Desegregating schools: More than just getting the numbers right

Desegregating schools: More than just getting the numbers right

A Brookings Institution Report

truggles over school desegregation are back. Howard County andNew York City are just the best-known places now roiled by it.

Integrating public schools is tough, even in places where the population is varied enough to make it numerically possible. And after decades of experience, we still know very little about how to make it work.

Paul T. Hill

Founder - The Center on Reinventing Public Education

Research Professor - The University of Washington Bothell

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow - The Brookings Institution

Recent experience is not encouraging. A new report about diverse-by-design charter schools shows that only a minority of these schools has been able to attract the mixed population they sought. Out of 191 charter schools that were judged to have a “strong commitment” to diversity, 89 were still rated “low diversity” in enrollment.

Desegregation is difficult to achieve because children of different races live in different neighborhoods. But that’s not all: When families are able to choose schools without regard to location—for example, in the case of charter schools—the resulting schools are often more segregated than neighborhood schools.

Once achieved, desegregation can be hard to keep. Magnet and charter schools designed to be desegregated can tip over time to become dominated by students of one race/ethnicity. Efforts to create excellent schools that will attract a diverse population can end up attracting too many white and middle-class students. On the other hand, any parent will distrust and want to leave a school they fear does not prioritize their children’s needs.

The parents of a given school are like a political coalition: They are a group that agrees on a single action—enrolling in the school—but their reasons for doing so can differ. This has big implications for school desegregation. First, any parent’s enrollment decision must be seen as conditional and subject to reversal. Second, all parents might have common desires about some things (for example, hoping that great biology teacher stays around) and might leave if disappointed. Third, and most challengingly, different parents’ expectations easily come into conflict, so that promises made to one parent might drive another away.

Criminal Abuse of Power: Trump's Five Crimes Connected to Ukraine - CREW

Criminal Abuse of Power: Trump's Five Crimes Connected to Ukraine - CREW

by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

President Donald Trump tried to use a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. In doing so, he committed the highest crime: he attempted to deprive the people of the United States of their right to a free and fair election. He has clearly committed numerous impeachable offenses, but this specific offense–attempting to deprive the people of their right to a free and fair election–left the House of Representatives with no real choice but to use their constitutional power of last resort to consider his removal. His conduct shows that he thinks he is above the law and that he can abuse the powers of his office with impunity. 

TRUMP’S FIVE CRIMES CONNECTED TO UKRAINE:

I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201)

II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121)

III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610)

IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641)

V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512)

It is also appropriately of great interest to Americans whether, quite apart from constitutional high crimes, the President committed ordinary crimes for which ordinary Americans could be prosecuted and punished. An analysis of the facts and the law reveals that, in addition to his impeachable conduct, President Trump likely committed several criminal offenses. Any other person could be facing the real likelihood of substantial time in federal prison. Instead, because Donald Trump holds the office of President, he faces potential impeachment rather than potential indictment. But to be clear: in our constitutional republic no person, including the President, is above the law. 

The Constitution provides that a President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Impeachment does not require proof of a crime; Presidents Nixon and Clinton both faced articles of impeachment that incorporated some conduct that was not squarely prohibited by criminal laws. But the fact that a President’s conduct likely broke criminal laws is hardly irrelevant–our criminal laws are an articulation of our country’s values, and the Constitution’s use of the words “bribery” and “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was intended to require an abuse of power as serious as a criminal offense.   

Public reporting and the impeachment inquiry being conducted in the United States House of Representatives have produced thousands of pages of witness testimony and documentary evidence showing that President Trump, directly and by and through his associates, pressured the government of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden, his political rival, and withheld duly appropriated security assistance and high-level diplomatic meetings until Ukraine did so. 

This evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Donald Trump committed crimes like bribery and misappropriation of funds. These are crimes for which most Americans would be prosecuted and for which they could go to prison. Because Trump, a sitting president, cannot be indicted, all Americans must decide whether his criminal conduct merits the most serious punishment he can face: impeachment and removal from office. 

Click here to read the full report.

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW TAKES LEGAL ACTION TO UNDO $2.5M ‘SILENT SAM’ DEAL ON BEHALF OF UNC STUDENTS | Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW TAKES LEGAL ACTION TO UNDO $2.5M ‘SILENT SAM’ DEAL ON BEHALF OF UNC STUDENTS | Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

UNC System’s Settlement with Neo-Confederate Group Prompts Outrage from Civil Rights Groups, Students and Faculty

Chapel Hill, NC– Today the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a motion in Orange County Superior Court to intervene and set aside a $2.5 million consent judgment between the University of North Carolina’s Board of Governors and the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans over the school’s Confederate monument, known as “Silent Sam.” Under the agreement, UNC will transfer the monument to the Confederate heritage group and provide $2.5 million for the monument’s maintenance, display and other activities. Students and faculty at UNC have expressed outrage over the decision, which was abruptly announced before Thanksgiving, and the Lawyers’ Committee is taking action on behalf of six UNC students and one faculty member to set aside the consent judgment and to dismiss the Confederate group’s Complaint.  

 “The University of North Carolina System has abdicated its responsibilities under its mission to the students, faculty, the University community and the people of North Carolina by striking this deal with a neo-Confederate group,” said Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “We stand with the students and faculty in condemning this deeply flawed settlement that finds the UNC system complicit in financing white supremacist activity.”

“The Board of Governors’ secret negotiations, lack of transparency and false statements to the court, UNC students and the public is unacceptable,” said De’Ivyion Drew, a Sophomore at UNC-CH and one of the intervenors. “These actions violate the Board of Governor’s duties to me as a student of this university and undermine UNC’s mission. The University’s agreement to give 2.5 million dollars to the Sons of Confederate Veterans will help that group and other neo-confederates continue to perpetuate the ahistorical and dangerous “Lost Cause” ideology. That ideology is a major obstacle to racial equity and reparative measures in our country.”

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a civil rights organization that works to fight racial discrimination across the country. In addition to the motion to dismiss filed today, the Lawyers’ Committee sent a letter to the Board of Governors and UNC earlier this week calling on them to meet their fiduciary obligations to protect UNC’s interests and to recover the $2.5 million immediately.

A copy of today’s Lawyers’ Committee filings can be found here:

A copy of the motion to intervene, motion to set aside the consent judgment, and motion to dismiss are linked.

Lawyers have the right to change firms: ABA Formal Opinion 489

Formal Opinion 489 Obligations Related to Notice When Lawyers Change Firms 

December 4, 1989

ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY



 Lawyers have the right to leave a firm and practice at another firm. Likewise, clients have the
right to switch lawyers or law firms, subject to approval of a tribunal, when applicable (and
conflicts of interest). The ethics rules do not allow non-competition clauses in partnership,
member, shareholder, or employment agreements. Lawyers and law firm management have
ethical obligations to assure the orderly transition of client matters when lawyers notify a firm
they intend to move to a new firm. 

Firms may require some period of advance notice of an intended
departure. The period of time should be the minimum necessary, under the circumstances, for
clients to make decisions about who will represent them, assemble files, adjust staffing at the firm
if the firm is to continue as counsel on matters previously handled by the departing attorney, and
secure firm property in the departing lawyer’s possession. 

Firm notification requirements,
however, cannot be so rigid that they restrict or interfere with a client’s choice of counsel or the
client’s choice of when to transition a matter. Firms also cannot restrict a lawyer’s ability to
represent a client competently during such notification periods by restricting the lawyer’s access
to firm resources necessary to represent the clients during the notification period. The departing
lawyer may be required, pre- or post-departure, to assist the firm in assembling files, transitioning
matters that remain with the firm, or in the billings of pre-departure matters.

READ THE FULL OPINION

This Is What Racism Sounds Like in the Banking Industry - The New York Times

Richard Peters - a former financial

adviser at Chase

This Is What Racism Sounds Like in the Banking Industry - The New York Times

by Emily Flitter

Jimmy Kennedy earned $13 million during his nine-year career as a player in the National Football League. He was the kind of person most banks would be happy to have as a client.

But when Mr. Kennedy tried to become a “private client” at JPMorgan Chase, an elite designation that would earn him travel discounts, exclusive event invitations and better deals on loans, he kept getting the runaround.

At first, he didn’t understand why. Then, last fall, he showed up at his local JPMorgan branch in Arizona, and an employee offered an explanation.

“You’re bigger than the average person, period. And you’re also an African-American,” the employee, Charles Belton, who is black, told Mr. Kennedy. “We’re in Arizona. I don’t have to tell you about what the demographics are in Arizona. They don’t see people like you a lot.” Mr. Kennedy recorded the conversation and shared it with The New York Times.

‘They Don’t See People Like You a Lot’

Listen to a conversation between a JPMorgan customer and his financial adviser.

0:30 / 0:46

It’s no secret that racism has been baked into the American banking system. There are few black executives in the upper echelons of most financial institutions. Leading banks have recently paid restitution to black employees for isolating them from white peers, placing them in the poorest branches and cutting them off from career opportunities. Black customers are sometimes profiled, viewed with suspicion just for entering a bank and questioned over the most basic transactions.

OTHERWISE: Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment - House Judiciary Committee

OTHERWISE: Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment - House Judiciary Committee

AmericanStudies: December 3, 2019: AmendmentStudying: Santa Clara County and the 14th Amendment

AmericanStudies: December 3, 2019: AmendmentStudying: Santa Clara County and the 14th Amendment

by Ben Railton

On December 6, 1865, the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. So this week I’ll AmericanStudy that crucial amendment and four others, leading up to a weekend post on three potential amendments to come!]

On the seemingly offhand sentences through which the Supreme Court radically revised American law, history, and community.

In the spring of 1886, the Supreme Court heard a trio of cases related to California’s taxation of railroad corporations and properties, cases collectively entitled Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). The cases’ specifics hinged on small and (to this AmericanStudier) relatively uninteresting questions of (for example) whether fences adjoining railroad tracks were considered part of those tracks for purposes of land categorization and taxation, and the Court’s decision, written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, similarly focused on those small (if, of course, significant to the affected parties) questions. But it was in a “headnote” to that decision, transcribed by a court reporter and attributed to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, that the Court went far beyond those specific questions and helped change the course of American law and society.

In that headnote, Waite stated, “The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.” The note was not part of the Court’s official decision, but the reporter (J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former railroad company president) included it immediately preceding the decision in his transcription for the official Court record. He did so, it’s worth adding, only after writing to Waite to inquire whether it did indeed represent the Court’s collective perspective; Waite responded that it did, and the sentences became part of the decision’s text and permanent identity from then on. Such a headnote would have no legal standing or precedent—yet nonetheless, by all accounts and all available evidence this informal opinion, that corporations were the equivalent of people under the 14^th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause, became far more impactful than anything in the decision’s formal text.

Santa Clara thus represented a watershed moment in the evolving narrative of “corporate personhood,” one that saw its latest statement during the 2012 presidential primaries, in Mitt Romney’s oft-quoted remark at the Iowa State Fair that “corporations are people, my friend.” Yet I would also argue that Waite’s headnote illustrates another of the Court’s striking powers, one perhaps not part of its original Constitutional mandate but certainly part of how the Court’s role has evolved over the centuries since: the power to revise, to change our national understanding of key issues and questions. It did so here not only in the 14^th Amendment’s language (which focused entirely on “persons” and “citizens”) but also, if far more subtly, on its contexts. The Amendment, after all, was drafted first and foremost to ensure full citizenship and equal protection for freed and former slaves—for persons, that is, who had suffered at the hands of one of America’s most sweeping capitalist and, dare I say it, corporate entities, the slave system. To read that Amendment’s effects to include protection for corporations was thus, to my mind, a stunning revision.

Trump Loses Appeal on Deutsche Bank Subpoenas - The New York Times

Trump Loses Appeal on Deutsche Bank Subpoenas - The New York Times

by David Enrich

A federal appeals court said Tuesday that Deutsche Bank must turn over detailed documents about President Trump’s finances to two congressional committees, a ruling that will most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The decision was the latest victory for House Democrats investigating Mr. Trump and his businesses. And it put extensive information about Mr. Trump’s personal and business finances — which the president has spent years fighting to keep secret — one step closer to becoming public.

Democratic-controlled congressional committees issued subpoenas to two banks — Deutsche Bank, long Mr. Trump’s biggest lender, and Capital One — this year for financial records related to the president, his companies and his family. Mr. Trump sued the banks to block them from complying.

The court’s ruling comes at a perilous time for Mr. Trump, who is facing an unrelated impeachment inquiry in the Democrat-controlled House.