Articles

View by Volume

Filter

  • Employee Free Choice or Employee Forged Choice? Race in the Mirror of Exclusionary Hierarchy

    The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is arguably the most transformative piece of labor legislation to come before Congress since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). One of the newest attempts to transform labor relations is the EFCA. The first to disappear under the EFCA would be a system of union democracy whereby unions could only obtain the rights of exclusive representation for firms if they could prevail in a secret-ballot election. Second, the EFCA would eliminate tile necessity of a freely negotiated collective bargaining agreement between management and labor and instead substitute compulsory arbitration. While some labor union advocates contend that law ought to be conceived of as a vehicle to democratize tile workplace by redistributing power in labor markets in favor of workers, while concurrently demolishing hierarchical command structures that entrench gender, race and class lines, this proposal would likely expand labor hierarchy, labor market cartelization and diminish the employment prospects of racial minorities. As such, the EFCA is marked by contradiction. This Article deploys Critical Race Reformist theory, economics and apartheid-era South African labor history in order to shot' that rather than embracing freedom for workers, eliminating, poverty, and expanding opportunities for all, this proposal would likely invert such goals and instead operate consistently with the record of exclusion and subordination tied to American Progressivism and the labor movement.

  • Rawls and Reparations

    In the past two years, four related events have sharpened debates on race in the U.S.: President Obama's election, the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, that Court's ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, and the arrest of Obama's friend, Harvard professor Henry Gates. The President has spoken of a "teaching moment" arising from these events. Moreover, his writings, speeches and lawmaking efforts illustrate the contractual nature of Obama's thinking. The President (and all concerned citizens) should thus find useful an analysis of racial policy and justice in light of the work of John Rauls. Rawls may be the most influential political theorist of our time. Applying his theory to questions of race policy, this Article defends the following counterintuitive thesis: while strong forms of affirmative action cannot be derived from Rawls's theory, strong forms of legislative reparations can be so derived. This Article concludes with a concrete plan for raising the resources such reparations would require.

  • Sliding Towards Educational Outcomes: A New Remedy for High-Stakes Education Lawsuits in a Post-NCLB World

    Sheff v. O'Neill ushered in a new wave of education reform litigation that may challenge the constitutionality of de facto segregation under state education clauses, but its remedy has been inadequate. This Note proposes a new desegregation remedy-the sliding scale remedy-to address socioeconomic isolation in this unique constitutional context. The remedy employs varying degrees of equity power depending on students' academic outcomes. It balances concerns over local control and separation of powers with the court's need to effectuate right, establishes a clear remedial principle, and ensures that states and school districts focus on students as they implement remedies.

  • Permitting Under the Clean Air Act: How Current Standards Impose Obstacles to Achieving Environmental Justice

    Most studies about the environmental justice movement focus on the disproportionate share of environmental burdens minority and low-income populations bear, the negative effects of an unequal distribution of undesirable land uses, and how industry contributes to the adverse impacts suffered by the communities. Unfortunately, trying to prove that an injury was caused by actions of a nearby facility is difficult, and this approach has yielded few legal victories for environmental justice communities. While it is important to remain focused on how environmental justice communities are disproportionately impacted by undesirable land uses, the analysis must shift if the law is to provide any remedy for these communities. Rather than starting at the bottom and focusing on the negative effects that occur under the current system, this Note argues that a different approach should be adopted. Under this new approach the analysis begins by examining the cause of the problems-the statutes and regulations established by Congress and implemented by federal and state agencies. In particular, the Note focuses on how the current framework of technology-based permitting provides facilities with the legal ability to continue emitting dangerous levels of pollution that disproportionately harm environmental justice communities. The Note uses a case study from Michigan to illustrate the problems with the current permitting system. It concludes with suggested changes that could be implemented by states, or at the federal level, to provide adequate protections for environmental justice communities so that the environmental justice movement has a better chance of achieving its goals.

  • Poll Workers, Election Administration, and the Problem of Implicit Bias

    Racial bias in election administration-more specifically, in the interaction between poll workers and voters at a polling place on election day-may be implicit, or unconscious. Indeed, the operation of a polling place may present an "optimal" setting for unconscious racial bias. Poll workers sometimes have legal discretion to decide whether or not a prospective voter gets to cast a ballot, and they operate in an environment where they may have to make quick decisions, based on little information, with few concrete incentives for accuracy, and with little opportunity to learn from their errors. Even where the letter of the law does not explicitly allow for a poll worker to exercise discretion, there is a strong possibility that unconscious bias could play a role in poll worker decision-making. Whether a poll workers' discretion is de jure or de facto, the result may be race-based discrimination between prospective voters. This Article addresses how unconscious bias may play a role in the interaction between poll workers and prospective voters and discusses some ways in which the potential for unconscious bias to operate in America's polling places may be mitigated.

  • The Abolition of the Death Penalty in New Jersey and Its Impact on Our Nation’s “Evolving Standards of Decency”

    In 2007, New Jersey became the first state in over forty years to abolish the death penalty legislatively. Twenty-five years earlier, in 1982, New Jersey had followed a state-level trend by reinstating its death penalty. However, during the twenty-five years between reinstatement and abolition, New Jersey did not conduct a single execution. Instead, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed numerous death penalty cases and consistently narrowed the class of cases eligible for the death penalty. This Note posits that the supreme court's narrowing of eligible cases was one of the factors that prevented executions from taking place in New Jersey. The Note further hypothesizes that this lack of executions created the policy space for legislative abolition. The Note then explores the effect that New Jersey's abolition might have on capital punishment in other states, as well as the potential influence of state-level abolition on the United States Supreme Court's evaluation of the constitutionality of the death penalty.

  • Eatin’ Good? Not in This Neighborhood: A Legal Analysis of Disparities in Food Availability and Quality at Chain Supermarkets in Poverty-Stricken Areas

    Many Americans-especially the poor-face severe hurdles in their attempts to secure the most basic of human needs-food. One reason for this struggle is the tendency of chain supermarkets to provide a limited selection of goods and a lower quality of goods to patrons in less affluent neighborhoods. Healthier items such as soy milks, fresh fish, and lean meats are not present in these stores, and the produce that is present is typically well past the peak of freshness. Yet, if the same patron were to go to another supermarket owned by the same chain--but located in a wealthier neighborhood-she would find a wide selection of healthy foods and fresh produce. What are the poor people who live in the inner cities--who are disproportionately African American and Latino-to do? How can they obtain healthy food against these odds? This Article argues that the actions of the supermarkets are unconscionable, and therefore proposes a federal law that will prevent chain grocery stores from engaging in such practices. The Article first examines the scope of the problem created by these supermarket practices. The Article then explains why current laws are inadequate to address this issue. Finally, the Article proposes that Congress use its authority under the Commerce Clause to enact legislation that would require supermarket chains to carry the same selection and quality of goods at all stores in the same chain.

  • The Unconstitutionality, Ineffectiveness, and Alternatives of Gang Injunctions

    Gang violence across America puts in jeopardy the peace and tranquility of neighborhoods. Cities are challenged to keep their communities safe from gang violence. One common way in which cities attempt to combat violent gang activity is by using gang injunctions. Gang injunctions are court orders that prohibit gang members from conducting already-illegal activities such as vandalism, loitering, and use or possession of illegal drugs or weapons within a defined area. These injunctions, however, also prohibit otherwise legal activity such as associating with others within the restricted area of the injunction, using words or hand gestures, and wearing certain clothing. The increased use of gang injunctions to combat violent gang activity is a controversial tactic. The use of gang injunctions raises many constitutional concerns, including violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments. Even if interpreted as constitutional, gang injunctions have been proven ineffective in preventing and deterring gang members from engaging in violent gang activity. Critics believe that gang injunctions create gang cohesiveness, animosity towards the police, and relocate the violent crime created by gang members by pushing gang members into adjacent neighborhoods just outside the injunction's target area. Finally, there are several proven-effective alternatives to gang injunctions. This Note explores the unconstitutionality of gang injunctions, reveals the ineffectiveness of gang injunctions, and investigates more effective and efficient alternatives.

  • Performing Discretion or Performing Discrimination: Race, Ritual, and Peremptory Challenges in Capital Jury Selection

    Research shows the mere presence of Blacks on capital juries-- on the rare occasions they are seated--can mean the difference between life and death. Peremptory challenges are the primary method to remove these pivotal participants. Batson v. Kentucky developed hearings as an immediate remedy for the unconstitutional removal of jurors through racially motivated peremptory challenges. These proceedings have become rituals that sanction continued bias in the jury selection process and ultimately affect the outcome of capital trials. This Article deconstructs the role of the Batson ritual in legitimating the removal of African American jurors. These perfunctory hearings fail to meaningfully interrogate the reasons prosecutors offer as race neutral motivations for peremptorily striking Black jurors.

  • Teaching Whren to White Kids

    This Article addresses issues at the intersection of United States v. Whren and Grutter v. Bollinger at a time when the reality of racial profiling was recently illustrated by the high-profile arrest of a prominent Harvard professor. Given the highly racialized nature of criminal procedure, there is a surprising dearth of writing about the unique problems of teaching issues such as racial profiling in racially homogeneous classrooms. Because African American and other minority students often experience the criminal justice system in radically different ways than do Whites, the lack of minority voices poses a significant barrier to effectively teaching criminal procedure. This Article critiques current law school pedagogical approaches and suggests that we must both re-think academic methods for teaching criminal procedure within the classroom and expose 'post-racial" mythologizing outside the classroom.