The “Miseducation” of The Black-Student Athlete

April 16, 2015

By: Anthony James

And since all the ballers leaving college early, I turn on the T.V. and don’t see no brothers with degrees lately…” sung rap artist J.Cole during a performance on David Letterman. As the lyrics spoke directly to me and a few other young former black student-athletes in attendance that night, I began to wonder just how true that assertion was.

The academic underperformance and underrepresentation of black men in NCAA Division 1 colleges and universities aren’t matters of concern to campus leaders and policy makers. Often lost in the lulling disguise of diversity, except when campus statistics explicitly reminds us of it, is the fact that there is one place where black men are not underrepresented on many campuses. On sports teams, particularly football and men’s basketball, black males make up just 2.8% of the student bodies at these schools, yet represented an astounding 57.1% of football players and 64.3% of basketball players.[1] The disparity of non-athletic black students versus athletic black students on Division 1 college campuses signals an exploitation of the athletic ability of these black student athletes for profit, and graduation rates display a disdain for the nurturing of their academic potential.

Photo courtesy of Deadspin.com.

Photo courtesy of Deadspin.com.

The focus on athletic performance rather than the student-athlete’s overall academic experience causes many athletic programs to recruit players that, while athletically talented, are not equipped to succeed academically. The statistics showing that black athletes graduate at lower rates than other black students attending the same institutions illuminate the fact that black student athletes are not recruited using the same level of academic scrutiny as every other student. Collegiate institutions recruit these players and then profit from their athletic abilities as the players mainly focus on becoming professional athletes. Although many student-athletes aspire to play professional sports after college, the National Football League (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA) draft fewer than 2% of student-athletes of all races each year.[2]

According to a recent study of the 76 largest programs in collegiate athletics in the 6 conferences whose member institutions customarily win football, basketball championships, and play in multimillion-dollar bowl games, just 50.2% of all black athletes in revenue producing sports graduate within six years. Racial inequities in Division 1 universities across America are evidenced by the schools’ acceptance rates, let alone their graduation rates. What is shocking, however, is that these trends are so widespread, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and athletics conference commissioners have done little to nothing in response to them. Even more egregious is the response–or lack thereof–from the American public, including former black student-athletes, college sports enthusiasts, and journalists, who have more than accepted this to be the norm.

The NCAA made approximately $912.8 million last year, with 83% of that coming from Division 1 college basketball tournaments. In light of these tremendous earnings, however, NCAA has an amateurism policy that does not allow students to be compensated for their efforts on or off the court while in college. Instead they go by the “pay-for-play” motto, which loosely stands for the idea that a full ride scholarship or partial scholarship for the athlete’s education is payment enough.

Even in light of major concerns with that application, I’m inclined to agree with the overall fairness of that contractual transaction in theory. A college degree is something so many bright young Americans struggle to afford, let alone attain. But where is the equal exchange for the black-student athletes that do not graduate from these Division 1 institutions who make millions a year off of their jersey sales, television revenue, ticket prices, likeness promotions and contributions to the win column?

This national issue becomes a national racial issue for two reasons. First, because black-male student athletes make up more than half of the sports teams at these schools, it is fair to assume that they are the majority affected by its decision-making. Second, while the entire student-athlete body is potentially comprised of victims of capitalism at its finest, white-male student athletes are twice as likely to graduate within four years. Therefore, white-student athletes are arguably receiving just compensation, in the form of a degree for their work on the field and court. The African-American community, or American community for that matter, is not looking for and does not expect the NCAA and Department of Education leaders to create a simple solution to this problem. There isn’t one. The assumption of responsibility by the NCAA and Division 1 institutions for these more than marginal racial gaps in the opportunity of higher education for black-male student athletes is all that is being called for.

[1] Comeaux, E., & Harrison C. K., Faculty and Male Student Athletes: Racial Differences in the Environmental Predictors of Academic Achievement, Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(2), 199-214 (2007).

[2] Id.


Pay Me What I Deserve: Restitution for Victims of Sex Trafficking

April 14, 2015

By: Jessica Petitt

Photo credits: http://www.jlcd.org/advocacy

Photo courtesy of http://www.jlcd.org/advocacy.

