Attend Charlotte City Council Meeting on March 2nd to Support the LGBTQ Community by Standing-Up against Discrimination

February 26, 2015

CALL TO ACTION:

When: March 2, 2015 at 4 p.m.

Where: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center, 600 East Fourth Street

What to Do: Wear blue to show your support for these critical non-discrimination protections

Charlotte has once again found itself getting national news coverage for leading the way in the fight for equality in the LGTBQ community. On March 2, 2015, the City Council will vote on a proposed ordinance that would make it punishable for the city’s taxicabs, limousine providers and other “For Hire” means of transportation to discriminate against the LGTBQ community. The ordinance will also affect contractors holding city jobs by prohibiting discrimination against sub-contractors who identify as part of LBGTQ community. Other proposed parts of the ordinance include not allowing businesses to refuse service to anyone based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or sexual expression.[1]

Who could possibly be against people being treated equally?

Franklin Graham, son of the famed southern preacher Billy Graham, is leading the opposition to Charlotte’s proposed non-discrimination policy. Locally, Graham has partnered with the Benham Brothers, who are the sons of anti-gay street preacher Flip Benham. The Benham Brothers found themselves under the spotlight last year when HGTV cancelled their upcoming do-it-yourself show because of their views on homosexuality. All three politically right wing and religiously conservative men have joined forces with NC Values Coalition, the same group that failed in their efforts to ban gay marriage in North Carolina.

This force of oppression has been organizing their fan bases, church groups, and anyone who listens to write letters to the members of Charlotte City Council and the Editor of the Charlotte Observer. The group is also organizing followers to attend the City Council Meeting on March 2nd to voice their opposition to people being treating fairly under the law.

And That is Where You Come In!

Your help is needed to stand up against opposition to the policy! The policy was recently presented at the annual Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”) Gala, which former Clinic member Tierra Ragland had the privilege to attend on February 21st. For those that are unfamiliar with the HRC, it is the nation’s leading authority on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.

Tierra Ragland at the HRC Gala.

Tierra Ragland at the HRC Gala.

Ragland reported that “several elected Charlotte officials attended the gala.” She also voiced concern that although these officials were in attendance, she was very interested in seeing if their voting will reflect expanding protections to include all people. At the gala, the HRC handed out cards with the Call to Action with the following statement:

“On March 2nd, the Charlotte City Council will decide whether to update the city’s non-discrimination laws to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents and visitors from arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations, commercial contracting, and passenger vehicles for hire. No one should be refused service in a restaurant or taxi just because of who they are.”

If you believe that people deserve to be treated fairly and equally at all times under the law and that Charlotte should be held responsible for protecting all people from discrimination, bullying and unfair treatment of any kind, then please heed the Call of Action above and stand-up to hate. If you are unable to attend on March 2nd, you can still stop discrimination in its tracks by sending an email or calling Charlotte leaders letting them know you support non-discrimination policies:

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!

[1] See http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/CityClerk/Documents/Agendas/2015/02.09.15.pdf#search=Transgender%20ordinance to review City Attorney Robert Hageman’s briefing paper and proposed draft of the policy and to access the Human Right’s Coalition’s “Frequently Asked Questions.” (41-56).


No Class for Low Class

February 3, 2015

By: Johnny Hollis

In reflecting on the transition from an HBCU (Historically Black College and University) to law school, I realized that highlighting disparities based on race alone totally missed the point of what the real issue is in our country.[1]  That issue is the socioeconomic challenge that widens the gap between those who can escape poverty through educational means.   There are many American citizens forced to live under the oppression of poverty because of socioeconomic challenges that rob them of the chance of obtaining an education.

1

How Does Socioeconomic Status Affect Education?

