screen Actors Guild, Americans for American Values and the Kirwan Institute in presenting “Reading Between the Lines: Uncovering Unconscious Bias” on September 30, 2009, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Writers Guild of America, 7000 West Third Street, Los Angeles. A reception will follow the panel, which will be introduced by Norman Lear.

UPDATE: We will be videotaping this event.

The event is listed on Facebook, but RSVPs must be sent to diversity@wga.org with “Between the Lines” in subject line of your email. Contact the WGAW Diversity Department at 323-782-4589 with any questions.

In his autobiography Nelson Mandela tells of getting on a plane in Africa after his release from 28 years of imprisonment. The pilot of the plane was a Black African. This frightened Mandela. When he examined his fears, he realized that he had internalized negative stereotypes of Black incompetence. Many of us have internalized negative stereotypes of women, lesbians and gay men, the disabled, older people, and people of color. These fears operate in our unconscious.

Panelists include:

• Celinda Lake, Pollster
• john powell, Professor of Law, The Ohio State University
• Antonia Hernández, President and Chief Executive Officer, The California Community Foundation
• Dr. Camille Charles, University of Pennsylvania
• Jerry Kang, Professor of Law, UCLA
• Dr. Maninder Kahlon, Cognitive Neuroscientist
• Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public Defender and Producer of The Slanted Screen, a documentary on Asian Americans in cinema
• Eva Paterson, President, Equal Justice Society

With special guests:

• Kathleen Antonia, attorney and actor
• Tim Paulson, California Teachers Association
• Larissa Fasthorse, WGAW American Indian Writers Committee
• John S. Johnson, Director, Harmony Institute

The panelists will explore how the brain processes information and how the need for quick decision often leads to faulty conclusions. Political ads from the 2008 presidential campaign will be used as examples of how media can “prime” viewers to activate stereotypes and similarly, deactivate the impact of negative unconscious stereotypes. A number of ads showed candidate Obama as a menacing Black man – purposefully done to make voters afraid of him.

EJS has studied the intersection of unconscious bias and social justice since 2003. Our signature project on this issue is the collaboration with the California Teachers Association to assess racial bias in the classroom and school environment and its impact on student achievement.

“Implicit (unconscious) bias and stereotyping are gaining increasing attention as a possible explanation of unequal treatment in a number of settings including education, employment, health care and law,” said Dr. James Outtz, an industrial and organizational psychologist, who leads the research team on behalf of EJS and CTA. Dr. Outtz explained that scientists define unconscious bias as implicit attitudes, actions or judgments that are controlled by automatic evaluation without a person’s awareness. Existing research shows that we all engage in a cognitive process called “categorization” to simplify and streamline how we perceive others (e.g. sex, race, or age). This process can lead to stereotype application that influences our thoughts and behaviors towards members of certain groups.

Notably, there are a number of social power relationships in our society in which the application of stereotypes may be particularly detrimental to members of racial and ethnic minority groups, the teacher-student relationship being one significant example.

Our workshop will provide a background on the unconscious bias theory, drawing from our six years of work on the issue and identifying ways that unconscious bias can be better understood and used by writers.

Contact me at kkamisugi@equaljusticesociety.org if you have questions about this event.

]]> http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/2009/07/unconsciousbias-panel-wga/feed/ 1 http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/2009/07/eva-paterson-on-panel-discussing-movement-building-at-nonprofit-day-2009/ http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/2009/07/eva-paterson-on-panel-discussing-movement-building-at-nonprofit-day-2009/#comments Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:28:07 +0000 Keith Kamisugi http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/?p=814 Equal Justice Society President Eva Paterson will be among the speakers on a panel discussing the “Future of Movement Building” at Nonprofit Day 2009, presented by CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, an event that explores leadership and movement building in the context of today’s dynamic times. The 22nd Annual Nonprofit Day Conference takes place on Thursday, August 27, 2009, from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Hilton San Francisco, 333 O’Farrell Street, San Francisco.

“The Future of Movement Building” session is at 10 a.m. that day. On the panel, Eva joins Kim Klein (Author of “Fundraising for Social Change”), Vincent Pan (Executive Director, Chinese for Affirmative Action) and moderator Adriana Rocha (Practice Director, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services).

Nonprofit Day 2009 will start with a visionary keynote address by Benjamin Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP. The event offers topic-specific plenaries focused on The Future of Leadership; Movement Building; and the Economy. Participants will have opportunites to refine critical skills in interactive breakout sessions.

For more information and to register, visit: www.compasspoint.org/nonprofitday.

As reported by numerous outlets, including HuffPo, Newscoma and Nashville is Taking, Sherri Goforth, an executive assistant for Tennessee State Rep. Diane Black (R-Gallatin), sent this picture out to other legislative staffers:

Eva talks about the role of unconscious bias in how racism is manifested today and also about her movie, Presidential Race, which examines how far we have come in the forty-six years since Martin Luther King electrified the country with his “I Have A Dream” speech.

Listen to the interview here (go to the 3:11:48 mark):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l59b4/Up_All_Night_18_06_2009

EJS’s profound interest in the science of unconscious bias is a key component of our long-range initiative to dismantle the Intent Doctrine. In 1976, just a few years after Justice William Rehnquist joined the bench, Washington v. Davis was decided, placing a nearly insurmountable hurdle in the way of plaintiffs seeking redress for discrimination.

This decision placed a prohibitive burden on victims of discrimination and limited the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by restricting its remedial reach to cases in which the plaintiff could prove a decision-maker’s specific “intent” to discriminate.

Racial justice is impossible to achieve when the law fails to reflect the actual experiences of communities who have seen and felt discrimination. Social psychologists, critical sociologists and other social scientists have developed empirical and theoretical research showing that the Intent Doctrine fails to reflect how a large part of discrimination actually occurs.

According to these studies, all of us have unconscious biases that influence how we perceive and make decisions about other people. Individual and institutional discrimination, often guided by these cognitive biases and stereotypes, can occur even in the absence of blatant prejudice. Many of these powerful theories and studies, however, are not being fully utilized on the front lines of political debate or courtrooms by legal advocates.

In order to provide lawyers with the necessary tools to challenge the faulty assumptions of the Intent Doctrine, the Equal Justice Society brings together social scientists, lawyers, pollsters, legal academics and students to develop long-term strategies for introducing a more accurate understanding of discrimination into the law. Most Americans do not want to be racist and do not think they act in racially biased ways.

Not only does our promoting of the unconscious bias framework support our work to dismantle Intent, but it also allows for a more engaging approach to address racism – i.e., promoting unconscious bias takes a “building awareness” rather than a “blaming” approach.

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.