MoPress

Author: mopress

  • A Civil Rights Sunday of Clips

    Scanning the headlines at QuorumReport (the fast way to keep up) there is a striking frequency of Civil Rights news today, with all of the stories (but one) referring to Congress or a Federal Court.

    In East Texas, a community of black folks have filed a federal suit against the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) for racist behaviors. The TRC for its part says it is waiting on “formal notice of the lawsuit,” which is a nice way of helping the rest of us begin to understand its official attitude.
    My own impressions of the TRC were formed back in the day of Commissioner Kent Hance (who beat George Bush, Jr. in a long-ago Congressional race by out-Bibling the now Bible-armored president.) Anyway, as my memory goes, Hance once took his experience as TRC commissioner to OPEC in a goodwill effort to help his brothers in petrol understand how you do a cartel the right way.

    Today’s story from the New York Times wonders if the DeBerry community can prove that TRC has managed nearby oilfield waste in a manner that discriminates on the basis of race and class. We’ll root for the underdog while we wonder out loud if the social history of petrodollars isn’t a kind of global racism at root.

    Federal judges Barefoot Sanders and William Wayne Justice are back in the news. Sanders will take no new cases. He was appointed by Carter in 1979, the year that New Deal Liberalism took its last breath. Sanders will go down in history as the judge who worked on desegregation of Dallas schools.

    Judge Justice will hear a motion later this month to re-open an old federal case regarding discrimination against students with limited English proficiency (LEP). MALDEF filed the motion on behalf of one-in-six Texas students who fall into that class. It’s a legal strategy that takes Texas school funding back down the federal route, since the state route has been rendered hopeless by the Texas Supreme Court in alliance with Republican leadership.

    Of course the state route had been suggested by Thurgood Marshall who was obliged to write a dissenting opinion when the US Supreme Court refused to act. Back and forth. Between and beyond. If you’re going to do Civil Rights in Texas, you’d better be riding the Eveready Jackrabbit.

    Education funding is the topic of a San Antonio editorial. Under a state law passed in 2001, anyone who graduates from a Texas high school is granted in-state rates for college tuition. But the mighty, mighty Congress is talking about ‘proof of citizenship’ again, and this could be bad news for some high school grads seeking in-state rates. The Express News writes a helpful editorial, which maybe some Republicans will read.

    In Dallas and Houston, the newspapers are talking about the death penalty. Houston Chronicle reporters Lise Olsen and Maro Robbins keep up their work on the wrongful execution of Ruben Cantu. The Morning News editorial board cites work being done at the Chicago Tribune on another wrongful execution. This story doesn’t explicitly involve federal power, but some day it will. If killing someone is not cruel, then what is? But the punishment must also be unusual, and that day is drawing nearer.

    Finally, as if our dear readers did not know, there was a hearing in Laredo on Friday. Reporter David McLemore strikes a tone we are able to appreciate, although, we would have wanted more paragraphs like this:

    “You have to wonder why the Republican-led subcommittee is taking evidence on immigration reform legislation that has already passed both the Senate and the House,” said Rep. Sylvestre Reyes of El Paso. Joining him were Charlie Gonzalez of San Antonio, Rubén Hinojosa of Mercedes and Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston. “Congress needs to get back to work in Washington to reach a compromise agreement.”

    Reyes, please remember, was onetime sector chief of the El Paso border patrol. So he not only understands the contradictions of border policy from the ground up, but he doesn’t pretend not to, which adds up to an admirable combination all in all.

    From Jackson Lee, Gonzales, and Hinojosa we would have liked to see more ink. Still, McLemore managed to get a few words in edgewise: joke, sham, and theater, which proved a helpful thesaurus for the fair and balanced copy desk in its quest for a concise sub-hed. Hope I don’t get anybody in trouble for pointing these things out.

  • Contradictory Globalization: Migration in a Global State

    A Guest Essay from Mexico

    By Rodrigo Saldaña Guerrero

    About half a millennium ago, great travelers led by men like Columbus and Magallanes started weaving around the world a web of connections.

    That globalization process started spreading around the world a nation-state model that in the 16th Century was producing remarkable results in a few countries of Western Europe (like England, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland). This model did not do so well in Germany and Italy, and proved frankly disastrous in Yugoslavia, to say nothing of Nigeria and the like.

    That exportation inadequacy was only part of the trouble, however. Because the same world process that took the model everywhere tore down the boundaries that made those first nation states up to a certain point self contained units. The logical result of that globalization process would be a world state that would give peaceful political and legal solutions to what was now a set of world problems. We may insist in making those problems fit into national patterns, but it is not surprising that they disregard this stubbornness of ours.

    Challenges
    One of the components that makes this situation so difficult to manage is the emergence of unexpected factors and the incredible speed at which they work. Before we really know where we are, we have already moved elsewhere. Looking at the interaction in the world scene of a lot of little known actors, we wonder where all this came from. Who let all these people in? What are they up to?

    A rather reasonable approach to clear up all this confusion would seem to be: let’s figure all this out before going further. Trouble is, right now there are not many people that like this approach, and the slowing of things it would imply.

    One of the most important lessons to learn to move in this world is: if we want something to happen, someone has to do something to make it happen. If nobody is doing it, it’s very unlikely that it will happen. Many things occur just because there are people that will profit from them, that have an interest in making them happen and are willing and able to do something about it. Even if everybody admits that a change in law is necessary, for instance, it will not come about unless someone lobbies for it.

    Beyond Nation States

    Can we still have those old fashioned nation states, safe within secure boundaries? No, not if many people are doing things to change that, and nobody is doing much to counteract it. By now, it is probably too late to do something about this. We have to identify the things that are independent from our actions and desires, and start from there. My suggestions are the following:

    (a) Demographics. There are trends that will not change for a long time, if ever. Certain populations grow very fast, others tend to decrease. This is going to change the ethnic composition of some states, in a way that might be disturbing to some people (as in the case of Israel).

    (b) Migrating workers. This factor is connected with the previous one. While some people look for jobs, others look for workers. Demagogues like French far rightist Le Pen try to obscure this last aspect of the situation, but the fact is that if there are Muslim foreign workers in Western Europe is, in a large measure, because Western Europeans want them there.

    Those who keep saying that “now things are really going to be different” and cheap foreign labor is going to stop entering, just do not want to face reality. Years ago a U. S. official assured me that his government was no longer going to be ambivalent about this. Rules would be clear and effective, he said. The ambivalence, of course, has actually worsened.

    The people who want cheap labor are not going to give it up, but neither will they defend their position openly. The demagogues who insist that cheap labor takes jobs away from their nationals (even if, as too often happens, the work done by foreigners is not wanted by the nationals) will not fight it to the limit; they just want to win political points.

    (c) Migrating jobs. Protectionists often overlook the fact that foreigners may take the jobs of their nationals without leaving their countries. To block corporations doing this would be trying to reverse globalization. This seems both impossible and contradictory (the people who complain about exporting jobs are often ardent advocates of globalization).

    The truth is that old style protectionism is no longer viable. The persistence in enforcing it will probably only make the corporations (and the jobs) go away faster. This situation does create complex political and ethical problems.

    The executives would like to have it both ways: build sweet relationships with governments at home and abroad, which in effect means deceiving everyone. Once this sort of thing meant benefiting from the high level of one place and paying taxes elsewhere. Globalization means doing that at a far bigger scale, moving at dizzy speed from one situation to another and getting the best deal possible from everybody. This makes for big profits now, while destroying the social fabric that made those good businesses viable. It may look like state-of-the-art corporate government, but is more akin to piracy, in my opinion.

    (d) Security. Many states do not seem to have a rational, comprehensive, feasible security policy. Ignoring or minimizing centuries old problems between peoples is more like old fashioned despotism than like government founded on scholarly knowledge. After recent cases like the U. S experience in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russian one in Afghanistan and Chechnya, intervention in the internal life of countries very different from the ones we know best should be approached very warily.

    Big migratory flows in an environment poisoned by terrorist threats present special problems. Just keeping the foreigners out would be nice. Would it be enough? Would it be convenient? Would it be possible? Trying it would create a lot of trouble, and it would very likely fail.

    Realistic Principles

    It seems to me that the most sensible solution would be to admit migrant workers that would probably enter any way, in a process that ensured:

    1) that most of the people who do enter will do the best possible work for the host country (paying due taxes, among other things).

    2) That their movements will be lawful, aboveboard and known to the proper authorities.

    3) That they will be supported by the host country in those endeavors (with medical and educational services, help in transition between jobs, for instance) thereby helping them in their services to the society that admitted them.

    4) That very few people (like criminals) will try unlawful entrance, and will be much more likely to be detected and thwarted in their intent.

    I am perfectly aware that this proposal does not point to a solution of every aspect of this extremely complex problematic. We have been moving in the wrong direction for too long, for one thing. The measures I suggest will leave many people in a limbo; to do something about it will require additional ad hoc adjustments.

    As a matter of fact, I suggest that we are in a process of world unification that can not be stopped without disaster, and that will only end well when there is a world state that coordinates the activities of the whole mankind in such a way that everybody finds its development supp

    orted and enhanced by the cooperation of everybody else, as it should be in any healthy society.

    All this with due respect to the existing subcultures. Bulldozing them would be unfair, dangerous and impoverishing for everybody. Integrating them within a world culture without demolishing them would give all of us cultural instruments of unprecedented wealth and complexity, supporting better than ever everyone’s personal and communal development.

  • From MALDEF Press Release via Email

    MALDEF regional counsel Nina Perales commented on the continued need for affirmative action:

    “We urge Texas A&M officials to rethink their decision to reject using race as a plus factor in

    admissions.” She added, “A&M says it hopes to increase diversity with race-neutral outreach, but they

    have tried that approach for many years now and they are still running into a brick wall.” The report

    found that under the Ten Percent Plan, A&M enrollments for African Americans and Latinos in 2003 were

    still one-third lower than in 1995, before affirmative action was discontinued. SALT co-president

    and St. Mary’s law professor José (Beto) Juárez stated, “The Supreme Court’s recent Grutter v.

    Bollinger ruling recognizes that student diversity creates educational benefits that ‘are not

    theoretical but real.’” Juárez explained, “This report is needed because universities in Texas must

    rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of their previous race-neutral policies before restarting

    affirmative action programs.”

    Michael A. Olivas, a law professor at the University of

    Houston and co-author of the Ten Percent Plan legislation, said, ‘I believe that ‘blend it, don’t

    end it’ is a wise approach, surely preferable to the Texas A&M approach, which declined to employ

    Grutter and originally included the Aggie Legacy points until they were embarrassed into ending the

    point system. Texas colleges need to build on the Ten Percent Plan’s contribution to socioeconomic and

    geographic diversity at the flagship universities.’

    Olivas added, ‘At the same time,

    it is also clear that much more needs to be done to increase racial diversity, especially in Texas

    professional schools and graduate programs.’ For example, only 3.3% of Texas medical degrees went to

    African Americans, less than half of the national average. Without affirmative action at the UT Law

    School (1997-2003), African American enrollments dropped by nearly three-fifths compared to 1990-95,

    and Mexican American enrollments dropped by over one-quarter.

    Wade Henderson, General

    Counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund stated, “Affirmative action

    continues to be an essential tool to give qualified individuals equal access to opportunities in higher

    education. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, through the Americans for a Fair

    Chance project, will continue to work with Texas institutions of higher education as they strive to

    advance equal opportunity for all students.”

    William Kidder of the Equal Justice Society

    explained, “Our findings challenge the unwarranted claims by the Bush Administration’s Department of

    Education, which appears determined to scare universities away from constitutionally permissible forms

    of affirmative action regardless of the evidence.”

  • Web Nugget: Black Inventors at China Daily

    There is an incredible collection of Black Inventors being remembered at the forums for China Daily. We stumbled upon it through the wealthy sail maker James Forten, who once upon a time got his primary education from Anthony Benezet. Good summer reading.