|NYU School of Law and our Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law invite you to the 25th annual Derrick Bell Lecture on Race in American Society. Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law and Associate Director for Policy at the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, will virtually present, “Race, Evidence, and Police Violence: Seeking 2020 Vision” on Thursday, November 12, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. |
Here is the complaint in Quinault Indian Nation v. Lake Quinault School District (W.D. Wash.):
News coverage here.
An excerpt from the article:
The Belle Meade Country Club in Nashville has about 600 voting members. None of them are women, and none of them are black. But one of them is a federal judge.
In a confidential 10-to-8 decision last month, the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit, which hears misconduct complaints about federal judges in Tennessee and three other states, said the judge could keep his membership at Belle Meade.
The ruling opens windows on two odd institutions. One is a fading country club that was once an arbiter of success in Nashville’s social, political and business circles. The other is the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which sits in Cincinnati and is surely the most dysfunctional federal appeals court in the nation.
“The record before this court paints a picture of Belle Meade as an old boys’ club that considers and admits Caucasian male applicants on a different basis than African-American and female applicants,” Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote in a dissent from last month’s ruling. “We federal judges must sometimes make sacrifices for the honor of the office we hold, and the judge’s membership in Belle Meade should have been one of them.”
Apparently, this is the fifth suit brought by this particular plaintiff, and the third one in federal court. The case is Parks v. Tulalip Resort Casino (W.D. Wash.). Our earlier post on the first case is here.
Here are the materials:
Here is the opinion in Cochise v. Salazar, a case out of the D.C. federal district court — cochise-v-salazar-dct-opinion
Summary judgment for the Department.
Here is the opinion from the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Like all the other cases on this subject, the court held that striking American Indians from the juror pool does not create enough racial disparity to justify reversal of a conviction of an American Indian. If Indians are too small a percentage of the general population in South Dakota, where would there ever be a violation?
From the AP:
“In a federal lawsuit filed in 2005, Native Hawaiians with at least 50 percent islander blood want exclusive control over state programs currently open to everyone with at least some Native Hawaiian blood. In a separate dispute that could also be headed for court, state residents with no Native Hawaiian ancestry are questioning why they can’t join a Hawaiians-only voter registry.The two cases are just the latest in a string of challenges over the special treatment accorded Native Hawaiians.”
As usual, typical reportage of a very complicated and important issue — boiling down a complex question about minority rights and government programs designed to remedy a very long history of racism, discrimination, political violence, and government-sponsored privileging of non-minority people to a code word: “special treatment.” And everyone knows that code word means simply this — it’s wrong. So the AP (like virtually every other news agency) has adopted the code words of those opposing programs designed to remedy the effects of historical and ongoing race discrimination.
A serious and thoughtful discussion of these complicated issues would exclude such terms as “special treatment” or “special rights.” The reason, of course, that Congress took the action it did in the case of the Native Hawaiians is because non-Hawaiians accorded themselves “special treatment” and “special rights” ever since 1896.