Articles

View by Volume

Filter

  • “Suitable Targets”? Parallels and Connections Between “Hate” Crimes and “Driving While Black”

    This Essay seeks to show that there is less to some of these apparent differences than meets the eye. While hate crimes may tend to be less routine and more violent than discriminatory traffic stops, closer examination of each shows the need to complicate our understanding of both. The work of social scientists who have studied bias-motivated violence and of legal scholars who have studied racial profiling- prominent among them my fellow panelist, Professor David A. Harris- reveals striking similarities and connections between the two practices. In particular, both hate crimes and racial profiling tend to be condemned only at the extremes, in situations where they appear to be irrational and excessive, but overlooked in cases where they seem logical or are expected. The tendency to see only the most extreme cases as problematic, however, fails to recognize that neither practice is as marginal as it might seem. Both forms of discrimination are strongly influenced by a social context that has designated certain social groups as the accepted or "suitable" targets for ill treatment. They both reflect especially strongly the myth that certain groups are prone to criminality or deviance. In turn, the perpetration of both practices also reinforces both the suitable target designation and myth of criminal propensity by influencing the perceptions and behavior of both members and nonmembers of vulnerable groups.

  • Identity Crisis: “Intersectionality,” “Multidimensionality,” and the Development of an Adequate Theory of Subordination

    This Article arises out of the intersectionality and post-intersectionality literature and makes a case against the essentialist considerations that informed the Human Rights Campaign's endorsement of United States Senator Alfonse D'Amato. Part I discusses the pitfalls that occur when scholars and activists engage in essentialist politics and treat identities and forms of subordination as conflicting forces. Part II examines how essentialism negatively affects legal theory in the equality context. Part III considers the historical motivation for and the efficacy of the "intersectionality" response to the problem of essentialism. Part III also extensively analyzes the "multidimensional" critiques of essentialism offered by the most recent school of thought in this area-the race-sexuality critics of law and sexuality and critical race theory. Finally, Part III examines the conceptual and substantive distinctions between multidimensionality (and other post-intersectionality theories) and intersectionality and offers suggestions for future theorizing in anti-subordination jurisprudence.

  • Striking a Sincere Balance: A Reasonable Black Person Standard for “Location Plus Evasion” Terry Stops

    Randall Susskind originally proposed the "reasonable African American standard” for Terry stops as a way to minimize racial disparities in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. This paper will expand upon Susskind's suggested standard within the specific context of "location plus evasion" stops, in which suspects are stopped upon flight in a high-crime neighborhood. Part one will present the reasonable Black person standard in the context of Illinois v. Wardlow, a recent "location plus evasion case." Part one will then show how this alternative standard better accounts for Wardlow's "raced" decision to flee, the police officers' "raced" decision to stop him, and the Court's "raced" decision to find reasonable and articulable suspicion. Part two will discuss and compare the reasonable Black person standard with analogous alternative reasonable person standards in sexual harassment and criminal law. Part three will anticipate and rebut potential criticisms of the proposed standard.

  • Subtracting Race from the “Reasonable Calculus”: An End to Racial Profiling? United States V. Montero-Camargo 208 F.3D 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) Cert. Denied Sub Nom

    This Case Note presents the facts of Montero-Camargo, describes the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in historical context, and analyzes the effect of the Court's holding. The Case Note argues that while the Ninth Circuit's decision to prohibit the use of race as a factor in determining the reasonableness calculus in traffic stops is progressive in spirit, implementing the decision will be difficult. Thus far, mechanisms designed to limit officers' use of race in traffic stops have been ineffective and have left victims with little recourse, resulting in a disproportionate number of innocent African American and Latino drivers being stopped pretextually.

  • Setting the Record Straight: A Proposal for Handling Prosecutorial Appeals to Racial, Ethnic or Gender Prejudice During Trial

    This article proposes that direct or indirect references to the protected classes of race and/or gender should always be subject to the Chapman v. California "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Once the defendant has shown appeals to racial or gender bias in prosecutorial argument or other conduct during his trial, the burden must shift to the prosecution to show at an immediate hearing outside the presence of the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this impermissible appeal to bias did not affect the fairness of the defendant's trial. Furthermore, courts must take the examination of the prosecution's proof seriously, and must recognize that even a single racially biased comment by a prosecutor may improperly influence the outcome of a trial.

  • Direct Measures: An Alternative Form of Affirmative Action

    Part I of this essay sets out in detail the direct measures affirmative action program. This section also compares the program to other alternative affirmative action program experiments undertaken by various educational institutions. Parts II and III discuss the constitutionality of a direct measures program.

  • Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans, and Latcrit Theory: Commonalities and Differences Between Latina/o Experiences

    This Essay situates Professor Malavet's analysis in LatCrit theory. The diminished citizenship status of Puerto Ricans on the island shares important commonalities with and differences from the experiences of persons of Mexican ancestry in the United States. Both Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans enjoy citizenship and membership rights unequal to those accorded Anglos, although one group (Mexican Americans) is composed of citizens by law with full legal rights while the other (Puerto Ricans) includes United States citizens with limited legal rights in Puerto Rico. The guarantees of the law historically have held limited meaning for Mexican Americans; the limitation on the legal rights of United States citizens on Puerto Pico hold great significance. Law thus proves malleable depending on the social context and, not coincidentally, accords Latinas/os in both contexts diminished membership rights.

  • Blood Will Tell: Scientific Racism and the Legal Prohibitions Against Miscegenation

    This article first examines the miscegenation paradigm in terms of a seven-point conceptual framework that not merely allowed but practically demanded anti-miscegenation laws, then looks at the legal arguments state courts used to justify the constitutionality of such laws through 1967. Next, it analyzes the Biblical argument, which in its own right justified miscegenation, but also had a major influence on the development of the three major strands of scientific racism: monogenism, polygenism and Darwinian theory. It then probes the concept upon which the entire edifice is constructed-race--and discusses the continuing vitality of this construct. Next, this article turns to the three major strands of scientific racism and briefly develops more modem theories that continued the racist tradition well into the Twentieth Century. The article then looks at the effects of scientific racism on the thoughts and actions of the founding fathers and the Reconstruction-era Congress before turning to the long line of state cases upholding miscegenation statutes, in part by relying on scientific racism. Finally, it discusses the handful of cases that question the constitutionality of antimiscegenation statutes, including Perez v. Lippold and Loving v. Virginia.

  • The Adversity of Race and Place: Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 S. Ct. 673 (2000)

    This Case Note lays out Wardlow's pertinent facts, describes the decisions of the Court and lower courts, and then analyzes the ramifications of the Court's holding. In particular, this Case Note argues that the Court's ruling recognizes substantially less Fourth Amendment protections for people of color and indigent citizens than for wealthy Caucasians. This perpetuates a cycle of humiliating experiences, as well as fear and mistrust of the police by many poor people of color.

  • The Alienation of Fathers

    By evaluating immigration and custody law from a father's perspective and thereby uncovering and addressing the biases held against men, both fathers and mothers will achieve greater recognition. Beyond revealing gender discrimination, such a study also demonstrates the disparate views still harbored toward unmarried parents. Examining custody and immigration law with an emphasis on these issues will hopefully foster a dialogue that brings the law in line with the reality of today's families and promotes each family member's individual potential.