Trapped. Trapped in a life of misery; often beaten, starved, and forced to work as prostitutes or take grueling jobs as migrant, domestic, restaurant, or factory workers with little or no pay. This is the true definition of human trafficking according to the FBI’s annual report. This is what is now considered the epitome of modern day slavery and what many individuals, predominantly women, are facing within the realms of North Carolina, the United States, and all around the world.

The State of North Carolina is known for many things, sex trafficking typically not being one of them. However, North Carolina is ranked the eighth highest state in the country where sex trafficking occurs. Charlotte, in particular, is a major international transportation hub for traffickers due to the very close proximity to major highways such as I-85 and I-77, which lead to Miami, Atlanta and D.C. Traffickers typically target the area because victims can be picked up and taken quickly, making it very hard to find and prosecute the people involved in taking these individuals. [1] Moreover, Charlotte has numerous sporting and entertainment events throughout the year, a large agricultural economy, and proximity to major airports not just in Charlotte, but also in Raleigh and Durham.When these major events take place women are typically brought into town by the carload and sold to interested buyers in town.

Many women will never overcome being a victim of sex trafficking, but thankfully some do. This global issue has gained widespread support from many activists and churches attempting to educate the general population and raise funds for these individuals who have been affected by trafficking. The legislature has taken these steps even further by implementing laws and regulations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, to compensate survivors of human trafficking and allowing them to file suit against a defendant requesting monetary restitution. Federal courts must now consider an order of restitution for the benefit of victims. [2] For most of these survivors, a restitution award will be their best and only opportunity to obtain the compensation necessary to assist them in rebuilding their lives.

What is Restitution & How is it Calculated?

Restitution in general is defined as: returning to the proper owner property or the monetary value of loss. [3] Sometimes restitution is made part of a judgment in negligent or contract cases. In criminal cases, one of the penalties imposed is requiring return of stolen goods to the victim or payment to the victim for harm caused. Restitution essentially means restorationin the judicial system. A victim is restored when she is placed in a position she would have been but for the defendant’s unjust enrichment upon services provided.

The Victim’s of Trafficking & Violence Protection Act of 2000 (“TVPA”),which has been adopted within the State of North Carolina, focuses on how to calculate the victim’s economic losses. When it comes to lost income, “the term ‘full amount of the victim’s losses’ . . . shall . . . include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s services or labor or the value of the victim’s labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act.” Where the value of the victim’s labor to the defendant cannot be easily determined, typically as in the case of forced prostitution, restitution may be awarded in the amount of the defendant’s ill-gotten gains. Other courts have applied an alternative formula for compensating victims based upon the theory of unjust enrichment. This relief can be particularly favorable in sex trafficking cases where the fundamental nature of the work is illegal and victims are unable to benefit from a prevailing wage standard.

Problems with Implementation

 Despite mandatory restitution laws, courts rarely award trafficking victims lost wages. Moreover, awards that involve sex are the least likely to receive monetary awards, even when the victims are children. Many defense lawyers often argue victims of sex trafficking do not deserve restitution, because the work they performed is illegal. The law requires a human trafficking restitution award to include whichever is greater: the value of the victim’s work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or the value to the defendant of the services the victim was forced (or induced, in the case of children) to provide. The value to a defendant of commercial sexual services tends to greatly exceed minimum wage. One would expect restitution amounts in sex trafficking cases to be vastly greater than those awarded in forced labor cases; however, this is rarely the case. The TVPA’s mandatory restitution provision is frequently overlooked, leaving trafficking victims empty-handed and deprived of resources that would enable them to start their lives over again.

The Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center, in collaboration with WilmerHale, conducted an in-depth examination of all federal criminal human trafficking cases brought between 2009 and 2012. A total of 306 federal indictments for human trafficking were identified between 2009 and 2012. The data showed that restitution was awarded in just 36 percent of cases. [4] This research further shows the disturbing result that restitution is rarely awarded in general. And the small sum that has been awarded, which is less than $3 million per year on average for each of the four years, should convey how underserved the rights of trafficked victims are being held. Granted, $3 million sounds like a hefty price tag, but in reality it is miniscule compared to the amount traffickers are making on these women. Sex trafficking is the fastest growing business of organized crime with an estimated revenue of $32 billion annually, or $87 million a day. [5] So let’s do the math: if a trafficker had four women working seven days a week, meeting quotas of $500 per night they would make $632,000 in one year.