Socioeconomic status is the measure of influence that the social environment has on individuals, families, communities, and schools.[2]  Most of the time it is simply referred to as class, and is a strong indicator of performance in academic settings.  Socioeconomic status is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation, and is conceptualized as the social standing or class of an individual or group.  When viewed through a social class lens, privilege, power, and control are emphasized.[3]

A student who comes from a higher socioeconomic status has the greatest opportunity to succeed in academic studies.  Their parents are in a position to encourage creativity and extended studies.  The student has less financial worries and is able to focus solely on the academic challenges and tools presented.  The student is confident, poised, and excels without much external interference.[4]

As with other areas of life, a person who grew up in a lower class may have to overcome challenges such as maintaining health, a living area, transportation, and adequate food.  The simplest tasks become monumental because the power of money cannot be used to cross the hurdle.  For example, a young man who came from a poor family cannot call home and ask his parents to buy his books.  So either he must use the books in the library (which are in short supply and high demand), or he must work more in order to purchase his books, both of which may detract from his study time.  Additionally, if he is placed in a position where there is no on-campus housing, then he likely has worry about paying rent and utilities on top of tuition and other academic expenses.  While his wealthy colleague has a parent who may generously pay for living expenses, the poor student has to work in order to live.

2

When it comes to the classroom, instructors often do not understand the reason that a student may have to work, or why a student is sleepy or not performing well.  The instructor can only perceive that the student is on edge and is performing poorly in the class.  An oft-proclaimed mantra is: a student is responsible for his own future.  Failure to succeed can be perceived as laziness or incompetence.  It is difficult to relate to the poor student without an understanding of the systemic imperatives that deflect, detract, and deter poor students from escaping the cycle of poverty.

Paul Gorski, an associate professor in New Century College and a Research Fellow in the Center for the Advancement of Well-Being, states that:

If we convince ourselves that poverty results not from gross inequities (in which we might be complicit) but from poor people’s own deficiencies, we are much less likely to support authentic antipoverty policy and programs. Further, if we believe, however wrongly, that poor people don’t value education, then we dodge any responsibility to redress the gross education inequities with which they contend. In our determination to “fix” the mythical culture of poor students, we ignore the ways in which our society cheats them out of opportunities that their wealthier peers take for granted. We ignore the fact that poor people suffer disproportionately the effects of nearly every major social ill. They lack access to health care, living-wage jobs, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, and so on—conditions that limit their abilities to achieve to their full potential.[5]

How Do We Move Forward

Historically, our nation has experienced difficulty in providing the tools needed to achieve “the American dream.”  While schools are plentiful, the cost of college education continues to skyrocket.  Since 1985, the college education costs have risen over 500%.  This deters the amount of poor students who attempt to achieve a college degree.  These rising costs also leave those who do attend college with an even greater debt.  According to U.S. News, over 25% of graduate students will graduate with college debt that tops $100,000.  As our nation moves forward, we could advocate for making college education more affordable, while restructuring our public assistance programs towards promoting post-secondary education.

The Washington Post writes that Germany eliminated or significantly reduced tuition because they understood that the rise in cost “discourage[s] young people who do not have a traditional academic family background from taking up study . . . and [ensures] that young women and men can study with a high quality standard free of charge.” [6]   In France’s public institutions, undergraduate tuition is based on the income of a student’s parents.  Meanwhile, in Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world, PhD programs are completely free.

Perhaps the United States is far from reaching a point in its politics and social policies to allow for the free education programs that are provided in Germany, France, and Sweden.  However, we can challenge the current public assistance regulations and incentivize recipients who return to school and learn a trade or earn a professional degree.  If we can at least make college education and graduate studies more affordable, this will be a huge step towards abolishing the obstacles that create no class for low class.

[1] http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/

[2] http://www.education.com/reference/article/socioeconomic-status/

[3] http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx

[4] http://www.education.com/reference/article/socioeconomic-status/

[5] http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/29/7-countries-where-americans-can-study-at-universities-in-english-for-free-or-almost-free/


Public Education: A Right Entitled to All

January 19, 2015

By: Brandon Pierce

Today was the day: Kevin’s first day of school.  Ten years old, gifted, and sitting with his pencil in hand—Kevin was ready.  The teacher came before the class and gave the instructions for the first assignment:

Gawd muwrein!  I clike fund ans he book? If topher largetwen to climbegan.  What limse anders plast forh.”

One fact I forgot to mention is that Kevin didn’t speak English.  He didn’t even speak Spanish, or any other well-known language in the United States.  Kevin was from a small Guatemalan village where one of over fifty ancient Mayan languages was spoken.  But there he was, in his first American classroom, receiving his American education.

Kevin is one of the over 68,000 unaccompanied minors that have entered the United States illegally since October 2013.  In November 2014, the U.S. Department of Education issued a fact sheet that outlines the basics about the illegal, unaccompanied minors’ rights.  As detailed in the fact sheet, once these minors have been apprehended in the U.S., they are put in the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) custody.  While in HHS custody, the children are sheltered in government centers where they receive educational services.  Most children, like Kevin, are released into the United States under the custody of a family member or legal guardian (known as a ‘sponsor’).  While in the guardian’s care, these children attend classes in public schools, often times without knowledge of the English language.  But who would allow such a thing?  The United States Supreme Court would!

1

America: Home of the Educated

“Denial of an education is the analogue of denial of the right to vote: the former relegates the individual to second-class social status; the latter places him at a permanent political disadvantage.” – Justice Marshall (Plyler v. Doe)

In June 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices held in Plyler v. Doe that no state should constitutionally deny any person a free public education on account of his immigration status.  Put simply, undocumented children have the same right to a public education as U.S. citizens.

This issue arose out of restrictive Texas education laws.  With regard to undocumented children, Texas education laws mandated that the state: (1) withhold funds otherwise meant for educating children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States and (2) deny enrollment to those children in Texas public schools.

What did it mean to be “legally admitted” in the United States?  Pursuant to state policy, a person was legally admitted if he: (1) presented documentation demonstrating he was legally present in the United States, or (2) federal immigration officials confirmed such documentation was in the process of being obtained.  Ultimately, a group of students from Mexico that did not satisfy the “legally admitted” criteria filed a lawsuit to challenge the Texas education laws.  The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There, Texas’s education laws were held unconstitutional.

The Court based its rationale on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  More specifically, the Court referenced a provision referred to as the “Equal Protection Clause.”  That clause states, “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Therefore, unaccompanied children in the United States are entitled to public education.

New York State of Mind

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”                          – Emma Lazarus

Let us consider New York City (NYC): the proverbial gateway into America’s land of opportunity.  For the 2014-15 academic school year, NYC public schools have enrolled over 2,000 unaccompanied minors.  Like Kevin, many of these children have never had one English language course.  To combat this dilemma, NYC schools have implemented the English Language Learners (ELLs) program.  ELLs is a bilingual program that promotes the social and academic development of students who have recently arrived to the U.S. without proficient English skills.  Devora Kaye, NYC’s Department of Education spokeswoman, endorses such progressive actions, reaffirming the Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe.  She asserts the department’s belief that “every child has a right to a great education, and we are committed to providing children who have escaped violence with the academic foundation and access to services that they need to establish a path to long-term achievement.”

2

By contrast, not all of New York’s actions have shown a general consensus toward the notion of “education for all.”  New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) reviewed approximately 20 percent of the state’s school districts.  Within those districts, the NYCLU discovered that the majority has assembled arduous barriers for undocumented students, thus, potentially preventing their enrollment.  Consider this: seventy-three New York school districts require birth certificates for enrollment.  (Nineteen of those districts require the “original” birth certificate.)  In response, the NYCLU urged state education officials to formulate a model universal enrollment form and list of permissible evidentiary documents.  This is meant to develop uniformity within the state’s education system.

What Does This Mean for Other Children like Kevin?

Analysts are certain that more unaccompanied children are coming, but what is unclear is how they will be welcomed.  This dilemma must be met with an unwavering commitment to U.S. values and standards.  Equality and justice have long been the staple of America’s uniqueness.  If we deny those considerations to all mankind, then we have given up our uniqueness in the world.  In sports language, we have forfeited.  In war language, we have surrendered.  In scientific language, we have become neutral.  In short, we have compromised our national value.  Let us reclaim our true selves through equality and justice because education is a right entitled to all!


An Old Problem, New Face

November 6, 2014

By Johnny Hollis

One of the oldest issues in our society is homelessness.  It affects every state, county, and city in our nation.  Studies show that nationally 19 out of every 10,000 people are homeless, while in individual states that number ranges from 8-106 out of every 10,000 people.  Causes of homelessness range from loss of employment, mental and physical changes in health, loss of loved ones, and other traumatic life events.[1]  While homelessness is decreasing in our country, in general, there is a rise in one particular area: within the transgender population of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community.[2]

What does “transgender” mean?

Transgender is an umbrella term that is used to describe a wide range of identities and experiences, and the term is used to refer to persons whose gender differs from what they were born as.[3]  Transgender persons often express themselves through their clothing, change of names, or medical procedures, all which help further their desire to live their identity.

What are the causes of homelessness among the transgender population?

Among experiencing discrimination from family members, in educational environments, and in the workplace, transgender individuals also experience discrimination in homeless shelters—the very place designed to assist them in times of crisis.  To start with, they are often isolated and alienated by family members at young ages, thus leaving them with no place to go.

Next, obtaining an education becomes hard because of the ridicule, immaturity, and bullying transgender individuals face from peers as well as faculty and staff.  According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, 15% of those who identify as transgender drop out of school because of the pressures that derive from bullying.[4]

Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, as well as national origin, sex, and religion, the law fails to protect certain classes, including sexual orientation and gender identity.[5]   This leaves room for discrimination in the work place in the form of harassment by coworkers through taunting and/or isolation, as well as discrimination by employers through job application barriers, promotion denial, and by being fired.[6]

With the lack of familial support, education, and work, some transgender individuals are forced to either conform to the societal definition of gender and sexual orientation, or live in distressed conditions such as homelessness.

The Challenges of Being Transgender and Homeless

The difficulties and challenges that arise for transgender individuals are greater when they experience the effects of being homeless.  For example, even the task of finding a homeless shelter becomes quite tiresome.  Because transgender individuals identify opposite of their “born” gender, many shelters will not recognize identity over outward physical appearance.  This causes many to have to either live on the street, or participate in “survival sex” work in order to have a shelter for the night.[7]  Survival sex is defined as “involving individuals over the age of 18 who have traded sex acts (including prostitution, stripping, pornography, etc.) to meet the basic needs of survival (i.e., food, shelter, etc.) without the overt force, fraud or coercion of a trafficker, but who felt that their circumstances left little or no other option.”[8]

Homeless_-_American_Flag

What Can We Do to Advocate for Equality?

Interested advocates can begin helping this population by reaching out to local LGBTQ organizations in order to gain a better understanding of the LGBTQ community and the challenges that are faced within.  Local organizations such as Equality NC: North Carolina LGBT Organizations and the Charlotte Lesbian and Gay Fund are good places to start.

Advocates can also engage locally by contacting their local homeless shelters and demanding that they create a safe, open, and inclusive environment for all people.  An inclusive environment would include safe zones, which are areas that are designated to prevent harassment and discrimination.  The shelters should also provide adequate information and resources that help facilitate individuals’ transition from homelessness to full independence again.

Furthermore, we can petition our state to prohibit any further discrimination within our K-12 and post-secondary schools.  We can not only petition against discrimination, but also petition for education relating to transgender and the LGBTQ community in totality.  We can also continue to reach out and lobby our local, state, and federal government requesting amendments to the language of our employment protection laws to include protections for sexual orientation as well as gender identity.

The Civil Rights Clinic began contributing to the cause by reaching out to the local community, and as a result, was able to persuade the City of Charlotte to include gender discrimination in their discrimination policy, and is assisting Cabarrus County in updating their policy as well.

Conclusion

Although homelessness currently affects many transgender individuals, it does not have to continue its climb to prevalence.  Through advocacy, education, and awareness we can eliminate the factors that contribute to homelessness within the LGBTQ community.

[1] http://www.homeaid.org/homeaid-stories/69/top-causes-of-homelessness

[2] http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/lgbtq-youth

[3] Lisa Mottet & John M. Ohle, Transitioning Our Shelters: A Guide to Making Homeless Shelters Safe for Transgender People 3, 7 (2003).

[4] http://transequality.org/Issues/education.html

[5] http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

[6] http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/discrimination-against-transgender-workers

[7] Lisa Mottet & John M. Ohle, Transitioning Our Shelters: A Guide to Making Homeless Shelters Safe for Transgender People 4 (2003).

[8] http://www.covenanthouse.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Covenant-House-trafficking-study.pdf


Protecting Voting Rights Again

February 16, 2014

By Tiffney Love

In August 2013, I had the honor of attending the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington. As soon as I arrived at the March, organizers eagerly handed me a bright yellow sign with large blue text. The sign simply read, ‘Protect Voting Rights.’ The anniversary of the March came right on the heels of a 5-4 Ruling by the Supreme Court in Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), which struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

Numerous elderly March participants were eager to tell me of their involvement in the Civil Rights Movement and the great things they helped to accomplish. These testimonies, along with the recent Shelby County ruling, encouraged me to assess what the decision means for minority voters in future elections.

1963 March on Washington

1963 March on Washington

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the greatest legislative achievements of the Civil Rights Movement. For states with a history of voting discrimination, Section 4 of the act permitted changes to voting laws only after they were cleared by the Justice Department or a Federal Court in Washington.  For example, South Carolina and Texas had to obtain preclearance on voter identification laws before they could implement the laws in their elections. Many southern states required preclearance, however, the requirement was not limited to the south.

A few of the states used the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County, as a chance to instantly implement laws bringing discriminatory effects to the voting process for most minorities. For instance, in 2011 South Carolina was blocked from passing a voter identification law by the Justice Department, as the law did not include an exemption for residents who could not obtain an identification card to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Also in 2011, Texas was in the process of seeking approval for Voter Identification Laws. Within hours of the Shelby County decision being reached, the laws, as well as redistricting maps, went into effect.

Although not all are in force currently, “there are a total of thirty-four states whom have passed voter identification laws”.[1] These laws include providing some form of government issued identification such as: a valid driver’s license, military identification, a state identification card, United States passport, student identification, or a state registration card with a photo.

Although voter identification laws and redistricting may not seem to be as facially discriminatory as poll taxes, literacy tests, or contingent upon whether an individual’s grandfather was allowed to vote, these subtle and discrete methods will likely have the same impact in terms of voter disparity. For instance, many southern states have large minority populations and are free to indulge in the redrawing district lines, which in turn will dilute the minority vote. For places such as Texas this not only interferes with African American’s voting power but also the Hispanic community’s. Next, Voter Identification laws will place an undue burden on the poor and women. The poor will have to pay to obtain proper identification that complies with the law and women who are married or have name changes will have to go through great lengths to ensure their name is the same on all identification documents.

In my opinion, Justice Ginsberg’s dissent said it best: “[T]he court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed. With that belief, and the argument derived from it history repeats itself. .”[2] Therefore, minority voters are yet again susceptible to discrimination in voting. Unfortunately, the men and women who participated in the initial fight for the Voting Rights Act were at the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington fighting against the same issue: inequality.


[1] National Conference of State Legislatures. “Voter Identification Requirements.” Web. October 17, 2013 http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

[2]  Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013).

Justice Ginsberg’s dissent may be accessed here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf


%d bloggers like this: