Event: Does Race (Still) Matter? Reconsidering Affirmative Action in the US and Brazil

The U.S. and Brazil appear to be approaching a temporal crossroad on race and affirmative action. While the myth of racial democracy has loosened its grip in Brazil and opened up unprecedented opportunities for Afro-Brazilians, post-racialism is becoming a powerful force in the US, undermining the future of social inclusion programs.  What can advocates for racial equality in the two countries learn from each other?  How can transnational cooperation between governments and civil society advance racial justice in the two Americas?  Come hear leading voices in the Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial discrimination (“JAPER”) in the US and Brazil.

A panel discussion with:

Daniel Teixeria
Staff Lawyer and Projects Coordinator at the Research Center on Labor Relations and Inequality; former Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Demystifying Racial Democracy in Brazil”

Maria Aparecida Silva Bento
Executive Director of the Research Center on Labor Relations and Inequality; Associate Researcher at the University of Sao Paulo;
“Quantifying Employment Discrimination
in Brazilian Banks”

Clarence Lusane
Professor of Political Science in the School of International Service at American University; Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Afro-Brazilians and the Continuing Struggle for Racial Equality”

Kimberlé Crenshaw
Professor of Law at Columbia & UCLA Law School; former Fulbright Chair for Latin America; Co-Chair for the Civil Society (JAPER)
“Framing Joint Action in the Matrix of Colorblindness and Racial Democracy”

Monday, September 27^th, 2010 ∙ 6pm
Columbia Law School ∙ Greene Hall, Room 103
Reception to Follow: Columbia Law School ∙ Case Lounge ∙ 7:30pm

Sponsored by: African American Policy Forum ∙ Institute for Research in African American Studies ∙Center for Brazilian Studies ∙ Latin American Law Students Association

In re: "Is it because I'm white?" "Yes."

My fellow alum/sister, Sydnie, recently wrote an interesting post in her blog, entitled "Is it because I'm white?" "Yes." where she relays a story about this white dude who tried to kick it to her and when she refused to bite - he basically asked, "Is it because I'm white?" And, the short and sweet of her answer was yes.

Now, she says she is a fan of black love, and a white guy would have to go above and beyond to be considered. It makes me stop and think, where do I stand on this? Black love is cool. Asian love is cool. I guess white love is cool - though that doesn't slide off my tongue in the same way, maybe because it's so damn politically incorrect. But, interracial love is mad cool. 

A little history... in 1958 Richard and Mildred loving, a white man and black woman, were married out of state to avoid miscegenation laws. (Miscegenation - such an ugly sounding word.) They were charged and their case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The court found in favor of the Lovings:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

And thus, miscegenation laws died. It was 1963 -- less than 50 years ago. 

Public Defenders and Race: Something to Think About

My brother sent me over this article entitled "Public Defenders as Effective as Private Attorneys," which basically finds just that. Yay! Public defenders! Disparaties between the outcomes of those who have a private attorney as a public defender do matter in regards to race though. Surprise, surprise. The article states:

...they noted some interestingly varied outcomes when looking at a defendant’s race. “White defendants are the only defendants who benefit from having a private attorney at the release decision,” they write. Specifically, they found whites with private attorneys are 2.7 times more likely than whites with public defenders to have bail granted. For people of color, private attorneys may not help in getting bail, but they do facilitate plea bargains. “Black defendants who retain a private attorney are almost two times more likely to have the primary charge reduced than black defendants who are represented by a public defender,” the researchers write.

Now, the first point seems like the court favors wealthy white men over poor white men. And, wealthier black men over poor black men. Now, I wonder what causes the difference between white defendents whose attorney choice affects the release decision and black defendents whose attorney choice affects their possibility of a charge reduction? Is the court more likely to be "fair" or on their toes with attorneys that are perceived to have a higher stake  and interest in the case? Even within this seeming divisision between those who can afford an attorney and ones that can not, one realizes that the disparaties over sentencing whites and blacks remain strong.