To bring this issue closer to home, according to a recent Newsweek Article, a woman reported to be named Janet, was forced into prostitution in Mexico before she was brought to the United States. Once arriving in United States, Janet was brought to a farm labor camp located just outside the city limits of Charlotte, NC. Janet was transported every day from her brothel in Charlotte, to farm labor camps where she was forced to sleep with men from 7 P.M. at night until 3 in the morning. She was forced to sleep with sometimes as many as fifty men per day. Janet’s pimp was eventually arrested and sentenced to 15 years behind bars, plus supervised release. He must register as a sex offender and was ordered to pay Janet $1.2 million in restitution, which will come from the money he made as a pimp and whatever he makes in prison job programs.

Photo courtesy of Newsweek.

Photo courtesy of Newsweek.

Since when did Mandatory become Discretionary?

While Janet may have been successful in receiving an award against her trafficker, most trafficked individuals are not so lucky. It has been more than a decade since this legislation was passed, but courts still mismanage TVPA’s restitution provision, specifically prosecutors. A key determinant of whether and how much the defendants are ordered to pay restitution to any human trafficking victims depends on how hard the prosecutors fight for monetary compensation—even if it is even fought for at all. According to the Wilmerhale study, prosecutors failed to request any compensation in nearly half of the trafficking indictments that were brought in the federal criminal courts over a four-year span. The average court order in sex trafficking cases only awarded victims about $46,000, which is drastically lower than the $214,000 obtained in forced labor cases.

Despite the fact that restitution is mandatory under the statute, the question of whether it should be awarded–both on the facts of a particular case and as a policy matter–is nonetheless frequently debated in restitution hearings. While many prosecutors successfully advocate for restitution, others are not clear on the law when called upon to defend restitution, particularly in sex trafficking cases. As stated above, nearly half do not request restitution at all.

In sex trafficking cases, disconnect between the illegality of the underlying activity and the legal requirements that victims receive compensation provides ample opportunity for defense attorneys to object to restitution. Some defense attorneys consistently dispute that sex trafficking victims are not deserving of restitution. Arguments have even been made that compensation encourages women to be prostitutes.

Is this really the changed mindset and reform we hoped to see with trafficked individuals seeking to change their lives and overcome horrific crimes committed against them when legislators passed this legislation? Do we really think this is the best we can do to end trafficking and stop this massive $32 billion dollar annual industry that is stealing the lives of people we care about? There are numerous local support groups who are working tirelessly to bring awareness to the city of Charlotte, the Polaris Hotline being is one of them. This nonprofit organization is available for questions and tips and can even activate task forces in crises. The United Family Services is another Charlotte nonprofit organization that provides services to individuals and families who are victims of trafficking. The United Family Services provides a shelter in Charlotte, as well as counseling and protective services. The more people know about trafficking, the better. If you, or someone you know, has become a victim to trafficking, please contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline: (888)-3737-888.

[1] http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/special-reports/9-investigates-human-trafficking-happening-charlot/nN2X4/#__federated=1

[2]http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/courts_rarely_awarded_sex_trafficking_victims_compensation_study_finds/

[3] http://www.restorativejustice.org/university-classroom/01introduction/tutorial-introduction-to-restorative-justice/outcomes/restitution

[4]http://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/Human-Trafficking-When-Mandatory-Does-Not-Mean-Mandatory-2014.pdf

[5] https://www.charitysub.org/sex-trafficking-in-the-us


The Lost Ones

April 9, 2015

By: Suzette L. Steptoe

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, together women ought to be able to turn it right side up again.”

