Friday, September 30, 2016

Make Courts More Racially Diverse

Imagine one of the highest courts in the land being made up solely of White Americans. No, this is not the Pre-Civil Rights Movement America we are talking about. This is the modern state of affairs in Alabama’s supreme court, where all nine justices are white. In fact, years prior to the passing of the Voter’s Rights Act, Alabama’s highest court was still presided over by an all-white ensemble of judges. One might ask, why is this even problematic? The thing is, this not only shows how progression is moving at a snail’s pace in Alabama, but also puts blacks and other minorities at a severe disadvantage. It is time for Alabama to integrate its courts, enabling people who are not white to have a larger voice in their community in the form of fair and just representation.

Stephanie Mencimer of Motherjones.com talks about this topic at length, explaining why this is problematic and speaks about a lawsuit that could potentially address and fix this issue.

 Only two African Americans have ever served, and only after first being appointed by a governor. The state's other highest appellate courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals, have never seen a black judge, despite the fact that more than a quarter of the state's voting-age population is African American. (Only two African Americans have been elected to a statewide office in Alabama. Ever.)[1]

Mencimer also points out the following:

In 1986, a federal judge concluded that after Reconstruction, Alabama intentionally shifted its elections from single-member district style voting to at-large races to dilute the voting strength of African Americans, "consistently erect[ing] barriers to keep black persons from full and equal participation in the social, economic and political life of the state."(1)

This situation is also problematic not only because it alienates African Americans from having representation in the courts, but also because statistics indicate that the Alabama’s criminal justice system as a whole reflects racial bias. This is shown by the sentencing of [primarily] minority children due to mandatory life without parole sentences in addition to 80% of people on death row being convicted of killing a white person. In addition, even if African Americans make up only 25% of Alabama’s population, they make up 60% of its population within prisons.

In my opinion, this perpetuation of an all-white supreme court is a deliberate attempt to marginalize blacks and other minorities. Alabama’s highest court being made up only of white individuals demonstrates how backwards this state is when it comes to voting rights. Thankfully, voting rights activists have aimed their sights on this issue today. Voting rights activists’ lawsuit centralizes on the idea that Alabama courts should change their voting procedures and effectively provide minority communities the choice to elect candidates they deem would benefit their interests.

If Alabama took the initiative to change its highest court’s racial composition and the process of being elected to courts, there would definitely be more positive outcomes and less bias in that state’s prison population. I think that Alabama’s high courts should heed the warnings of voting rights activists and their lawsuits because this simply is not the mid 1900s. African Americans and other people of color deserve a voice in their community and bias against them in a so called ‘justice system’ renders this system unjust.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Clinton & The Blue Collar Youth

Rebecca Nelson of The New Republic thinks that the blue collar youth of America have the potential to be Hillary Clinton’s secret weapon in winning the Election. I for one, could not agree more. Nelson discusses how Trump is leading by 40 points when it comes to having the support of non-educated white youth. Clinton could definitely use the support of the millennials who are not college educated and are not privileged by their economic and educational opportunities. It is imperative that Clinton uses the young blue collar vote to her advantage.

Clinton tends to focus on the voter base that consists of college educated millenials, but she misses out on a big slice of the pie that could definitely help to secure her vote.

Politicians tend to ignore working-class millennials for a simple reason: They don’t show up on Election Day. Just 29 percent of blue-collar youth turned out to vote in 2012—about half the rate of those who’d attended college. But in market terms, that political disengagement represents an opportunity for Clinton: CIRCLE estimates there are more than 17 million eligible voters under 35 still waiting to be mobilized—the last big segment of American voters that is genuinely up for grabs.[1]

Such a large group of voters should not be ignored. However, to secure their vote, Clinton must undoubtedly change her strategy for swaying the millennial voter base. As opposed to focusing solely on the privileged college-educated youth, she must resort to taking on the issues of most concern to blue collar youth. She has to be willing to hear them out and take the initiative to make large structural changes that benefit the blue collar millennial.

An example of a policy Clinton should learn how to embrace is to simplify job routes for the average blue-collar youth.

To pry young, working-class voters away from Trump, she’ll need to champion a host of unglamorous, brass-tacks economic issues. Take one example that antiregulatory conservatives have embraced: streamlining the process of securing licenses for professions like hairdresser, electrician, or building contractor. (1)

As Nelson points out, Clinton does not have to take on the intrinsically ‘cool’ and ‘pop culture’ persona that Obama exudes, but rather, she must learn to listen to those that do not come from privilege and be willing to enact reforms that favor what they want out of their country. In doing so, she will not only sway them away from Donald Trump’s clutches, but gain a voter base that is underrepresented in the people who want her to win the election.

I think it would be a smart move for Clinton to shift her gears into convincing the blue collar youth to get on her side. She would be gaining an invaluable voter base as well as the support of a group of people that normally is not involved in the world of politics. It would give her an edge over Trump, which I think we can all agree is a necessity.



[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/135729/forgotten-millennials

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Popping the Political Correctness Bubble

Aaron R. Hanlon, a writer for The New Republic, writes a provocative piece addressing the idea of political correctness which has spread across college campuses all over the United States. He analyzes both sides of the political correctness debate and highlights a number of rules we as a society can try to abide by. The issue at large is not so simple. It is very nuanced and there are not a lot of solutions but Hanlon gives us a few we should staunchly support.

Hanlon’s four magic rules to solving the political correctness debate are concise in what they hope to accomplish.

Colleges should promote the exercising of free speech by promoting discussion of how to solve the genuine problems of access, opportunity, safety, and inclusion on campus.[1]

Besides advocating for proactive discussions as opposed to outright suppression of ideas one does not side with, Hanlon proposes that trigger warnings should neither be required or banned. I think this is important to note because it encourages an air of openness and neutrality on college campuses. Freeing the college atmosphere from bias can do this issue a world of good. Hanlon’s simplification of the term ‘safe space’ helps American society to explore options of a middle ground of sorts for its college campuses.

Classrooms, too, can be safe spaces in a specific and important sense: They are training grounds for civil and civic discourse, shaped inevitably by the political and cultural standards outside of the classroom. Classrooms need to be places where every student—regardless of political orientation, race, creed, and gender—feels like they can safely participate, interact, and learn. But if what passes as a “conservative” viewpoint is dehumanizing language about LGBTQ people, or if what passes as a “liberal” viewpoint is “white men are inherently evil,” then professors should indeed caution against such unproductive speech.(1)

Ultimately, safe zones should exist depending on the context. Within these safe zones, there must be a presence of constructive thought, as opposed to shooting down perspectives students may not agree with. Hanlon’s final rule is that both sides on the political correctness divide should have the freedom to articulate their opinions.

Colleges should not be places of censorship, but of “critical inquiry” (to use a University of Chicago term). Administrators, faculty, and students should all be in discussion about who gets a campus platform, and why. It’s also reasonable for that discussion to culminate sometimes in the decision not to invite—or even to disinvite—a speaker. An invitation to speak on a college campus doesn’t come with a promise of immunity from protest.(1)

Hanlon and I agree on several viewpoints. College campuses should not suppress either side of the political correctness debate. Instead, they should foster intellectual and productive discussions over issues at hand. Administrators, professors, and those who are in direct contact with groups of students should encourage critical inquiry of both sides of the argument and stimulate an understanding of one another as opposed to a harsh divide. It is biased and narrow-minded to suppress ideas that one opposes. College students in general should have the ability to feel safe at school and taking that into account, safe enough to talk about their views openly, without fear of ridicule and insults from their peers.