– Sojourner Truth

During the latter part of the 19th and into the early 20th centuries, the attitude of most of the Suffragettes (women who advocated suffrage for women and voting rights) was that minority women should not be included in the movement.[1] After the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, prominent Suffragettes such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton,

“Demanded — in the true liberal tradition — access to the mainstream of American society in terms of professions, education, law, politics, and property. [She] fought to end the barriers that denied American citizens their rights purely on the basis of sex. [However, she wrote fiery letters and gave speeches denouncing the passage of any law that allowed Black men to vote before] women such as herself; the white, middle-class, culturally if not religiously protestant, propertied and well-educated.”[2]

This is important to note because it not only speaks to the racial divide but also the divide within the Suffrage movement.

The year 1920 changed the face of the American electorate forever. After nearly a century of protesting and legal battles, Tennessee ratified the 19th amendment. Tennessee’s ratification allowed the amendment to pass its final hurdle of obtaining the agreement of three-fourths of the states and resulted in the biggest achievement for American women at that time the right to vote. Sadly, it did very little in advancing women towards equality in other areas.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education that said the “separate but equal” theory was contrary to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and was therefore unconstitutional.[3] The impact of this decision was felt across the country and it became the driving force behind the movement now known as the Civil Rights Movement. This movement prompted citizens to protest and demand bans on all forms of discrimination including voting, equal access, and workplace equality.

Women protesting during the Feminist Movement in 1920. Photo courtesy of the Alice Paul Institute.

Suffragettes protesting in 1920. Photo courtesy of the Alice Paul Institute.

The feminist movement allowed more women to appear in the workforce, however, the movement did very little in the way of ensuring these women would earn the salaries their male counterparts were earning for the same work performed. Although there was virtually no way to explain this beyond speculation, some economists point to the hundreds of studies that have consistently found that a large portion of the pay differences could be attributed to gender discrimination. And historically, these differences were easily attributed to the custom of men supporting the family financially by working outside of the home while women worked within the home providing domestic support. It was assumed that, because women worked within the home, they did not have the opportunity to acquire the experience or education that men possessed. Economists felt that this assumption could be dispelled once women acquired the same levels of education and experience as men.

In 1961, President John Kennedy established the President’s Commission on the Status of Women (“Commission”). The primary goal of the Commission was to review employment policies in place for women and address the labor laws regarding working hours and wages and the lack of education for working women. The Commission’s findings did not itself bring about immediate changes but it was very influential in spawning many state commissions of the status of women, which promoted more equal opportunities for women. Prior to the Commission’s termination in 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act which made it illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same duties performed. Additionally, the ruling in Supreme Court case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. brought the wage gap issue – the statistical 80 cents on each dollar that women were paid compared to men – into focus and although the Supreme Court ruled against Lilly Ledbetter (based on its interpretation of the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit), Congress later passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which gave women more leeway to fight discriminatory pay.[4]

Because of these Acts, all women have somewhat fared better in terms of access to a variety of occupations, career advancement and income. Unfortunately, the wage difference continued as, in addition to experience, men were more likely to earn bachelors, masters and professional degrees. However, by the 1970’s, women began to make rapid gains that continue to increase and according to the National Center for Education Statistics, women earned twice as many college degrees than their male counterparts with females earning more than 52% of all degrees between 1999-2000. However, minority women earned, on average, 65% of associate’s degrees, approximately 64% of bachelor’s degrees and 60% of all doctorate degrees.

The Women’s Movement came on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, and due to the efforts of both, legislation was passed giving women access to a large variety of occupations. White women seized this opportunity and gained entry into the workforce in unprecedented numbers and continue today to reap the fruits of the Movement’s labor while minority women, who fought the same battles, have not been so well rewarded. Between 1979 and 2013, inflation-adjusted earnings (also called constant-dollar earnings) rose by 31% for White women, compared with an increase of 20% for Black women and 15% for Hispanic women. As late as the fourth quarter of 2014, the median weekly earnings for White women was $738 with minority women averaging $573. Thus, even though minority women hold a higher percentage of earned degrees and are as experienced as their white female counterparts, in addition to earning a fraction of what men earn, minority women consistently earn approximately 31% lower salaries than White females in the same positions. These income disparities highly suggest that the Movements did not create a level playing field and it did little to eliminate workplace racism and sexism.

It is true that discriminatory practices inherent in workplace policies receive some attention from policy makers, but the focus is typically women in general or White women. Somehow, minority women, a protected class for which the Civil Rights and Women’s Movements should have safeguarded, were once again cast aside. Regardless of their educational background and skills, minority women are systematically relegated to the lower echelon of the salary hierarchy and will remain there until this issue is addressed in its proper context. The Civil Rights Movement allows minority women to stand at the door of equality but nobody thought to give them the key that actually unlocks the door.

[1] Lori D. Ginzberg, Elizabeth Cady Stanton: An American Life, (Hill and Wang 2009).

[2] Id.

[3] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[4] Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007).


CSL Small Practice Center Lawyers “Make the Cut”

April 8, 2015

Recently, some of our neighbors “made the cut” in the ABA’s recent video In Their Own Words: A Video Featuring Incubator Lawyers. CSL-grads-turned-solo-practitioners at the Small Practice Center were featured in the video, which provides insight into the uniqueness and experience of an incubator. The CSL incubator, which shares a space with us at 1300 South Boulevard, is the only incubator in the state, and one of only 35 in the country. Three CSL practitioners were spotlighted, congrats to Richard, Sonny, and Issa!

The video can also be viewed by clicking here.


Charlotte Fails to Protect People by Rejecting Non-Discrimination Policies

April 7, 2015

By: Carla Vestal

On March 2, 2015, Charlotte City Council (“the Council”) voted on an ordinance that would allow all people to be treated equally and fairly under the law. Unfortunately, the Council failed to adopt these much needed policies that would prohibit private businesses and certain public positions, such as for-hire transportation and city contractors, from freely discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression.

The final vote came down to 1 single vote, as it ended up 6-5. This single vote came after hours of debate from both sides of the aisle, and at that point the controversial bathroom portion of the ordinance was already stricken. The bathroom portion of the ordinance would have allowed transgender individuals to use the bathroom of the gender in which they identify themselves. This was the most controversial piece of the policy, and even though it was removed it seems that certain members of the Council still used it to vote against what was being presented. “All over the world, there are restrooms for men and restrooms for women,” said Ed Driggs, a Republican Council member. “It does not place an unreasonable burden on them and it does not stigmatize them.”   Another Republican Council member, Kenny Smith, asserted that the bill was not a measure to stop discrimination, but to “impose the progressive left’s new morality on our citizens.”

Photo courtesy of The Charlotte Observer.

Opponents to the policy at the Council hearing. Photo courtesy of The Charlotte Observer.

When discrimination is discussed in the government, it should not become an issue of alleged morality. Discrimination in and of itself is immoral. Discrimination is prohibited by the United States Constitution by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states through the Incorporation Doctrine of the Fifth Amendment. It is simple–and yet disturbingly difficult–for people who oppose equality under the veil of a religious responsibility to do so.

Jason Arter, a current Clinic student, attended the meeting and shares his first-hand account of the spectacle at the Government Center that day. Mr. Arter informs us that, “[The scene] was about religion, and the damnation that is going to occur. . . not just for those in favor of the ordinance, but also for those that have selected to be comfortable with who they are, in whatever gender they feel most comfortable expressing themselves.” Mr. Arter also reveals that the Council members opposing the ordinance insisted on continuing to make links between bathroom usage, homosexuality, and pedophilia even after the bathroom portion was stricken from the vote. When asked about how he felt after the vote, Mr. Arter has a very strong opinion to share, “Community members should be outraged, not just that the ordinance failed, not that those who are elected failed to fairly represent all members of a community, but that religion has yet again dictated the course of the future for all members of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg community instead of the government.”

The question remains: “Why would Charlotte not want to join to rest of the country in passing these protections?”

Out of the country’s twenty largest cities by population, Charlotte is one of three that does not have in place non-discrimination policies. The other cities that join Charlotte are Memphis, TN and Jacksonville, FL. Throughout the country seventeen states and over 200 municipalities have non-discrimination policies in place to protect people who identify as LGBTQ. While visiting Charlotte, Vice President Joe Biden addressed the Human Rights Campaign Spring Equality Convention on March 7, 2015. During his speech he urged that the entire country needs to pass non-discrimination policies that protect the LGBQT community and stressed that those policies need to be passed now.  Biden also affirmed his support for a “federal non-discrimination . . . bill that is expected to include protections in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, education, jury service and federal funding.” The bill is expected to be introduced to Congress this spring.

If you feel that Charlotte should join the rest of the country in protecting all people from discrimination, continue to reach out my emailing and calling your city leaders:

Mayor Dan Clodfelter
704-336-2241
mayor@charlottenc.gov

Mayor Pro Tem Michael D. Barnes
704-509-6141
barnesforcharlotte@gmail.com

Claire Green Fallon
704-336-6105
cfallon@charlottenc.gov

David Howard
704-336-4099
info@davidhowardclt.com

Vi Lyles
704-336-3431
vlyles@charlottenc.gov

Patsy B. Kinsey
704-336-3432
pkinsey@charlottenc.gov

Al Austin
704-336-3185
aaustin@charlottenc.gov

LaWana Mayfield
704-336-3435
lmayfield@charlottenc.gov

Gregory A. Phipps
704-336-3436
gaphipps@charlottenc.gov

John N. Autry
704-336-2777
jautry@charlottenc.gov

Kenny Smith
704-574-7241
krsmith@charlottenc.gov

Edmund H. Driggs
704-432-7077
ed@eddriggs.com

When fair-minded people join together anything is possible!


Congrats to Graduating Clinic Student, Jessica Petitt!

April 2, 2015

One of our very own, Jessica Petitt, is graduating in May and is heading back to her home state to work in civil litigation. She will be working at Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC. The firm has four branches, with the main firm based in Charleston, West Virginia. Jessica will be at the Beckley, West Virginia office as an associate attorney. Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe is a civil litigation firm, focusing primarily on insurance defense, but also defends businesses and corporations, workers compensation disputes, and toxic tort cases.


A Review of CSL Law Review’s Symposium

March 31, 2015

By: Edith Hinson

On Friday, February 13, 2015, Charlotte School of Law’s Law Review hosted their annual spring symposium. This year, the event focused on new privacy concerns of the 21st Century. Aptly titled, “For Your Eyes Only: Where Privacy Ends and the Law Begins,” the event served to edify attorneys and students alike about the evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence as it relates to modern technological advances.

 

The event was hosted at the UNC-Charlotte Uptown Campus, and featured two panels, as well as a key-note speaker. The morning panel focused on Constitutional Theory and the right to privacy in the 21st Century, and featured professors from Charlotte School of Law, as well as Elon Law School. The panelists discussed different theories of Constitutional interpretation, and why reliance on certain theories produces different results. Importantly, the panelists discussed the impossibility of predicting how the Framers of the Constitution would have dealt with modern-day privacy issues.

 

While the morning panel took a more theoretical approach to 21st Century privacy concerns, the afternoon panel debated the issue in practical terms. The hot topic was Riley v. State, which was handed down in 2014, and announced that officers may NOT search an arrestee’s cell phone merely by virtue of their arrest. Riley v. State134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014). Before Riley was decided, the circuits were split on whether the search of a cell phone fell into the scope of a search incident to lawful arrest. North Carolina was one of those states that previously operated on the idea that an officer could search an arrestee’s cell phone simply by virtue of arrest. The advent of the new rule means that individuals convicted of crimes pursuant to cell phone searches may have constitutional grounds to challenge their convictions. As well as that, from here on out, police officers will have to obtain search warrants in order to peruse the content of an individual’s cell phone.

 

Between the two panels, key note speaker Karel Reynolds took a different approach to privacy concerns. Rather than focusing on Constitutional theories, or even practical applications, Reynolds spoke on the privacy concerns as related to the Holocaust. Reynolds—who serves as director of the Holocaust Museum in Spindale, N.C.—stressed the notion that the less privacy the individual asserts, the more likely it is that the government will exercise tyranny and take away all of the rights of the individual. Reynolds made it clear that her approach to privacy issues is to exercise your rights!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 153 other followers

%d bloggers like this: