Make the justice system more diverse.

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is heart-wrenching. Her loss is likely to transform the upcoming election. Although our influence on the federal Supreme Court nomination is limited, there's a lot more we can do to promote judicial diversity throughout state and federal courts. Today we dive into the importance of representation and the true weight of this election.

Thank you for all your support! You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

1. Vote this November for a President that is more likely to choose a diverse, liberal Supreme Court nominee. Hint: it’s not Trump.

2. Nominations for Supreme Court justices are confirmed by the United States Senate, which is currently a Republican majority. It takes four seats to flip the Senate to a Democratic majority, which, based on current news, is more likely to confirm a liberal judge. Choose a Senate state battleground and support a candidate more likely to confirm a diverse, liberal Supreme Court nominee (Ballotpedia). Donate, phone bank, or volunteer if you’re in-state.

3. Support the MCCA LMJ Scholarship, which grants scholarships of $10,000 to students for their first year of law school to increase the diversity pipeline. Learn more and donate.

GET EDUCATED

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court known for her advocacy for women’s rights, passed away Friday from complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer. She was 87 (NYTimes).

And as the nation mourns the loss of this trailblazing individual, the Trump administration is wasting no time to appoint a replacement. Trump released his shortlist of potential judges a couple of weeks ago, many of whom are men, nearly all are white, and all represent conservative views and values (NYTimes). If the administration does move forward, it will ensure that our Supreme Court has a conservative majority for years to come. Six of the nine seats would be held by Republican appointees (NYTimes). Justice Ginsburg was keenly aware of this, and days before her death, she dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed” (NPR).

Our nation is in the midst of an upheaval, one that is likely to transform the fabric of our democracy. That will be cemented through the decisions of our federal judicial system, particularly our federal Supreme Court. The added weight of choosing a Supreme Court nominee is likely to upend this election. Read more about the most significant Supreme Court cases in our history, many of which defined the rights and opportunities for marginalized individuals (Business Insider).

Although our Supreme Court justices hold significant power in the federal system, we can also do more to build a more diverse pipeline and increase representation across the federal justice system. The Supreme Court makes less than 100 decisions on cases each year, and although they are critical, many more are decided by the 94 federal district courts, and the 13 circuit courts that act as the first level of appeal (U.S. Department of Justice). It's critical we increase representation here, too, as we try to chart a more equitable future for us all.

Let’s start with the facts. As of 2019, more than 73% of sitting federal judges are men. 80% identify as white. Of the 20% that identify as people of color, 10% are African American, 6% are Hispanic/Latinx representation, and 2.6% are Asian. And there are only two American Indian judges sitting on the federal bench, making up just 0.1 percent of the federal judiciary compared with 0.7 percent of the U.S. population. In addition, less than 1% of judges publicly identify as LGBTQ+ (Center for American Progress). The first judge of color on the Supreme Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall, was appointed in 1967, 191 years after the founding of America (Washington Post).

The Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) has an active list of judges based on race/ethnicity and gender in each district, and a list of the diversity of judges appointed by each president through history (MCCA). The authors of the Center for American Progress study note that there’s no publicly available data on judges with a disability, which is “problematic and deserves more attention” (Center for American Progress).

Data for state courts is also disappointing. Only 15% of state supreme court seats nationwide are “held by individuals who are Black, Asian, Latino, or Native American,” and women hold 36% of state supreme court seats. This means that 24 states currently have an all-white supreme court bench, including eight states in which people of color are at least 25% of the state’s population (Brennan Center).

A few former presidents – both Democratic and Republican – have committed to diversifying the federal judiciary, including President Carter and President Clinton. But President Obama made the most significant strides. Out of his 324 judicial nominees during his presidency, over 60% were people of color, women, and sexual or gender minorities. He also nominated and confirmed more women than any other president in history (Center for American Progress). These efforts have regressed during the current administration; President Trump’s judicial picks, who have been 91% white and 81% male, are “the least racially and ethnically diverse of any presidential administration over the past 30 years” (Center for American Progress).

This might be considered common sense, but it’s important to note: the diversity of a federal judiciary increases the likelihood that decisions will represent the needs of marginalized communities. Judge Tashima, who was appointed in 1996, lived in an internment camp as a child during World War II. Read more about internment camps and the use of the word “internment” in a previous newsletter. He spoke about how that experience influenced his decision-making. The data proves it: he voted for more equal protection opinions since being appointed compared to his Ninth Circuit colleagues (California Lawyers Association).

“Because we are all creatures of our past, I have no doubt that my life experiences, including the evacuation and internment, have shaped the way I view my job as a federal judge and the skepticism that I sometimes bring to the representations and motives of the other branches of government”.

Atsushi Wallace Tashima, Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, via California Lawyers Association.

Furthermore, studies conducted on federal appellate courts have found that one female judge’s presence will increase the likelihood that male judges will make decisions for cases involving sexual harassment or discrimination will be in favor of the defendant. It also found that having at least one Black judge increases the likelihood that non-Black judges will support plaintiffs claiming violations of both the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action cases (Princeton).

A more diverse court would also sway public trust, which is increasingly important as younger voters feel disillusioned by our political system. At the 1999 National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System, three pressing issues were identified: unequal treatment in the justice system, high cost of access to the justice system, and lack of public understanding (Perceptions of Fairness and Diversity in the Florida Courts). A 2014 Pew Research Center survey found that 68% of Black people feel that the courts mistreat Black people, compared to 27% of white people, and 40% of people who identify as Hispanic (Pew Research Center).

“People look at an institution and they see people who are like them, who share their experiences, who they imagine share their set of values, and that’s a sort of natural thing and they feel more comfortable if that occurs.”
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, via NYTimes.

Part of creating a more diverse federal judiciary is diversifying the pipeline, which means dismantling the historical racism and discrimination embedded in our education system. It also means recruiting and retaining candidates in associate positions. Despite progress from years prior, recent data indicates that outcomes have stagnated, and in some cases, regressed (NYC Bar). A particular concern is attrition. In 2016, 36.2% of first-year associates represented marginalized communities, but by the eighth year, that percentage dropped to 20.5%, a significantly higher attrition rate than white associates during the same period (NYC Bar). And public criticism of the federal judiciary system can dissuade talented candidates from pursuing future opportunities.

But progress isn't completely unfounded. Consider the latest news from Colorado. In the past year and a half, Colorado’s Democratic governor has appointed more Black women to the statewide bench than his 42 predecessors combined (Essence). There are currently 8 Black women judges serving concurrently on Colorado’s statewide judiciary. In the world of business, the MCCA reports that the number of female general counsels and general counsels of color at Fortune 1000 companies is the highest recorded in the past 15 years (law.com).

By January 2021, over 200 federal will be eligible for senior status, which means new candidates can take their place. And of those 200 judges, more than half are white males (Center for American Progress). Despite our outrage over the federal Supreme Court composition, deciding who to nominate is up to the president. It’s up to us to use our voices to influence decisions on the federal and state level and invest in diverse candidates to support qualified candidates.

Key Takeaways

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has made the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice a critical component of the upcoming election
Efforts to increase representation in the federal judiciary have been dismantled by the Trump administration
Diversity of the federal judiciary influences public perception of the political system
Increasing the diversity pipeline can help ensure more diverse candidates are nominated and confirmed
We must vote for a president that will nominate a diverse Supreme Court justice candidate, and ensure a Senate that's more likely to confirm one

RELATED ISSUES

9/9/2020 | Make the census count.

8/9/2020 | Understand the unemployment gap | COVID-19

7/23/2020 | Know our racist presidential history.

7/21/2020 | Honor the legacy of Rep. John Lewis.

7/20/2020 | Protect your community from the harm of gentrification.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Nicole Cardoza 9/19/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/19/20

Study Hall! Equity v. equality and the burden on WOC.

Welcome to our weekly Study Hall. Each week I answer questions and share insights from each of you in our community. This week I dove deeper on some pressing topics from our community.

Ironically, I wrote most of this on a plane before I learned of the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Now, as I add the last touches, I write with both deep sorrow and appreciation of her legacy.

If you'd prefer to receive just one email a week, this is the email you'd receive. You can change your email preferences by updating your profile information here.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.
Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.

GET EDUCATED

In review: The newsletters we published this week.

9/18/2020 | Reject racial gaslighting.

9/17/2020 | Abolish ICE.

9/16/2020 | Fight for paid sick leave.

9/15/2020 | End Hollywood whitewashing.

9/14/2020 | Stop the use of ketamine in arrests.

9/13/2020 | Understand representation in vaccine trials.

Q+A

Do you have any recommendations on words to diffuse the gaslighting?

From 9/18/2020 | Reject racial gaslighting.

Jacquelyn Ogorchukwu Iyamah is a social wellness designer that consistently unpacks interpersonal racism on her Instagram. In an article with Refinery29, she offers the following for Black people that may experience this:

"calling out: publicly pointing out the person’s harmful behaviour"
"calling in: scheduling a one-on-one with the person to discuss their behaviour"
"removing yourself from the conversation to preserve your energy and peace of mind, writing down exactly what happened so that you can refer back to it if you find yourself questioning your truth, or sending the person educational resources and establishing boundaries around the person who racially gaslighted you to limit your interactions with them."

For those with white privilege, I encourage sticking with the conversation on behalf of the communities of color that have to deal with it.

Q+A

Why would anyone even work at ICE, to begin with, especially a Black woman, considering how long allegations of abuse have been happening?

9/17/2020 | Abolish ICE.

Let's start with the professional aspect of this conversation. Dawn Wooten is a licensed professional nurse, a role that has increasingly limited opportunities in the healthcare industry, driven in part by the industry's history to disregard women of color and queer practitioners. Monica McLemore breaks this down further on Twitter.

Our society is quick to place the blame and burden on women, particularly women of color, for transgressions like these. Here is no different. Just because our bodies are on the line does not make them the shields for harm. And it's unfair to ask people who are already barred from equal opportunities to sacrifice themselves and their families' wellbeing and leave the system. That is certainly their right, but not their obligation.

I don't know Dawn Wooten personally and can't speak for her. No one should have to. It's not productive to blame anyone – especially people from marginalized communities – individually for this system of abuse (especially if she did speak out against it).

Q+A

I have spoken with people about this, and their response to me is that only 13% of the United States is Black, so why would this group get more representation than that? This is not an idea I agree with, but what would be a factual response that explains that?

9/15/2020 | End Hollywood whitewashing.

A few people had questions about this survey generally, which wasn't aiming to only demonstrate general stats on the ethnic breakdown, but the fact that there's been little to no change over the course of six years, even though our country is rapidly diversifying. I haven't seen a more recent study with this breadth of data yet.

I'd also consider the movies and roles that may have increased representation on film during these times. Films like 12 Years A Slave, The Help, and The Butler may have contributed to Black actors' representation, and all display Black people enslaved or in servitude. Consider that the two Black women that won Oscars during this time frame were playing Black women overcoming racism and/or horrific violence because of their identity (Halle Berry in Monster's Ball and Lupita N'gonyo for 12 Years A Slave). As did Morgan Freeman, who won the Best Actor role for his depiction of Nelson Mandela, and Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years A Slave.

Let's say these movies and the resulting representation did represent the breadth of stories and narratives that the film industry produces each year. Looking at racism as percentage points aren't enough. That's a lens of "equality" – that everyone gets resources based on population size. But it doesn't take into account the struggles and difficulties that some people have to get there. When it comes to representation in film, likely, we've only just gotten to proportional representation based on population size. It certainly hasn't always been like this, and the movies we're heralding are still perpetuating limited stories of Black people and their experiences.

In my opinion, we need to look at this from the point of equity: what's "proportional" based on the systemic inequities that people have color experienced? What are the systems that have caused this to exist? What would it look like if the industry was truly celebrating Black actors and filmmakers, and a breadth of stories and perspectives?

Q+A

If people of all races are biologically the same, why does there need to be diverse representation for drug trials?

From 9/13/2020 | Understand representation in vaccine trials.

The importance of diverse representation is to ensure that a wide range of health conditions and genetic compositions are represented in the trials. We've discussed in previous newsletters how racism – not race – can shift health outcomes for various populations. It's important to ensure that they're all represented.

It's also equitable, based on our history of medical bias and violence, for us to establish a more equitable practice of testing with broader populations. It means reconciling the deep rifts of distrust, including more diverse medical professionals and institutions, and holding ourselves accountable for a more equitable healthcare system.

Clarifications

9/17/2020 | Abolish ICE.
In our story on forced sterilization, we referenced how transgender people are being forced by state laws to undergo surgery to have their gender legally recognized. The term used by the source we referenced was “sex reassignment surgery,” but the preferred term in the trans community is “gender confirmation surgery”. We have corrected this language in our archives.

9/5/2020 | Study Hall! Defund the police or add more training?

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/17/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/17/20

Abolish ICE.

This is the third time I've referenced forced sterilizations in our newsletters over the past two weeks. And this time it's with a new and harrowing story. It's heartbreaking to see how our history keeps repeating itself, and the lasting implications of generations of violence against communities of color. This story is still developing, but our persistent action will ensure this conversation doesn't fade away. The violence that's been happening at these camps are an act of genocide.

If you're enjoying these newsletters, consider making a contribution to support our work. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Sign United We Dream’s petition to release immigrants and asylum‐seekers at detention centers.
Support the GoFundMe of Dawn Wooten, a Black single mother of five who risked her job and safety as a whistleblower.
Call your senators and urge them to defund ICE, which operates under DHS.
Follow and support the voices that have been telling us about the atrocities happening at detention centers: Project South, Georgia Detention Watch, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, and South Georgia Immigrant Support Network

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

This week, a whistleblower filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General about “medical neglect” practiced at an ICE facility in Georgia. Dawn Wooten, a nurse at the Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC), reported that the facility was underreporting COVID-19 cases and not correctly testing or protecting staff and detainees (The Intercept). She also reported that the immigrants are being subjected to a high rate of hysterectomies without “proper informed consent” (The Intercept).

“I became a whistleblower; now I’m a target. But I’ll take a target any day to do what’s right and just, than sit and be a part of what’s inhumane.”
Dawn Wooten

Before we continue, I think it needs to be made clear that the allegations of medical neglect during a global pandemic alone should be enough for us to call for change. The forced separations of families are enough to call for change. In fact, the fact that these detention centers even exist is more than enough for me. We need to abolish ICE for the system itself, not just because we're hearing more allegations about forced sterilizations.

The latter allegation in particular has spurred lawmakers and advocacy groups into action. Organizers of the complaint, along with Wooten, include Project South, Georgia Detention Watch, Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, and South Georgia Immigrant Support Network, and consists of the voices of detained immigrants that have “reported human rights abuses including lack of medical and mental health care, due process violations, unsanitary living conditions” since 2017 (Project South). They've been rallying to close this facility – and others – for years, and detainees have specifically complained about the rough treatment from the same gynecologist that's accused (AJC).

168 members of Congress sent a letter urging DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari to investigate the allegations (Congresswoman Jayapal website). They're demanding to know the status of the investigation by September 25th (NPR).

These allegations are horrifying. And, these allegations are nothing new. As we discussed in two newsletters over the past two weeks, our country has a history of medical violence, particularly against women and women of color. These procedures are sexist, xenophobic, racist, and ableist, and often homophobic. And they’re an act of violence against marginalized people, many of whom rely on the same institutions for their protection.

To understand this, we have to start with eugenics, the practice of improving the human species by “breeding out” disease, disabilities, and other characteristics from the human population (History). The concept gained traction in the U.S. in the early 1900s with the creation of the Race Betterment Foundation, led by John Harvey Kellogg – yes, that Kellogg (History). Through their “registry” of “pedigree” status and a series of national conferences, they promoted the idea that to improve the country, we needed to preserve the racial status of those that inhabit it (History). This meant that people that did not fit this category – including immigrants, Black people, Indigenous people, poor white people, and people with disabilities – needed to be maintained.

Via CNN: Eugenics had won such mainstream acceptance that Americans competed in "fitter families" contests at state fairs during the 1920s.

From this, 31 states sanctioned sterilizations. Many were presented to individuals as “protective” measures to prevent their “undesirable” traits from passing to others. But many more were nonconsensual, performed when patients believed they were receiving other forms of care (The Conversation). And although the programs initially targeted men, they quickly evolved to focus on women and women of color – particularly as the country began to desegregate.

From 1950 to 1966, Black women were 3x more likely to be sterilized than white women, and more than 12x the rate of white men (The Conversation). Hospitals in the South let medical students practice unnecessary hysterectomies on Black women, a practice so common it was given the euphemism “Mississippi appendectomies” (The Cut).

The U.S. Indian Health Service (IHS) applied forced sterilized over 3,000 Indigenous women in the U.S. in 1973 and 1976. A study from two years earlier found that at least one in four Indigenous women had been sterilized without consent (Minn Post).

In California alone, over 20,000 people were sterilized, and were disproportionately Latinx, primarily individuals from Mexico (Smithsonian). During that time, anti-Mexican sentiment was spurred by theories that Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans were at a “lower racial level” than white people (Internet Archives).

Via The Conversation: A pamphlet extolling the benefit of selective sterilization published by the Human Betterment League of North Carolina, 1950. North Carolina State Documents Collection/State Library of North Carolina

By 1976, over 60,000 people were recorded sterilized in 32 states during the 20th century (Huffington Post).

Although the Supreme Court moved to end these practices in 1974, these practices are still happening. Between 1997 and 2010, unwanted sterilizations were performed on approximately 1,400 women in California prisons, which primarily targeted women of color (Fox News). A judge in Tennessee offered those incarcerated thirty days off jail time if they volunteered for vasectomies or contraceptive implants, saying that he hoped repeat offenders would “make something of themselves” (Washington Post). Ten states still require transgender people to obtain proof of surgery, a court order, or an amended birth certificate to update their driver’s licenses – and 17 states require sex reassignment surgery to update birth certificate gender markers (The Daily Beast). And there are still terrifying stories of forcible sterilizations happening on people with disabilities deemed constitutional by the courts (Rewire News).

There’s been jokes and memes floating around that we’re “officially” living in the dystopian Handmaid’s Tale. But we’re not. We’re living in the reality of the United States. And when we distance ourselves from this painful reality, we allow it to persist. As investigators race to verify these allegations, we cannot continue to allow any injustices to continue in these spaces. We must keep listening and supporting to the voices that have been shouting this to us for years – that these institutions must be dismantled. The costs are far too great.

Key Takeaways

A whistleblower filed a complaint against ICE for “medical neglect" at the detention camp she worked at, including mass hysterectomies without detainees' content
Forced sterilization was a state-sanctioned practice, often funded by the federal government, that disproportionately impacted women and women of color during the 19th century
Forced sterilizations procedures are sexist, xenophobic, racist, and ableist, and often homophobic
Unwanted sterilizations are still happening today

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/13/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/13/20

Understand representation in vaccine trials.

Happy Sunday!

Today marks our weekly review of the racial disparities of COVID-19. It's important to remember that this virus doesn't discriminate. But our systems do. And we're trying to respond swiftly to its catastrophic impact while reckoning with our deep history of oppression and harm. Today's topic – the fight for representation in vaccine trials – is a good example of this. As you read, consider how much our mistakes from the past affect our ability to respond equitably in the present – and its implications for the future.

Thank you all for your contributions. To support our work, you can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Support the Black Doctors COVID19 Consortium, which is building trust in their community by offering free COVID-19 testing in Philadelphia, New Jersey and New York
Respect the racial and historical context that may make people wary of a vaccine
Consider: how may your racial identity influence your perception of vaccine trials? What privilege(s) may have helped you build trust in the healthcare system?

GET EDUCATED

The U.S. is moving at an unprecedented pace to create a vaccine to respond to COVID-19. The Trump administration has dubbed these efforts “Operation Warp Speed,” with the hopes to deliver “initial doses of a safe and effective vaccine” by January 2021 — shortening the development time from years to months (NPR). More recently, Trump has hinted that a vaccine may be ready by the election (what a coincidence), which is highly unlikely. And part of that is because of a lack of representation in testing groups.

350,000 people have registered online for a coronavirus clinical trial, but only 10% are Black or Latino, according to Dr. Jim Kublin, executive director of operations for the Covid-19 Prevention Network (CNN). An additional 8% represent Indigenous communities. This isn’t nearly enough, considering over half the COVID-19 in the U.S. have been in the Black and Latino communities (CNN). And beyond that, 1.3% of reported cases are from Indigenous groups, despite only representing .7% of the population (CDC).

In fact, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, expressed his desire to see non-white communities enrolled in coronavirus vaccine trials at levels at least double their percentages in the population, which would mean 66.4% of participants need to identify as "Black or African American, Latin, American Indian, and Alaskan Native” (CNN). Scientists, doctors, and advocates are urging both pharmaceutical companies and the government to increase their efforts to enroll a diverse group of volunteers.

As we discussed in last week’s newsletter, communities of color have a deep distrust of the U.S. health care system, and for good reason.

📰 Read more about the history of medical violence against communities of color >

Also, the U.S. (and other parts of the world) have a long history of using people of color as trial subjects for vaccines. Thomas Jefferson tested what would become a successful smallpox vaccine on enslaved people before extending it to his family (Smithsonian). A British doctor serving as a plantation physician in rural Jamaica subjected enslaved people to trial tests without consent (Futurist).

As a result, people of color are historically underrepresented in clinical trials of new drugs, even when the treatment is aimed at an ailment that disproportionately affects them (ProPublica). Data from the FDA shows that Black people are the least likely to participate in drug trials – and that participation by people of color decreased between 2018 and 2019 (Outsourcing-Pharma).

“The absence of significant participation by Black patients creates not only a hole in the data, but can contribute to less effective treatments with little data on the impact on that specific population.”
Dr. Valerie Montgomery Rice, president and dean of the Morehouse School of Medicine, via Governing

One outreach effort includes reaching out to historically Black colleges and universities, encouraging students to participate in the trials, and engage medical staff and students in the process. Advocates believe this can grow trust in the community and encourage more Black people to join (NYTimes). Here’s an example of a letter from Xavier University. But this initiative, paired with efforts to increase testing across campuses, is garnering mixed feedback (Twitter).

📰 Read why it’s essential to have more representation of people of color in research >

Also, the COVID-19 Prevention Network, a group created by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, created an advertising campaign urging Black and Latino people to get involved. The ads center the voices of essential workers, grandparents, food industry workers, and other groups within communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 (NBC News).

📰 Read more about the impact of COVID-19 on essential workers, the elderly, and workers in the food industry.

And leaders from the communities are doing their part to build trust. A group of faith-based leaders has joined together to enhance trust and engagement with people of color (Newswise). And the Navajo Nation has announced its participation in a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine trial on a patient-volunteer basis (Indian Country Today).

“I would encourage people, but I know everybody won’t. It’s like ingrained in the mindset of Black people when you consider the syphilis injections. Black folks don’t want to be guinea pigs and we have been. Even in light of that, if the data is transparent, if the information makes sense, if the research is credible, then I think we can overcome that particular fear.”
Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel, senior pastor of Victory for the World Church in Stone Mountain, via Governing

Regardless of the accelerated timeline for finding a vaccine, there’s “no shortcut” to authentically engaging communities of color for trials, emphasizes Dr. Dominic Mack of Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta (NPR). It will take a long time to repair a history of discrimination and harm, but that work has to start now.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/12/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/12/20

Study Hall! Youth activism, Prop 22, and being multiracial.

Welcome to our weekly Study Hall. Each week I answer questions and share insights from each of you in our community. Many of these questions from this week are actually newsletters en queue, but I added a couple I felt I could address in the short space here.

If you'd prefer to receive just one email a week, this is the email you'd receive. You can change your email preferences by updating your profile information here.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.

2. Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.

GET EDUCATED

In review: The newsletters we published this week.

9/11/2020 | Protect Black women.

9/10/2020 | Fight for fair labor.

9/9/2020 | Make the census count.

9/8/2020 | Reject the model minority myth.

9/7/2020 | Learn about critical race theory.

9/6/2020 | Protect the aging population from COVID-19.

RESOURCE
Black women services in Atlanta, GA
From Protect Black women on Friday, September 11.

From reader Maria:

This article is a critical reminder of the ways in which Black women experience intersecting violence from all corners of society. I wanted to share a resource that is working to serve Black women survivors of domestic violence and suicidality in Atlanta, GA. They provide 100% free psychological services and work to address transportation and other barriers to provide Black women with much-needed support, including practical support (clothing, feminine products). The program has been developing a culturally adapted intervention for Black women survivors of DV for ~20 years now. This program also trains mental health and medical professionals to be more culturally competent. Resources like these are too few and far between, but this is a program that is really doing good work. The website is below:

https://theniaproject.wordpress.com/

Q+A
You mentioned that many people don't know about our history because it's not taught often in school. What can we do to ensure our education system is educating our kids about history more equitably?
From Reject the model minority myth on Tuesday, September 8.

This is worth a whole newsletter – which I'm planning on publishing next week! Because our education system is a critical component of how we view the world, particularly when it comes to racial equity.

I'll dive into it further in that piece, but it starts with active participation. Parents have a particular influence on the curriculum brought into classrooms. Review your child's syllabus and consider how many diverse stories and perspectives are included. Flip through their textbooks and note how their lessons on history, geography, etc. may prioritize certain places and parts of our timeline.

Also, consider the representation of your school district – not just in its teachers (which is critically important) but in the administrators, district leads, and educational boards. There's still state and federal mandates, but as you'll read next week, public participation can greatly influence it, for better or worse.

INSIGHT
Prop 22 protects more than just low-wage workers that are employed by tech companies.
From Fight for fair labor on Thursday, September 10

From reader Julia:

It’s good to see some love towards Prop 22! More than gig workers are affected by the current policy.

Right now businesses are allowed to try workers as contractors before they commit to them as employees. Depending on the cost of the contractor, businesses can be tempted to keep workers (performing essential functions to the business) as contractors indefinitely.

This subjects so-called “freelance” workers to a sometimes full time schedule with one single business, without the health benefits, stock benefits, retirement benefits, bonus benefits, or pay that their employee peers receive.

Q+A
I'm under the age of 18 so I can't take the census, or get a census job. How else can I support?

Actually, anyone age 15 years or older can do the census on behalf of their household! Be sure to check with the people you live with to see if someone else has already completed it on your behalf. You do have to be 18 to get a census job.

After you've sorted this out, spread the word! Maybe you have friends that are also under the age of 18 who thought the same thing you did. And maybe you can rally your friends on social media to take action!

I can imagine it's especially for anyone too young or disenfranchised from voting to watch what's unfolding in the U.S. right now and not be able to take civic action. It might sound simple and dismissive, but I mean this earnestly – now is the most important time to use whatever power you have to share your voice. It might not feel like you're making a difference. But luckily, we all don't have to change the world alone. If we can each change one heart and mind, only half of us have to be successful for all of us to thrive. Start where you are and do what you can. You've got this.

Q+A
How does the model minority myth impact individuals with mixed identities? As someone who's both Asian and Black, for example, have double the expectations for success?
From Reject the model minority myth on Tuesday, September 9.

I am not both Black and Asian, so I can't speak to this from personal experience. I can imagine it's a unique experience for each person, and influenced by their perceptions of how their identities are perceived in the world around them.

From what I learned in Jami's newsletter, model minority myth, like many racial biases, isn't just internalized. It's something that individuals experience from the world around them. So it's not just "how do I relate to this concept," but "how does the world view me in this light, and what does that mean for my safety and well-being?"

Regardless of how it does, I think we should all be sensitive to how it should. And, know that we can listen and learn to understand, instead of intentionally or unintentionally promoting the same myth.

Clarifications

9/10/2020 | Fight for fair labor.
I meant to write that voting No to Prop 22 protects low-wage workers from exploitation. Not "Yes to Prop 22". The campaign for "Yes to Prop 22" is a well-funded marketing campaign from tech companies, including Uber. I've made that clarification in our archives.

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/10/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/10/20

Fight for fair labor.

Happy Thursday! And welcome to Issue No. 100 of the Anti-Racism Daily. There's a lot of new faces here. In case you missed it, I publish one newsletter each day on ways to dismantle systemic oppression, written by me or lovingly curated from diverse voices.

This newsletter started as a work in protest – a consistent commitment to change. To honor it, we've created a sweatshirt, t-shirt, and coffee mug embroidered with our tagline. All proceeds will be donated to mutual aid funds supporting communities of color during these stressful times. Get yours here >

As for today's newsletter, I wrote this because I feel a labor strike is coming. And when it's time for us to take action, I want us to remember why it's so important for us to advocate for fair labor rights – starting with the vulnerability of low-wage workers. Stay tuned.

And thank you all for your contributions. To support our work, you can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Add an extra tip wherever possible. Many food/delivery companies are inflating fees that don’t reach the worker that’s helping you. Double-check to ensure you’re directly supporting the workers supporting you.
Commit to buying from only small businesses one day a week. Work to increase that frequency by the end of the year.
Where possible, stop supporting major businesses that exploit low wage workers.
Research: What is your city/state doing to protect low-wage workers?

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

Before the pandemic, employment growth looked promising at first glance. The U.S. experienced its longest job expansion period in history, growing consecutively since The Great Recession of 2009 (PBS). But a closer look at the numbers showed that a vast percentage of job growth stems from low wage work, defined as someone who earns less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage for full-time workers (USCS). In 2019, 44% of American workers – 53 million people – were low-wage workers, earning $10.22/hr on average, which amounts to just $17,950 a year (Brookings).

📰 Read more about the unemployment gap in our August 9 newsletter >

Low-wage work is precarious. It often doesn’t come with job security and benefits, and the pay structure can be inequitable (keep reading for thoughts on tipping). And job development opportunities are slim; low-wage workers are the most likely to remain stuck in their wage bracket when they switch occupations (Brookings). 39% of employed people in households making less than $40,000 were furloughed or lost their job in March, as opposed to just 13% of households making over $100,000 (Politico).

And at least half of the low-wage workers in America are people of color, which is likely underreported. 63% of Latino or Hispanic workers and 54% of Black workers earn low wages, compared to 36% of white workers and 40% of Asian American workers. And Black and Latino or Hispanic workers earn less than white workers with similar educational levels and experience (Brookings).

Which is why we have to read the latest unemployment numbers with a grain (or spoonful) of salt. Although the newest reports indicate that hourly earnings rose 4.7% from a year ago, that's actually because so many low-wage workers have left the industry, skewing the numbers (Salon). A study by researchers at the University of Chicago's Becker Friedman Institute in July found that just 9% of highest earners were laid off amid the business closings while the brunt of job losses fell on the lowest-earning workers. And, researchers believe that roughly half of low-wage workers that have lost their jobs are not classified as unemployed because they are not actively searching for a new job.

The last insight is most horrifying, because it indicates how uncertain future wage jobs are right now. As schools transition online, companies adopt remote work long-term, the travel industry contracts and retailers reconsider commercial leases, many low-wage jobs in maintaining these spaces are being cut. Scott Rechler, the chief executive of RXR Realty, which owns over 20 million square feet of office space in New York City, estimates that “every office worker sustains five service jobs, from the shoeshine booth to the coffee shop.” Yet only about 12 percent of his tenants are in the office (NYTimes).

📰 Many wage workers are also considered essential workers during this time, which means people that can work are exposing themselves to contracting the disease. Learn more about how you can support essential workers in our June 21 newsletter >

Workers that survived off of tips are also struggling because of the pandemic. Federal law, along with many states, requires employers to pay the difference between what the workers earn after tips and the regular minimum wage. But many employers are falling short by intentionally stiffing workers for most or all of their pay (NYTimes). Most cities and states rely on workers to file complaints before investigating businesses, rather than inspecting workplaces. Advocates believe that inspectors are “going easy” on smaller businesses, empathizing with the economic difficulties of this recession. And, workers are more fearful of retaliation now than ever before as other job prospects dwindle. Together, this creates a structural lack of accountability, which can permanently damage the wage industry.

📰 The history of tipping is rooted in slavery. Learn more in our August 16 newsletter >

Citizens across the country are already advocating for change. Workers in Philadelphia are unionizing, creating systems of accountability for local institutions, and representing their communities in district councils (Philadelphia Inquirer). The community in Lansing, MI has organized to protect tenants that are at risk of being evicted and pressuring local leaders to increase the minimum wage and add sick pay, an initiative that’s previously been adopted but watered down by the state government (Lansing State Journal).

“There’s been an awakening to the fact that these issues can be addressed by organizing and legislation. People are seeing the power of direct action to effect change.”
Valerie Braman, a labor educator at Pennsylvania State University, for Philadelphia Inquirer.

That’s why it’s important to watch the story unfold about Proposition 22, an initiative on the ballot in California this November. It aims to prevent companies who employ gig workers, like rideshare drivers, to reclassify them as employees, which would give them benefits like minimum wage, overtime, and unemployment insurance (CBS Los Angeles). The campaign Yes on Proposition 22 received $181.4 million from five rideshare and app-based companies—Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, InstaCart, and Postmates – to ensure it passes (Ballotpedia).

If passed, the bill may make it harder for gig workers that aren’t looking for job security or structure to take jobs like these. But, it will also move to protect those that rely on these jobs with benefits like a minimum guaranteed wage, overtime, unemployment, and anti-discrimination protections, while holding multi-million dollar businesses accountable for wage exploitation.

And as major companies increasingly gain market dominance, we may see more low-wage workers exploited for power. Corporations like Amazon and Wal-Mart are thriving due to the pandemic, and their margins are also possible because, in part, of their high propensity for low-wage workers. With little oversight from the federal government, there’s nothing to prevent this hiring practice to continue – but us. We must advocate for the wellbeing of low-wage workers at the polls and do our part to invest in businesses that center their needs.

key takeaways

Low-wage workers are a significant part of the total employed population of the U.S.
Low-wage workers are disproportionately losing their jobs due to COVID-19
These workers are also disproportionately women and people of color, who are systemically discriminated against in the workforce and have fewer opportunities to grow from their wage bracket than others, regardless of economic or educational background
Low-wage workers are more vulnerable now than ever because of limited job opportunities and large, market-dominating companies thriving during the pandemic

RELATED ISSUES

8/16/2020 | Think before eating out.

8/9/2020 | Understand the unemployment gap | COVID-19

6/21/2020 | Protect essential workers: Racial Disparities of COVID-19

6/11/2020 | Support black-owned businesses.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/7/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/7/20

Learn about critical race theory.

"Our social world, with its rules, practices, and assignments of prestige and power, is not fixed; rather, we construct with it words, stories and silence. But we need not acquiesce in arrangements that are unfair and one-sided. By writing and speaking against them, we may hope to contribute to a better, fairer world.”
– Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge (Third Edition)

Happy Monday. After a series of incendiary tweets, many people are asking about what critical race theory is, and how far the president will go to polarize the nation on the issue of race. Today's newsletter dives into the impact of these recent events and what we can do to keep the conversation moving forward.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Reflect on the following questions, common to critical race theory work:

What is the significance of race in contemporary American society?
Where, in what ways, and to what ends does race appear in dominant American culture and shape the ways we interact with one another?
What types of texts and other cultural artifacts reflect dominant culture’s perceptions of race?
How can scholars convey that racism is a concern that affects all members of society?
How does racism continue to function as a persistent force in American society?
How can we combat racism to ensure that all members of American society experience equal representation and access to fundamental rights?
How can we accurately reflect the experiences of victims of racism?

Source: Purdue, which also has a comprehensive overview of critical race theory.

Research both presidential candidates’ agendas for racial equity. Choose one proposed policy by each candidate, and use the same questions for more critical inquiry.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

Last Friday, Trump worked to cancel anti-racism trainings held by government agencies, a move that was widely shared on his social media. In a memo, the director of the Office of Management and Budget tells the agencies to “begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on ‘critical race theory,’ ‘white privilege,’ or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil” (NYTimes). This action was sparked after a conservative activist was featured on Fox News segment that argued that these diversity trainings are “racist,” and “systematically attack the unifying ideals of this country” (CNN).

But these accusations aren’t accurate. Critical race theory is a school of thought designed to help identify and understand how racism plays a part in our society. It doesn’t say that everyone is racist, but that racism is a part of everyday life for people of color and unpacks how racial bias influences our conscious and unconscious responses. Although it began as an academic theory, critical race theory is widely taught and studied cross disciplines, including education, sociology, and law.

Some of the key themes within critical race theory include topics like institutional racism, microaggressions, reparations, determinism, intersectionality, and white privilege (JSTOR). It encourages criticism of liberal anti-racism ideas, like colorblindness and affirmative action (Harvard). And it emphasizes that creating spaces for communities of color to share their stories is necessary for growth. Critical race theory has influenced the approach I’ve taken with this very newsletter. Explore our archives to find many of these topics covered in previous newsletters. And if you’re interested, you can find a more comprehensive overview of critical race theory via PDF here.

More variations of critical race theory have evolved to focus on specific ethnic/racial groups, or intersectionalities within ethnic/racial groups, including critical race feminism (CRF), Latino critical race studies (LatCrit),[50] Asian American critical race studies (AsianCrit), South Asian American critical race studies (DesiCrit), American Indian critical race studies (TribCrit), and disability critical race studies (DisCrit).

Before we discuss the broader implications of this change, we need to recognize its immediate impact. The federal government is the largest employer in the nation, employing nearly 9.1 million workers, or 6% of the total employment in the United States (The Hill). If these trainings do cease, they could negatively impact the workplace culture and the diversity of its staff.

Also, studies prove that federal contracts are disproportionately awarded to white-owned businesses, which has increased over the past twenty years (Washington Post). Not only will removing these trainings prevent leaders internally from being equipped to address these disparities, it eschews responsibility from fair and equitable practices moving forward.

And this has broader implications for our nation’s conversation on race. In some ways, this comment from Trump is nothing new; Trump’s social and political career has been shaped by his perception of race throughout the past decades (NYTimes). And in the past few months alone, he’s incited violence, denounced the Black Lives Matter movement, dismissed police brutality, and fueled anti-Asian racism during COVID-19, for starters (Vox).

But this action doesn’t just denounce marginalized communities and acts of injustice, but the concept of racism itself. Instead of delegitimizing movements towards racial equity, it’s as if he aims to eliminate the idea altogether. Regardless, it detracts from the racial reckoning that our country is fighting for, and is likely to incite more contention in a time where revolution is essential now more than ever.

Denouncing a theory doesn’t change the facts. It only emphasizes them. Racism is enough of an issue in the U.S. to drive political leaders to infer that it isn’t, which is why we need to continue to stay in inquiry with this work.

It feels a bit counterintuitive to write this; if you’re reading this newsletter, you’re clearly still part of the conversation. But nevertheless, we need to stay in dialogue – not about racism itself, but the actions we’ll take to transform this nation and provide justice for all. Because the how is the only part of the conversation that will move us forward. And we deserve to have clear and constructive steps outlined by both candidates as we head to the polls this November.

key takeaways

Critical race theory is a school of thought that analyzes how racism persists in social and political systems
The Trump administration aims to remove diversity trainings that use critical race theory, which impacts the federal government and conversations on race as a whole
Trump has fueled racism and divisiveness to maintain and gain power.

RELATED ISSUES

6/29/2020 | Don't vote for Trump.

7/23/2020 | Know our racist presidential history.

7/21/2020 | Honor the legacy of Rep. John Lewis.

7/6/2020 | Abolish qualified immunity.

6/30/2020 | Boycott as a form of protest.

6/26/2020 | Face the bias in facial recognition software.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/6/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/6/20

Protect the aging population from COVID-19.

Today’s Anti-Racism Daily is inspired by my grandmother, who, unlike me, has been relatively even-keeled with the events of the past few months. It’s not because she, as an African American woman, feels impassive to recent events. She’s just been here before; rallying during the Civil Rights movement, watched her family survive sickness and disease. For her, fighting for justice and overcoming the odds is a daily practice. I think about the challenges she could face as COVID-19 persists, and researched the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on aging communities of color as part of our weekly series. I’d love to know your thoughts.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Find a local program in your community that's supporting the aging population with groceries, funds and companionship. Here's a list for starters.

Sign up to join the Mon Ami Phone Bank and help seniors isolated by COVID-19.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

Our country is working to maintain a sense of normalcy as COVID-19 persists. But as we do, we can’t forget about the racial disparities of its impact, especially how these disparities intersect with other marginalized groups. One that is particularly vulnerable is the aging population.

A KHN analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that African Americans ages 65 to 74 are 5x more likely to die from COVID-19 than white people. In the 75-to-84 group, the death rate for Black people was 3.5x greater. Among those 85 and older, Black people died twice as often. In all three age groups, death rates for Hispanics were higher than for whites but lower than for Black people (KHN).

“People are talking about the race disparity in COVID deaths, they're talking about the age disparity, but they're not talking about how race and age disparities interact: They're not talking about older black adults.”

Robert Joseph Taylor, director of the Program for Research on Black Americans at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, for KHN.

Some of the health outcomes for older people of color can be attributed to a lifetime of stress related to racism. People of color have historically endured more stress and anxiety throughout their lives than their white counterparts while navigating racism and discrimination. As a result, we accumulate this tension in our bodies, leading to a wide variety of adverse health implications. This concept is called “weathering,” coined by Arline Geronimus, and can occur from a wide range of stressors, from experiencing police brutality to microaggressions, and everything in between (NPR).

In the scientific community, weathering is identified as “allostatic load,” which measures the substances the body releases after periods of stress. When our bodies are called into “fight or flight” mode, our stress-related neurotransmitters, called catecholamines, quickly release corticotropin, which in turn triggers the release of cortisol, giving our body a jolt of adrenaline to respond to the stressor. Although it can be useful in short situations, the lives of people of color are filled with stress-inducing events. Over time, this allostatic load accumulates. A study that compared the average allostatic loads for Black people and white people found that the mean score for Blacks was roughly comparable to that of Whites who were a full ten years older, demonstrating that people of color age more rapidly than their white peers (Science Direct).

After a lifetime of wear and tear from chronic stress and anxiety, it’s no wonder that aging communities of color are more likely to have pre-existing medical conditions that make them more susceptible to contracting the disease (CDC). Communities of color, particularly Black people, are more likely to have complications like diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, heart failure and pulmonary hypertension (KHN).

But aging communities of color are also more likely to distrust medical care, which means that they're less likely to listen to precautions for contracting COVID-19 and interact with the healthcare system for testing and treatment. And for good reason. As discussed in a previous newsletter, our healthcare system has a legacy of providing inequitable treatment across racial groups. But beyond this, there’s are a series of gross acts of medical violence against communities of color throughout history. These have forced these communities to be wary, disenfranchising them from the care they deserve.

One reason for this is the forced sterilization of communities of color. Over 60,000 women – and some men – were sterilized without their consent across the U.S. between the 1930s and the 1970s (Huffington Post). These people were disproportionately Mexican, and many were Japanese. Similarly, in the 1960s and 1970s, thousands of Native American women were sterilized without consent (NYTimes). In Puerto Rico, nearly one-third of Puerto Rican women of childbearing age were sterilized, the world’s highest rate (University of Wisconsin-Madison). In the U.S., this violence were justified by a Supreme Court decision that actively sought to "breed out" traits that were considered undesirable (NPR). It’s fitting to believe that the medical system may be biased as a result.

In 1932, 600 men were invited to participate in a research study with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) to find a cure for syphilis. Participants were offered free medical care for their participation – and many participants, sharecroppers who had never had the chance to receive medical care before, signed up eagerly. Throughout their lifetime, men were monitored regularly by health officials and were assured they were being treated. But in reality, they were part of a sick experiment: the PHS was only watching to track the disease’s full progression untreated. The men were told they had “bad blood” but not that they had syphilis. They were only given placebos, like aspirin and mineral supplements, despite the fact that penicillin was widely available as a recommended treatment in 1947 (History). Researchers provided no effective care as the men “died, went blind or insane or experienced other severe health problems” until an outraged researcher leaked the story to the press in 1972, which prompted the study to be shut down. By that time, 28 participants had died from the disease. One hundred more passed away from related complications, at least 40 spouses had been diagnosed with it, and the disease had been passed to 19 children at birth (History).

This study alone is noted as creating deep distrust between Black patients that remember the story from their lifetime. Tuskegee Study alone is responsible for “over a third of the life expectancy gap between older black men and white men in 1980” (The Atlantic).

There’s also a significant percentage of our aging population of color that live in spaces where COVID-19 is rampant. Of the 1.5 million adults currently in state and federal prisons, 12% are over the age of 55, and the majority are people of color, which means that these pre-existing health conditions and distrust of the medical system are facing tight, unsanitary living conditions on top of everything else (JSTOR). But these numbers are rising; our aging. According to a 2012 report from the ACLU, the number of elderly prisoners is expected to double by 2030, calling for a more critical look at protecting our aging population from future pandemics behind bars (JSTOR).

We must invest in protecting the senior communities around us today. And, we need to create more policies and practices that foster a more equitable tomorrow. The U.S. is getting older; by 2035, there’s expected to be more people over the age of 65 than children under the age of 18 (Census). If we can’t count some of the historical biases and disparities that prevent some of us from being well now, there’s no guarantee we can support all of us later.

key takeaways

Aging communities of color are more likely to die from COVID-19 than white communities.
Weathering, or the accumulation of “fight and flight” response of the body because of racism and discrimination, leads to adverse health outcomes for people of color – particularly aging populations.
A series of acts of medical violence throughout history have created a deep distrust of the healthcare system in older communities of color.

8/17/2020 | Fight for equity in remote learning.

8/16/2020 | Think before eating out.

8/9/2020 | Understand the unemployment gap | COVID-19

8/2/2020 | Protect those vulnerable to extreme heat during COVID-19.

7/27/2020 | Support Asian Americans through COVID-19.

7/19/2020 | Rally for representation in science and research: COVID-19 and CDC.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/5/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/5/20

Study Hall! Defund the police or add more training?

Welcome to our weekly Study Hall. Each week I answer questions and share insights from each of you in our community. This week's responses focused mainly on the role of law enforcement in our society, which to me is one of the most pressing issues of our time. I answered a couple of questions on that and other things below.

If you prefer to read our newsletter only weekly, this is the email you'll receive. You can change your email preferences by updating your profile information here.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.

2. Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

In review: The newsletters we published this week.

Friday, 9/4/2020 | Tell museums to replace stolen artifacts.

Thursday, 9/3/2020 | Support mental health response services.

Wednesday, 9/2/2020 | Rally for fair appraisals.

Tuesday, 9/1/2020 | Learn the legacy of Japanese American incarceration.

Monday, 8/31/2020 | Condemn colorism.

Sunday, 8/30/2020 | Protect housing rights during COVID-19.

Additional Resources

One of our readers, Mallory, runs Don't Call the Police, a national database of local alternatives to dialing 911 when there's an issue. Learn more here: https://dontcallthepolice.com.

Q+A
Is the person calling 911 really able to discern whether police or mental health professionals are needed? What physical harm or risk may be present that requires a trained policeman to handle an altercation? The caller is probably very afraid of the actions of said person and just want the situation to be deescalated.

The individual calling 911 might not be able to discern enough, but there's ample research that shows that often, 911 responders can't, either. When the individual calls an alternative phone number, those trained responders are often more likely to gauge the situation and decide on the proper intervention – they could easily arrive with law enforcement if they deem it appropriate, OR encourage the caller to dial 911 outright.

When we have an assumption that the "caller is probably very afraid of the actions of said person" and only want to de-escalate, we're allowing that their fear and implicit biases lead the response. That centers the caller, and often not the needs of the individual, which is the point of offering more options.

Q+A
Does it make more sense to train police officers better in de-escalation especially with someone who potentially has mental health issues?

At a minimum, yes. On average, law enforcement spends about 58 hours on firearm training and just 8 hours on de-escalation or crisis intervention (Police Forum). So there's a ton that can change there. But considering the broad examples of harm already, compounded by the racial bias pervasive in law enforcement, there are more urgent calls to defund law enforcement and re-invest in other resources. There's no reason that we need to have law enforcement equally equipped to handle such a broad range of 911 calls. Medical professionals are likely best for health-related calls.

Furthermore, calls for re-investment argue that we can invest in mental health care support that prevents the 911 calls altogether. A punitive based approach to health doesn't change the health equity of any community. It instead focuses on de-escalating problems that preventing them altogether. And we deserve more resources to live healthier, happier lives.

Your question was followed with the statement that defunding might not be the answer, but remember that defunding the police doesn't mean getting rid of them entirely. It means analyzing where we can re-allocate funding to invest elsewhere, all of which should help from us overwhelming them with a wide range of social issues.

Q+A
When it comes to stolen art, why can’t museums buy the pieces from their original countries?

I suppose they could, perhaps as some form of reparations. But from what I understand, the goal now is to change the system entirely by building more points of accountability within the acquisition process. Also, the examples stated make it seem that most countries are more interested in preserving their culture than receiving financial compensation for it.

It begs a broader question: who deserves to have access to the art? Why was it ever okay for us to loot objects for our gain? And remember that the art world financially profits off of these objects as they change hands and remain on display for patrons. If monetary gains fuel this process of colocalization, I don't think we can justify it by sending money back to the countries (unless, of course, the countries themselves deem this the proper response).

Moving forward though, yes, a legal obtainment through a financial transaction seems more equitable than looting.

Reader Courtney shared the following on how the Field Museum is honoring art looted from Indigenous populations (which is a very similar story we're unpacking in a later newsletter):

The Field Museum in Chicago had the best response to Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the US that I have seen. They work with the tribes to either return the artifacts or work with the tribes to display the artifacts respectfully. They also educate about how the artifacts were not given by the tribes initially. It was the most honest and open I had ever seen a museum talk about how they received Native American artifacts and have tried to rectify that with respect and honor moving forward. They also took full ownership for a racist exhibit that was in their museum for decades. Now they use it to contextualize racism in science. It was amazing to see and learn, especially since museums are inherently elite, it felt very honest in a good way. They apologized for their history, but promised to do better now.

Bit more about their work here:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/exhibition-upends-traditional-native-american-representations

Q+A
My family is Italian American and I have some family members who have over the years expressed frustration that “Japanese Internment” was taught to us but not the internment of Italians and Germans during the war. They have also complained that the Japanese American victims received compensation whereas the Italian and German victims did not. I've shared my disapproval with them on this already and would love to hear your thoughts.

Over 120,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated. In contrast, approx. 10,000 German Americans and "hundreds" of Italian Americans were incarcerated. Both German American and Italian American citizens as a whole were deemed too valuable to the U.S. economic and political system for large-scale incarceration, which says a lot about the perception of Japanese Americans during that time, how our government valued human life, and the racial discrimination our country is still reckoning with.

As a result, there are broad differences in the scale of these decisions. We have to remember the devastating impact this had on the Japanese American community as a whole. The lasting physical and psychological harm, the mass loss of property, the fracture of families, and a long-lasting prejudice against Japanese people, which contributes to this country's racial bias against Asian communities. Comparatively, we do not see the same level of systemic and interpersonal racism against German American and Italian American people today.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be taught, minimize any harm they experienced, or that the victims don't deserve compensation. It is all wrong, and all groups deserve justice. But these narratives are often a way to minimize the pain of marginalized communities to center the pain of those with more privilege. When people take that stance, they inherently continue to cause harm against Japanese Americans and insinuates that their struggles are less important.

Clarifications

The key takeaways for the Thursday, 9/3/2020 article were incorrect in the text portion of the email. That has been corrected in the archives.

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/3/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/3/20

Support mental health response services.

Happy Thursday!

And a special three month anniversary to the Anti-Racism Daily! How long have you been on this journey with us? Take a look back and reflect on what you've learned. Do you have a story about how you've put the ARD into action? Let me know by replying to this email – we might feature you on our podcast launching next week! 🎉

But first, be sure to read today's call to advocate for alternative mental health response services in your community. Our criminal justice system wasn't designed for this, and as we demand justice for Daniel Prude we must also create more accountability for the safety of those most vulnerable.

As always, your contributions are so appreciated! You can give on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe monthly on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Research: What are the alternatives to calling 911 in your city?

Are there none? Learn what your city council is planning for future budget spending related to law enforcement. Fight for an alternative.

Donate to the GoFundMe to support the family of Daniel Prude.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

On March 23, Joe Prude noticed his brother, Daniel Prude, acting strangely and called the police for help. Officers found Daniel Prude naked and unarmed. He complied with officers’ demands and was quickly handcuffed. The officers then placed a spit sock – a mesh device used to shield police officers from spit and blood from the victim – over Prude’s head, one asking him whether or not he had AIDS. The officers then pin Prude down on the ground for over two minutes, ignoring Prude’s cries for help and continue to kneel on him as he appears to stop breathing. The family took Prude off of life support the following week. The medical examiner determined Prude’s death was a homicide. The police body camera footage was recently released as the family and local activists demand justice. Full story on The Appeal.

“I placed the phone call for my brother to get help, not for my brother to get lynched. When I say get lynched, that was full fledged, murder, cold-blooded — nothing other than cold-blooded murder. The man is defenseless, naked on the ground, cuffed up already. I mean come on, how many brothers got to die for society to understand that this needs to stop? You killed a defenseless black man, a father’s son, a brother’s brother, a nephew’s uncle.”
Joe Prude, the brother of Daniel Prude, for Rochester First

Ashley Gantt, a community organizer from Free the People Roc and the New York Civil Liberties Union, spoke with the family and other activists yesterday demanding justice. Their speech noted that "the Rochester Police Department has shown time and again that they are not trained to deal with mental health crises. These officers are trained to kill and not to de-escalate” (Democrat and Chronicle). This story, unfortunately, isn’t distinct to just Rochester. Across the country, individuals with mental health conditions are disproportionately impacted by the police.

One in four people killed by police in 2015 had a severe mental health condition (Washington Post). And beyond this, 40% of people with serious mental health conditions will interact with the criminal justice system in their lifetimes. 2 million are booked in jails each year (Washington Post). Most of these individuals haven’t been convicted of a crime, but if they have, they’re more likely to have been charged with a minor offense than something series (NAMI).

What’s more? They:

Remain in jail 4x to 8x longer than people without mental health conditions charged with the same crime
Cost 7x more than other inmates in jail
Are less likely to make bail
Are more likely to gain new charges while incarcerated

In fact, there are more people with mental health conditions in prisons than hospitals (Washington Post).

And communities of color, particularly Black people, are especially at risk, as they’re already disproportionately impacted by police brutality (Time). As we discussed in an earlier newsletter, Black people are more likely to have mental health issues and other disabilities, and less likely to receive diagnosis and treatment (Time).

This is why the conversation surrounding “defund the police” is so critical. Our law enforcement often acts as first responders for mental health crises. John Snook, the executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, emphasizes that mental health crises is the only medical illness that we allow the police to respond to. “Someone has a heart attack, a stroke—we don't send the police to help them. Law enforcement aren't trained to be mental health professionals” (Vice).

Part of this is because of a historical shift to defund mental health, accelerated in the 1960s with the passage of Medicaid (Mother Jones). From there, a series of mental health funding cuts caused state mental health services to dwindle nationwide. The Sentencing Project found that 6 out of 10 states with the least access to care have the highest rates of incarceration. Learn more about the history of deinstitutionalization and defunding the police in-depth over at Vice.

But another part of this is a history of intentionally deeming Black people as mentally ill to justify enslavement and dehumanization, which Ebony explained in detail in an earlier newsletter on Black mental health. Not only has this bias become reinforced throughout history, it becomes cemented within our criminal justice system when a Black person experiencing a mental health crises become synonymous with danger and threat.

Mental health response organizations across the country are providing that alternative forms of support are possible, and effective in supporting citizens in need without violence. CAHOOTS, or Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets, is a non-profit organization working alongside local police in Eugene, OR to support mental health 911 calls, meeting those in need wtih medical resources nad trained professionals (Vice). Austin has a Expanded Mobile Crisis Outreach Team which does the same, and is expanding into telehealth care (Gov 1). More initiatives like this are expanding across the country (Vice) and could effectively reallocate funding from law enforcement while keeping these vulnerable communities safe.

And all of the news about police brutality is creating more mental health strain, exacerbating the problem at hand. A study published in The Lancet in 2018 found that stories of police killings have adverse effects on mental health among Black American adults who were not directly affected by the incident (Penn Today). Another study published in 2019 found that viewing viral videos of police killings, beatings, and arrests — and seeing images of immigrants in cages — was associated with symptoms of depression and PTSD in adolescents (Journal of Adolescent Health). According to the lead researcher Brendesha Tynes, this is especially insidious, as it can “make these kids feel worse about their racial identity, and make them internalize some of that dehumanization” (The Verge). We frequently write about why we don’t share graphic videos of brutality, and this is part of the reason why.

The Lancet study recommends that communities should have, in part, adequate mental health resources to heal from the trauma of these incidents. As we collectively continue to watch the video footage and stories circulate in the media, we need to resource ourselves as best we can to make it through during this significant racial reckoning of our time.

key takeaways

Individuals with mental health conditions, particularly people of color, are more likely to be negatively impacted by the criminal justice system
There are more people with mental health conditions in prisons than hospitals
By investing in community-based mental health services crisis response services we can decrease police brutality

8/26/2020 | Be an active bystander.

8/24/2020 | Demand justice for Jacob Blake.

8/23/2020 | Support those incarcerated and impacted by COVID-19.

8/12/2020 | Demand justice for Elijah McClain.

7/26/2020 | Pay attention to the Portland protests.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 9/2/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/2/20

Rally for fair appraisals.

Happy Wednesday!

There is SO MUCH to write about. So much, in fact, that we could send ten emails a day and still not keep up with the news. But when I saw the story below, I knew I had to share the historical context, and how this discrimination robs communities of not just their generational wealth, but political wealth. Hopefully, it offers more context for what you see unfolding during the protests, and encourage you to analyze how damaging our racial biases can be.

As always, your contributions are so appreciated! You can give on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe monthly on our Patreon.

ps – I'll never send ten emails a day, but I do send one each day without fail. And I hope you stick with it. If you'd prefer to get just one weekly recap (delivered on Saturdays) you can update your profile here.

TAKE ACTION

If you experience or hear of racial bias by appraisers, report them. Use this website to help determine the best course of action by state: https://refermyappraisalcomplaint.asc.gov/.

Subscribe to updates from one fair housing organization in your neighborhood or closest major city nearby.

Reflect: How has your racial bias influenced your perception of the value or worth of a property or location?

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

It’s a story you may have seen on your newsfeeds this week: a couple in Jacksonville, Florida, wanted to take advantage of this season’s low home-refinance rates. They hired an appraiser to review their four-bedroom, four-bath ranch-style house. Based on the market prices for their neighborhood, they expected a number around $450,000. So, they were surprised to find the appraiser’s value of $330,000.

The owner, Abena Horton, who is Black, suspected racial bias played a part. So, according to her Facebook post that went viral, organized a second appraisal, but did the following:

"We took down all family pictures containing Black relatives. We took down all pictures of African-American greats that we display to inspire our son. Zora Neale Hurston and Toni Morrison came down from the bookshelves; Shakespeare went up. My son and I took a convenient shopping trip during the appraisal, leaving my white male husband to show the appraiser around, alone."

The house was appraised for $465,000.

As the post gained popularity and was covered by the NYTimes, more Black homeowners shared their stories. This wasn’t an isolated incident; many of these homeowners have removed family photos and had white friends stand-in during appraisals and home sales in hopes to get a fairer price. In the NYTimes, comedian, and actor D.L. Hughley shared that an appraisal he received was so low the bank flagged the report for inaccuracy (NYTimes).

Devaluing property owned by Black people, or preventing ownership at all, is a practice that goes back decades in America. Although there are several issues that have contributed to the lack of land ownership by Black people throughout history, one is particularly relevant to appraisals. In the 1930s, as part of the New Deal, the federal government created a series of initiatives to incentivize home ownership (The Atlantic). As part, surveyors analyzed neighborhoods thorughout the country to identify which were most deserving of support, color-coding them green for “best,” blue for “still desirable,” yellow for “definitely declining” and red for “hazardous. Areas outlined in red, or “redlined” areas, were neighborhoods with predominantly communities of color. Raical biases at the time saw these individuals as untrustworthy for lines of credit, and their communities as unsavorable places to live. As a result, loans in redlined neighborhoods were extremely high or completely unavaialble (Washington Post). From 1934 to 1962, “98% of the Federal Housing Administration Loans went to White Americans” (NBC Chicago). A 1943 brochure encouraged realtors to avoid undesirables such as “madams, bootleggers, gangsters—and ‘a colored man of means who was giving his children a college education and thought they were entitled to live among whites’” (The Atlantic).

These practices “ended” in 1968, when the Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in housing, but discriminatory practices are still happening today. These racial perspectives of the value of "redlined" neighborhoods, and homeowners of color, are reflected in how these homes are valued in today's time, with devastating impact.

A study from Brookings Institue puts this into perspective. Their research found that owner-occupied homes in Black neighborhoods are undervalued by $48,000 per home on average, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses. The homes in neighborhoods where the population is 50% Black are valued at roughly half the price as homes in communities with no Black residents. And these neighborhoods with greater devaluation are more likely to be segregated than others. They also produce less upward mobility for the Black children who grow up in those communities. This mobility is just a hint at the generational impact of this economic disparity and emphasizes why rebalancing this disparity is so important. Read the full study over at Brookings’ website.

And this devalued property is ripe for gentrification, a topic we covered in an earlier newsletter. Many neighborhoods that are historically non-white will receive an influx of middle-class people, eager for accessible property prices. This is followed by a swift revaluation of the same property, forcing out existing community members or dissuading others from moving in (NPR).

And when economic justice meets social justice, more tensions arise, evident in the destruction of property during protests this summer. After a history of redlining and dispossession, Black people often live in communities where they don’t own any of the property. Lack of homeownership usually means a lack of local agency; landowners are often prioritized in policies made by local government, as they pay the property taxes that influence funding for local utilities. So when police brutality happens, Black people are not just outraged by the violence itself, but the lack of agency to drive political change. Conservatives will argue that communities are so willing to “destroy their own neighborhoods,” but who’s neighborhoods are they, really, if Black people can’t safely walk the streets to enjoy them? This conversation is explored in-depth by Aaron Ross Coleman in an interview with Andre M. Perry, a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, a scholar-in-residence at American University, and the author of Know Your Price: Valuing Black Lives and Property in America’s Black Cities, in Vox.

“As long as black lives matter less than the property that they are surrounded by, you never provide incentives not to burn something down. So when people say, “Don’t burn down the goods, businesses, services in your local neighborhood.” They’re missing the point of why people are protesting. The very fact that you have to say that means that they — the property, the goods, the services, the businesses — are so undervalued that the people around them are not respected.”
Andre M. Perry, a fellow, scholar-in-residence, and author, for Vox.

Housing wealth represents a significant amount of American wealth. In fact, homeowners' median net worth was 80 times larger than renters' median net worth in 2015 (Census.gov). And unsurprisingly, the gap between White and Black homeownership today is larger than it was when housing discrimination was legal (CNBC). And considering the added equity homeownership can bring to shaping neighborhoods as a whole, the right to fair homeownership is necessary to create a more equitable future for us all.

key takeaways

Black homeowners routinely experience lower appraisal values than white homeowners.
The practice of “redlining” historically made homeownership incredibly difficult for non-white communities, and the discrimination from that time still persists.
Homeownership is important for building generational wealth and share of voice in local communities.

6/28/2020 | Understand disparities in healthcare treatment.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/29/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/29/20

Study Hall! The trauma of police brutality videos, active bystander trainings.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Welcome to our weekly Study Hall. Each week I answer questions and share insights from each of you in our community. We have such a wide range of readers from various different backgrounds and industries, and I always appreciate reading how this work is showing up for you.

This week was the longest year of my life, honestly, and we covered critical issues preventing our collective liberation. Spend some time reviewing the questions and insights below, and resource yourself for the work ahead.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.

2. Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.

GET EDUCATED

In review: The newsletters we published this week.

Q+A

Q: It seems like there was a lot of misleading information published about the attempted murder of Jacob Blake. How do we know which news sources to trust?

A: I recommend always checking multiple sources to ensure what you read is true. The news is often sensationalized, so move past the headlines you see on social media and read the full article. Also, just because something is shared often doesn't make it true.

I also recommend following local journalists, both in your community and when you're learning more about news that's occuring in a specific area. Many local journalists will report in real-time during a crisis on Twitter, which is what we used to publish our initial report on Jacob Blake on Monday.

U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shared more about this on her Instagram, which was reposted on this Twitter thread.

From Demand justice for Jacob Blake. on Monday, August 24.

Insight

We often get questions from readers internationally on how to take action from their countries. Usually you'll find the same injustices occurring closer to home. Here's a note from a Canadian reader on how Tuesday's conversation on racism in. America's art museums is reflected in Canada:

This isn’t specifically related to art galleries or museums but, here in Winnipeg (in Canada), we are home to the Canadian Human Rights Museum. There has been much controversy attached to this museum since its inception but has recently come under fire for racism experienced by employees of colour and censoring content (such as a queer rights display) for different tour groups.

Just wanted to pass this on in case it is helpful for some Canadian content. Here’s a link to the full article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pervasive-and-systemic-racism-at-canadian-museum-for-human-rights-report-says-1.5674468

From Rally against racism in America’s art museums. on Tuesday, August 25.

Insight

Linda shared this quote that embodies the act of an active bystander:

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Weisel

From Be an active bystander.on Wednesday, August 26.

Insight

Many people also shared that Hollaback has a series of free active bystander trainings that you can take, including one to intervene on harassment to people from AAPI backgrounds, and one to counteract implicit biases. You can learn more here or make a donation to support their work.

From Be an active bystander on Wednesday, August 26.

Q+A

Q: You mentioned that we shouldn't share videos of violence against people of color. But other people are saying that it's important that we "don't look away," because so much of these injustices have been overlooked for decades. How do we balance the two?

Here's the thing. We shouldn't need graphic videos of violence against communities of color for us to be believed. There are already countless graphic examples of the brutalization against us throughout history, available readily on the internet. These videos are proven to be traumatizing for African Americans. It is offensive for anyone to argue that the education of a white person should come before the safety and health of a non-white person; in fact, it's another form of violence.

This argument also forgets the importance of choice. Emmett Till's mother made the brave decision to share the photos of the mutilation of her child's body when he was murdered 65 years ago. But many of these videos circulating were not shared with the consent of the individual or their kin.

I can trust the accounts of eyewitnesses, and do my work to cross-reference sources from journalists. I don't need a video to believe a Black person when they call attention to the injustices so ingrained in our society.

Read more:

https://newrepublic.com/article/153103/videos-police-brutality-traumatize-african-americans-undermine-search-justice

From Be an active bystander on Wednesday, August 26.

Q+A

Q: The threat of incarceration can be powerful motivation for people to not use drugs, or fight a drug addiction. Shouldn't we keep it instead of decriminalizing it?

A: No, y'all. Why would we hold onto a rotten system in the hopes that it will encourage healthier behaviors? It would make much more sense to divest these funds into community support that can provide drug awareness and rehabilitation. In fact, it's believed that decriminalization will further encourage people to seek help.

From Help decriminalize drug possession on Tuesday, August 27.

7/11/2020 | Study Hall! Raising multiracial children and addressing microaggressions.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/28/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/28/20

Start seeing color.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

It's Friday and I hope you're all taking good care of yourselves. Today we're focusing on a phrase I've seen floating around in discussions of the events of the week past. I find the history and psychology behind the term illuminating, so I hope today's post encourages you to understand the phrase itself and why people tend to retreat to it in conversations on race.

Tomorrow is Study Hall, our weekly email that addresses questions and insights shared by the community on the key topics we've discussed so far. This one is going to be rich, and if you have anything you'd like to add, reply to this email to share. I know the reply email address looks suspect, but I promise you I'll get to it. It saves your responses to Mailchimp, the platform we use to send these emails, so they're easy to sort and respond. Our general inbox is a bit overwhelmed with trolls, so I'll be slow to respond as I sort through.

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or via Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). Or, subscribe monthly to our Patreon to contribute regularly.

Nicole

ps – if we haven't met, you can learn more about me, the Anti-Racism Daily and what we stand for in this video.

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Write down the ten people you most trust to guide your decision-making. Then notice their ages, races, genders, education levels, religions, etc. Become aware of missing perspectives and reach out to people who can help you to connect with potential new confidants.

This action is from this Tufts article, referenced in the text below.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

When discussing racism and current events with others, you may hear someone say, “I don’t see color.” This term may have good intentions, but as we discussed, there’s a difference between intent and impact (Anti-Racism Daily). Oftentimes, the concept is rooted in the idea that beyond our racial/ethnic background and other parts of our identity, we are all human. We have more in common than our differences. And we deserve a world that supports all of us equally. We should never be treated differently by our skin color, and if we teach our children that, we would live in a better world.

That all sounds like a lovely dream, but it’s certainly not our reality. We live in a society right now that is incredibly unequal. And to imply that we are all the same dismisses the pain and suffering that marginalized people experience. This is an example of racial “colorblindness”, or, “the idea that ignoring or overlooking racial and ethnic differences promotes racial harmony” (Teaching Tolerance).

This idea has been shaped over time throughout history. After any period of civic unrest, political leaders urge us to embrace what’s born anew from civil strife and look forward to the future as if this utopia already exists (Washington Post). Instead of holding ourselves accountable for historical racial injustices, it’s easier to pretend that they don’t exist. We’ve seen that play out with our current president, who emphasized that there were “bad people” “on both sides” during the Charlottesville in 2019 (USA Today), and white people are also getting killed by police (NYTimes).

And these practices become incredibly harmful when they become part of everyday life. When we disregard how one’s racial/ethnic identity affects their lived experience, we tend to do the opposite of what some may intend. In this way, we can’t recognize how pervasive and persistent racism is in our society, and how frequently people of color experience violence and harm. This goes beyond the prominent violence we read about on the news, but how our skin color leads to side-eyes on the street, microaggressions at the workplace, or discrimination when applying for a job.

"
Saying you’re color blind means you can't address racism in all its tentacled infrastructure — because you can't address what you aren't willing to see.

Autumn McDonald for KQED

When these systemic injustices aren’t addressed, it’s easy to place personal responsibility on individuals that are victimized by a much broader system, individuals with less privilege and power to change the circumstances in which they operate. It also lets anyone that reinforces white supremacy off the hook – particularly the onlooker. This is exacerbated by the individualism that the United States is built on; the notion that we can all “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.” It’s also how the conversation moves away from police brutality against Black people, for example, to judging whether the person that was shot “deserved it,” or blaming them for not “staying quiet” and “doing the right thing.”

And although some people can choose not to “see color,” people of color don’t have the privilege to decide how others view them based on their skin color. When someone says they don’t see color, they may also may not be able to see exactly the racism and discrimination people of color experience on a regular basis.

"
I protest because I’m tired of the white privilege that protects cops who are murderers. I am exhausted that white people fail to recognize their privileges and the ramifications of those privileges. I protest because I live in a society where I don’t have the luxury to say, “I don’t see color,” because my color is the most visible thing about me.

Zahabu Gentille Rukera (Gege), student, for Syracuse University’s Daily Orange

When we view the unique challenges that people of color face in our society, it’s also easy to recognize white privilege. In fact, several sociologists discovered that as people who identify as white continued to gain awareness about racial and ethnic disparities, they were able to change their own relationship to their white identity, moving from maintaining the status quo to dismantling the systems that oppress non-white individuals (The Atlantic).

One more thing to remember about all this: racial colorblindness is actually impossible. Sociologist and cognitive psychologists emphasize that unconscious racial bias is deeply rooted in our society and shapes our perception, no matter how well-intentioned we are (Time). To be clear, there’s a difference between the biases themselves and acting on them. But they still exist.

You may have used this statement but never intended to communicate any of these assumptions. This isn’t a challenge against your values, but the language – and as we’ve discussed, language matters (Anti-Racism Daily). Instead, use the opportunity to say what you mean. Give voice to the challenges people of color face so others can learn and take action. Researchers emphasize that having conversations about race is the first step to further understanding and eases the anxieties that can come up in future conversations (Tufts).

And stay in inquiry about what you might use those words to protect yourself from. Is it fear of judgment? Or shame about the past? Sometimes, the best choice is to move from defensiveness to inquiry and do more listening to understand. Whatever you do, leave the words “I don’t see color behind.” Unless, of course, if you cannot see the colors red, blue, or green.

key takeaways

"I don't see color" is a statement that may be well-intentioned, but is counter-productive to dismantling white supremacy
Racial colorblindness prevents people from recognizing implicit biases and the harm communities of color face
Our history has shaped our perception of racial colorblindness with false promises

7/14/2020 | Embrace your race privilege.

7/13/2020 | Respect the roots of Black hair.

7/10/2020 | Understand the role of cancel culture.

7/9/2020 | Acknowledge the harm of microaggressions.

7/7/2020 | Honor the biracial / multiracial experience.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/26/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/26/20

Be an active bystander.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Happy Thursday,

I started drafting today's email this weekend before I learned about Jacob Blake. I reflected on the attack against Eden Estrada, Jaslene Whiterose, and Joslyn Flawless, and the apathetic response from onlookers as they called for help. It made me consider how, as a society, we choose to witness the violence and suffering against communities of color, and how that's evolved with digital technology. I hope today's email encourages everyone – particularly those with white privilege – to do more to protect those that need it most.

If you follow us on Facebook or Instagram, you may have noticed the flurry of hateful rhetoric and harassment from new "fans." Their responses demonstrate why we need to stay committed to this work. Thank you to all those supporting in the comments.

You can always support our efforts by making a one-time contribution to our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). Or, subscribe monthly on Patreon.

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Know your rights when taking videos and photographs.
Learn what to do after taking a video of police brutality.
Identify the right individual and protocol for escalating racism in your workplace
Reflect: How can I exercise my privilege to be more active during crisis?

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

On Sunday, August 16th, three trans women of color, Eden Estrada, Jaslene Whiterose, and Joslyn Flawless, were robbed and physically and verbally assaulted while waiting for their ride in Los Angeles (CNN). As it occurred, onlookers gathered to watch, casually recording the event on their smartphones, some even yelling their own insults. Throughout a 26-minute video of the attack on YouTube, only one person is seen briefly stopping to help. This attack adds to a long list of violence against the transgender community – this year alone, at least 26 transgender or gender non-conforming people fatally shot or killed by other violent means, a number which is likely vastly under-reported (HRC). This wave of violence prompted the American Medical Association to declare it an “epidemic” (NYTimes). Read more on the importance of centering Black trans lives in a previous newsletter.

In a news conference regarding the incident, city officials were quick to admonish the bystanders. Deputy Chief Justin Eisenberg called the lack of intervention "callous” (People). And it is, especially after a nationwide reckoning for racial justice in the LGBTQ+ community. Amid protests and Pride month this past June, transgender women of color have mobilized to ensure their voices are heard. But when these women needed their community most, they simply watched on passively.

Our society has a deep history of watching injustice unfold from the sidelines. And this goes beyond acts of racial violence. The horrific murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 is a well-known example, where early reports indicated that 38 witnesses heard and ignored her calls for help. This story was greatly exaggerated, but its impact sparked a flurry of studies on how so many people failed to act (read the full story and the publication’s detractions in the NYTimes). Referred to as the “bystander effect,” their research indicated that the more people who witness a catastrophic event, the less likely anyone will do anything. Each person thinks someone else will take responsibility (Harvard). Additional research indicates that “in-group favoritism” may prevent bystanders from intervening for someone they don’t identify with, which can bring in various implicit biases (NBC News). You can read more examples of how this has unfolded across other terrible acts of violence in NPR.

But our society also has a history of actively watching the suffering of communities of color. Over 4,000 African Americans were lynched between 1877 and 1950 (Equal Justice Initiative), and at least 137 Native Americans were lynched between 1835 and 1964 (VOA News). These murders were often not just public affairs but also popular events; communities would gather together to watch as if it were a fun occasion (Equal Justice Initiative). Oftentimes, organizers would pass out pieces of the victims’ clothing and body parts as souvenirs. Photographers would often be present to capture the event, and postcards with photos of the victims would be offered for sale as collectibles (Equal Justice Initiative). In these cases, too, innocent victims would be subject to torture and murder without community help.

Note how similar this is to the viral videos of recent violence shared effortlessly across social media. With the rise of technology, it’s even more straightforward for the pain and suffering of communities of color to become public spectacle for eager audiences. Although sharing them can raise awareness, they often do more harm. This is one of many reasons I don’t share these videos in this newsletter – and encourage you not to do the same. And remember that watching these videos without taking action is still a passive response.

The bystander goes beyond public acts of violence. It extends to when we watch our racist family member say something at the dinner table, or fail to intervene when we hear a microaggression at work. Whenever we choose not to engage, we make it seem that these actions are tolerable and reinforce white supremacy. It sets the precedent that we are willing to excuse this violence elsewhere, not just from our peers, but our police officers, schools, on social media, and in prisons, for starters.

This concept is why more police departments are hosting “duty to intervene” or “active bystander” training, as an effort to make police officers to respond in the moment if their peer is exercising excessive force. Read a general overview via Vice, and a recent example from the Wilmington Police Department. Similar efforts to prevent sexual assault have recently been implemented at Uber (Fortune) and universities (NIU, MSU). But these efforts need to be aligned with shifting toxic culture internally – and unwind each company or institution’s long history with oppression.

It’s important to note that being an active bystander often takes privilege. Sometimes, we may only be able to watch helplessly. But when you are in a situation where you can exercise that privilege, you must. Do not choose to enjoy the show. Put your body and reputation on the line to protect the victim, however you can. And if you can’t, take clear accounts of what happened. This could be by filming an interaction between a victim and the police, or making a note of a microaggression to alert HR. Researches note that even telling another bystander to do something can pull you and/or them out of apathy and into action (Harvard).

And we need action now more than ever. Remember that without the videos, we may not have known the truth behind the injustices that George Floyd, Keith Lamont Scott, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Alton Sterling, Eric Garner, Philando Castile, or Jacob Blake, among others, suffered. How many stories have gone unreported? How much more suffering will be enjoyed as entertainment? And when will we fight for those further marginalized, like the LGBTQ+ community, with the same strength?

Key Takeaways

The "bystander effect" often decentivizes individuals in groups from taking action during crisis
Our society has a long history with making suffering a public spectacle
To center those most marginalized, we must become more active bystanders and exercise whatever privilege we have, when we can

6/4/2020 | Don't tell Black people how to respond.

6/6/2020 | Give to bail funds – and abolish cash bail.

7/6/2020 | Abolish qualified immunity.

6/30/2020 | Boycott as a form of protest.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/24/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/24/20

Demand justice for Jacob Blake.

Donate to the family’s GoFundMe and contact officials in Kenosha to ensure accountability.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Today marks one year since Elijah McClain was murdered by the Aurora Police Department. His death has not seen justice. It has been 164 days since Breonna Taylor was murdered by the Louisville Metro Police Department. Her death has not seen justice. My heart is broken as I write another email calling for justice for another person in my community. It will take all of our voices and efforts to make this one the last.

Please share this story widely and encourage your community to take action. This work takes all of us. And for Jacob Blake and all others who have lost their lives to police brutality, we were already too late. The next best time is now.

Links to support our newsletter: give one-time on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). Or contribute monthly on our Patreon.

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Call local officials to demand the police officers are held accountable:

Kenosha City Attorney 262-653-4170
Kenosha Mayor and City Administration 262-653-4000
Kenosha Police Non Emergency Line 262-656-1234
Wisconsin DOJ (608) 266-1221

Donate to the Milwaukee Freedom Fund, which is extending support to protestors in Kenosha: https://bit.ly/mkefreedomfund

Review the calls to action in our related newsletters below

GET EDUCATED

Yesterday evening, an unarmed Black man was tasered and shot in the back seven times by police officers in Kenosha, WI. Reports indicate that the police were on the scene to respond to a domestic dispute, and the victim was attempting to help settle it (Kenosha News). A video of the shooting was widely circulated on social media*. In the video, the victim can be seen walking to his car and opening the door before being restrained by a police officer and shot multiple times point-blank in the back. Another video released late Monday shows Blake wrestling with a couple police officers a few moments before walking to his car (Daily Mail). A reporter for WISN, a news channel in Wisconsin, later confirmed that the victim is 29-year-old Jacob Blake (Twitter). A large group of people was present to witness the shooting, in addition to his fiancée and children. As of the time of writing this, Blake remains alive and in serious condition. Protests have since erupted in the city demanding accountability.

Kenosha is less than an hour away from Milwaukee, where the Democratic National Convention was held last week. The police officers currently do not wear body cameras, but the Kenosha County Board voted 22-0 to include body cameras for the sheriff’s department in next year’s budget (Kenosha News).

This is an ongoing story and, because this was published in a daily newsletter, we’re unable to update or change the information published here. However, we will continue to update the web version of this newsletter on our website. In addition, please keep yourself educated on this topic from other news sources.

But to be clear: there is no additional information that can ever be provided to justify this shooting. There is no justification for an innocent citizen of this country to be restrained and shot several times in the back. There is no excuse or apology for millions of us to wake up to another video of senseless violence by those entrusted to our protection. We are not waiting for more facts to be outraged, overwhelmed with grief, or take action. This is not "just another" police shooting, because one shooting alone is more than enough to demand change. We wish Jacob Blake a full recovery and swift justice.

*We are intentionally not circulating the video in this newsletter, and urge you to do the same. Read this article for context (Recode).

6/4/2020 | Don't tell Black people how to respond.

6/6/2020 | Give to bail funds – and abolish cash bail.

7/6/2020 | Abolish qualified immunity.

6/30/2020 | Boycott as a form of protest.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/21/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/21/20

Let Black girls be girls.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

It's Friday, and we're closing this week with a heavier topic.

We've spent the past few weeks discussing various cultural tropes and stereotypes, and how our society uses them to perpetuate systemic oppression against marginalized groups. Today's article centers on trending news about a film poster, which might sound trivial. But this conversation – and how swiftly our community is responding – speaks volumes to how specific stereotypes against marginalized youth rob them of their childhood.

Your donations to this project are greatly appreciated. Join us by subscribing $5/mo on Patreon, or make a one-time contribution on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). Thank you for your support.

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Read three stories on how adultification bias affects Black girls collected by the Georgetown Law Initiative on Gender Justice & Opportunity

Pay attention to how the systems in your community – including schools, policing, local media, etc – support or harm Black youth

If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, you can call the National Sexual Assault Telephone Hotline at 800-656-HOPE (4673) or visit online.rainn.org.

GET EDUCATED

Yesterday, controversy brewed around Cuties, a French-language film that centers an 11-year-old Senegalese Muslim immigrant navigating girlhood in middle school who joins a dance team. The film is set to be released on Netflix in September, so the platform started promoting it earlier this week. But instead of using the film’s original release poster, Netflix chose a highly sexualized photo. They also decided to center the film’s description on the lead character’s “fascination” with “twerking” (screenshot for reference). This is quite different than how the film was presented at Sundance, where it took home the World Cinema Dramatic Directing Award (Sundance).

Screen Shot 2020-08-21 at 3.37.12 PM.png

Left: The Cuties French film poster that depicts four girls, from a distance, walking down the street wearing bras and underwear over their casual clothing and carrying shopping bags. Right: The Cuties film poster created by Netflix that shows four girls in revealing dance clothing. Three girls, all girls of color, are in sexually suggestive poses.

This marketing decision prompted outrage, with many people accusing Netflix of promoting child pornography (Vulture). Criticism over sexualizing young women isn’t new, especially in the dance industry (NYTimes). But many note that this particularly hypersexualizes young girls of color. And in the midst of a national reckoning on racial justice, it feels especially insidious that Netflix would choose a cover that strips the characters of the youthful rebellion in the original poster.

The hypersexualization of Black women stems from a broader term called “adultification,” how society perceives the maturity and responsibility of marginalized youth. Both have roots in slavery. Black boys and girls were imagined as chattel and were often put to work as young as two and three years old (Georgetown). In particular, black girls were usually depicted as promiscuous, even predatory when it came to sex. This stereotype, often referred to as the “Jezebel” stereotype, was a way to rationalize the sexual assault of enslaved Black women by their captor (Ferris). This was reinforced by how frequently Black women were pregnant, forced to reproduce by their captors, and displayed without clothing during the slavery transactions (Ferris). Since then, the sexualization of Black women and girls, along with other girls of color, has been reinforced in the media and marketing until present day.

As a result, Black girls are perceived to be more mature and responsible for how others see them, even as society consistently strips them of their autonomy. Black girls are disciplined and reprimanded more than their white peers, particularly in school. Generally, Black girls are more likely to be suspended, physically reprimanded by the police, and sent to juvenile detention than white students (Anti-Racism Daily). This happens particularly with dress code: Black students, especially curvier students, are more likely to be disciplined than other girls for wearing the same type of clothing because their bodies are often sexualized by teachers and school authority figures (National Women’s Law Center). More anecdotal examples in the Washington Post.

And this hypersexualization has a devastating impact. One in four Black girls will be sexually abused before the age of 18, and one in five Black women are survivors of rape (American Psychological Association). The notions that Black girls are "fast" and "asking for it" help encourage and discredit the true harm they experience each and everyday (Bustle). Because of significant campaigns like the #MeToo movement and documentaries like Surviving R. Kelly and On The Record, more conversations are growing around the importance of protecting Black women.

“Only by recognizing the phenomenon of adultification can we overcome the perception that 'innocence, like freedom, is a privilege'.”

Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood, via Georgetown

Netflix offered an apology and changed both the promo image and the description, but the damage is done. Nearly 400,000 people have signed one of two petitions advocating for Netflix to remove the upcoming film from their platform. The film has garnered dozens of negative reviews on popular movie review sites.

Since the film isn’t available for Netflix users until September, very few of these critics have actually seen it. But reviews from those that have made one thing clear: Cuties doesn’t promote hypersexualization of Black girls. It condemns it. The film navigates this conversation all on its own by painting a compelling and cautionary tale on how social media and middle school social cliques influence the path to womanhood. More urgently, it emphasizes that it’s up to the grownups in the room – including parents, guardians, and broader society – to protect Black girls from it (Shadow and Act).

And through all of this, we’ve minimized the voice behind the film itself. Cuties was made by Maïmouna Doucouré, a French screenwriter and filmmaker of Senegalese origin. This is her feature film directorial debut, and she brings a new perspective and story to a film circuit historically dominated by white men. In an interview from January 2020, Doucouré shares that she drew from experiences from her upbringing and spent over a year researching to craft an accurate narrative of the girls’ experiences in her community (Screen Daily). Since the backlash, Doucouré’s social media profiles have gone silent. It disheartens me that an insensitive marketing choice threatens our community’s exposure to films like these that are still rare: a coming-of-age film about a young Black girl created by a Black woman.

We need a new narrative that lets Black girls be girls. And in some ways, the backlash to Netflix’s marketing decisions proves that we are prepared to use our voices to create change. Hopefully, as we continue to rally against injustices, we don’t erase the voices we need so desperately.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Netflix opted for a hypersexualized image and description for an upcoming movie on an 11-year-old Black girl and her dance team, rousing calls of criticism
This instance represents a long history of media and society hypersexualizing Black girls
The backlash may silence a diverse voice in film, silencing voices from people that represent communities harmed
It is up to us to protect the right for Black girls to be Black girls

7/31/2020 | Keep fighting for Breonna Taylor.

7/17/2020 | Analyze representation in media.

7/16/2020 | Respect AAVE.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/20/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/20/20

Support affirmative action in schools.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Happy Thursday! As promised, here's an overview of affirmative action, particularly how it's unfolding in higher education right now. This was a conversation requested after last week's newsletter on tokenizing people of color. I hope it encourages us to look at key issues with a nuanced lens and hold conflicting truths. In this case, we can acknowledge the flaws of affirmative action programs while working to improve it.

How has affirmative action impacted you? Respond to this email with your stories. And get your questions ready for Saturday, where we dive deeper on the key topics from this week with community insights and feedback.

Thank you all for pitching in to make this possible! You can make a one-time or monthly contribution on our website, PayPal, Venmo (@nicoleacardoza) or subscribe monthly on Patreon.

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Follow conversations on affirmative action and how they impact your alma mater and/or schools in your community.
Ensure affirmative action initiatives at your company or organization are equitable for all marginalized groups.

If you're based in CA:
Vote to repeal Proposition 209, a state constitutional amendment from 1996 that banned any consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions at the University of California, the California State University and other public entities.

GET EDUCATED

By Jami Nakamura Lin

Last week, the U.S. Justice Dept. accused Yale of discriminating against white and Asian American students in its application process (NYTimes). The case argues that Asian American and white applicants have 10–25% of the chance of being admitted as African Americans with similar applications, and accuses Yale of “unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs” (Washington Post). Harvard won in a similar case last year, but the case was appealed with support of the Trump administration in early 2020 (Inside Higher Ed). Both Ivy League schools “categorically denies” these claims, each asserting their commitment to fair and equitable acceptance policies (Washington Post). Regardless, the challenges against both universities, in the midst of conversations of race and equity, have placed the strengths and peril of affirmative action in the spotlight.

The idea behind affirmative action is simple: create rules and regulations that require organizations to proactively pursue equitable practices re: hiring, acceptance rates, etc. This means excluding race, ethnicity, and gender from the selection process and choosing the best candidate, regardless of identity. But it also means including race, ethnicity, and gender in the selection process to ensure a diverse and equitable community. This creates a paradox – how do we equitably prevent racial discrimination without reinforcing it at the same time? This matches public perception; a Gallup poll shows that most Americans both support affirmative action programs for racial minorities, and oppose hiring decisions that take racial backgrounds into consideration (Gallup).

Before we dive into the nuances, let’s explore why affirmative action is relevant to education. In America, communities of color have had significantly less educational opportunities than their white peers, based on a wide range of factors that perpetuate systemic oppression. From inequitable public school funding to redlining, the school-to-prison pipeline to lack of representation in staff and administration, students of color face challenges for equitable educational opportunities (Brookings for a quick overview, and visit our archives for newsletters related to education). Because of these factors, it’s no surprise that 65 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, students are increasingly attending racially segregated schools (Vox).

Besides, access to quality higher education in the U.S. has been reserved for the wealthy and privileged, made evident by the college-admissions cheating and bribery scandal that made news last year – right around the same time as the Harvard case (The Atlantic). Even without fraud, these families have more opportunities to secure a spot for their children at prestigious universities (examples at The Atlantic). Affirmative action at universities is designed to weigh these systemic disparities against applications for marginalized groups, create a more equal playing field, and create more accountability for inclusivity. Studies show that marginalized communities that have benefited from affirmative action are more likely to graduate college, earn professional degrees, and have higher incomes than peers who haven’t, which fosters necessary social mobility for disadvantaged populations (Harvard).

Critics against affirmative action in schools argue that it takes away spaces from white students that deserve the spaces as much, or more so, than marginalized groups. Ironically, the group of people that have benefited most from affirmative action has historically been white women. When affirmative action was institutionalized in 1961 by President Kennedy, it focused on “race” and “color,” a direct response to the growing civil rights movement of the era (Vox). The term is designed to encourage companies and institutions to “do something,” and was coined by an African-American lawyer named Hobart Taylor, Jr. (New Yorker). Pressure from the Women’s Movement in the late 1960s encouraged President Johnson to amend the order to include gender. After two decades of affirmative action in the private sector, the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) (Vox). Despite this, most white women are in opposition to affirmative action, and most cases brought against affirmative action initiatives are led by white women (Vox).

But the particular case against Yale was initiated by an Asian American advocacy group, which raises another critical lens to the issue. Affirmative action is intended to support people from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. However, there are concerns about how Asian Americans are treated based on the “model minority myth,” a stereotype suggesting that all Asian Americans are smart, hard-working, and likely to be successful (Wiley). Thus, schools may cap the number of Asian American recipients to make way for other marginalized groups. This is called “racial balancing,” and harms everyone, including Asian Americans. It reinforces the stereotype and treats Asian Americans as a homogenous group (American Progress). Data shows that college attendance rates vary drastically among Asian ethnicities, so it’s crucial to hold affirmative action programs accountable for how they can fuel these disparities (American Progress). When it comes to the Yale case, 20% of Yale’s undergraduates are of Asian descent, 14% are Hispanic or Latino, 8% are Black, and 7% are multiracial (Washington Post).

Affirmative action can also fall flat if students aren't adequately seen, heard, and supported once they arrive on campus. Students can find themselves propped up as tokens for colleges and universities to look more diverse than they really are (Anti-Racism Daily). And students at colleges across the country have taken to social media to share sobering accounts of racism and discrimination they've faced from teachers, administration, and peers (Vox). If we don't find a more equitable way to implement affirmative action practices and policies, we can continue to uphold the same systems of oppression within higher education.

Some people have argued shifting affirmative action from looking at race towards analyzing class, which would support economically disadvantaged individuals across race and gender divides (The Atlantic). Others suggest that we need to shift the outcomes away from this “quota” mentality to “outcomes” for systemically marginalized groups: less diversity, more reparations (The Atlantic). Whatever the case, it’s clear we need a more equitable solution. Part of that needs to be investing in solving the systemic inequities that have created this issue.

But another necessary component of this work is protecting the right to implement affirmative action policies altogether. The Trump administration rescinded Obama-era guidance documents encouraging affirmative action at colleges and universities back in 2018, which signaled potential lawsuits to come (NPR). The decisions at Yale and Harvard could signal more comprehensive efforts to dismantle affirmative action as a whole. Like many responses to social injustice, affirmative action is not perfect. But the concept can’t be discarded based on its application – we need to do better, and continue to advocate for equitable opportunities for all.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

U.S. Justice Dept. accused Yale of discriminating against white and Asian American students in its application process
Affirmative action has been proven to increase opportunities for marginalized communities, but also contribute to the "model minority myth" and view Asian Americans as a homogeneous group
Dismantling affirmative action can reduce collective accountability for inclusivity for marginlized communities

RELATED ISSUES

7/16/2020 | Respect AAVE.

7/15/2020 | End racial bias in school discipline.

7/8/2020 | Investigate school district funding disparities.

7/2/2020 | Remove police from our public schools.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/19/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/19/20

End the "angry Black woman" trope.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Happy Wednesday! I've referenced today's topic in several newsletters in the past, and it's been sitting in queue for a while. But the conversations that have sparked since Kamala Harris' nomination brought it right back to the top of the list. Today we're referencing how the "angry Black woman" trope has played in the political world. If you're learning about this for the first time, be sure to dive into the resources provided for more historical examples across industries, and I highly recommend Brittney Cooper's book also referenced below.

The upcoming election is bringing conversations on race centerstage. Racism is deeply intertwined in our political system, the ideologies and lived experiences of key candidates, and the gravest issues affecting our nation. We are not a political organization, nor will we endorse a candidate. But we will talk about how current and future administrations affect this topic. More urgently, we will encourage each of you to exercise whatever right to vote you have, wherever you are – civic engagement is critical to dismantling systems of oppression. I'm grateful to navigate what's coming with this community.

Thank you all for pitching in to make this possible! You can make a one-time or monthly contribution on our website, PayPal, Venmo (@nicoleacardoza) or subscribe monthly on Patreon.

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Note how friends, family, and colleagues discuss Kamala Harris and her speech at the Democratic National Convention. Hold conversations with those promoting the "angry Black woman" trope.
Consider how similar actions by Black women would be labeled if white women or white men performed them.
Reflect: How does it feel when others invalidate your emotions or experiences? When have you been mislabeled as angry?

If you identify as a Black woman:

How do you create space for your anger? How can you practice reclaiming your inherent right to be mad?

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

Not a day after Kamala Harris was nominated as the vice-presidential candidate for the upcoming election, Trump referred to her as a “mad woman” (Axios). This, paired with a “birther” conspiracy theory we’ll discuss in a later newsletter, was the start of a broader series of accusations referring to Kamala Harris’ perceived temper. Harris is the first female vice-presidential African American candidate and candidate of Indian descent.

The “mad woman” stereotype has been applied against women of all backgrounds and identities, reinforcing a long-held assumption that women should be approachable and friendly. Taylor Swift released a song of the same title a few weeks ago (Seventeen). In Game of Thrones, the character of Daenerys Targaryen was judged for her descent to madness, perhaps in a way many men aren’t (Polygon). And in the 2016 presidential debate, Trump’s comment on Hilary Clinton as a “nasty woman” launched a rallying cry against these outdated stereotypes (CNN).

But there’s a particular relationship with anger and Black women in our society. The “Angry Black woman” trope has been used to discredit Black women’s emotions since slavery. This trope has been perpetuated consistently throughout history in the media, which was outlined recently by the NYTimes. From TV shows and movies to Broadway plays, Black women are often depicted in smaller roles and appear sassy or angry. It’s wielded against powerful businesswomen and athletes – consider how Serena Williams has been publicly scorned for demonstrating any anger through her career (Washington Post).

And perpetuating this stereotype encourages our society to dismiss the thoughts and emotions of Black women. It’s a form of policing Black bodies, a concept we outlined in our very first newsletter (look at how far we’ve come). This fact is well-outlined in author and educator Brittney Cooper’s book Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower (Bookshop):

“Whenever someone weaponizes anger against black women, it is designed to silence them. It is designed to discredit them and to say that they don't have a good grasp on reality, that they are overreacting, that they are being hypersensitive, that whatever set of conditions that they are responding to, that their reaction is outsized.”

Brittney Cooper, author, teacher, activist, and cultural critic, for NPR.

And when the “angry Black woman” trope is played against Harris during the election season, it gets personal and political. It doesn’t just work to discredit any other Black and female political leader – current or forthcoming. It’s an attempt to muzzle the policies and promises the Biden/Harris election campaign will reinforce in their campaigns, speeches, and debates. It can be used to weaken Harris’s political career and aspirations – and weaken Biden solely based on association.

We’ve already seen this happen. Harris isn’t the first politician to be criticized this way and is unlikely to be the last. Michelle Obama has publicly spoken out against the series of tropes (BBC). And Maxine Walters has faced the same discourse throughout her career (Vox). Stacey Abrams, who has been adamant about voter disenfranchisement throughout her political career, has also been depicted the same way (The Root). It’s hard not to find an example of a Black political leader that hasn’t been the same sentiment, which shows how weaponized this term has become. It’s even been wielded by Black women for their own gain: Omarosa Manigault, who rose to fame on Celebrity Apprentice before becoming a high-profile political aide under President Trump, played into the “angry Black woman” trope on the reality show (Slate).

The frustrating thing about this trend is that, because Black women’s feelings are often minimized, they are forced to show up for themselves. Because as we watch Black women being discredited as angry, we also see society dismiss their pain and sorrow. Megan the Stallion, a prominent 25-year-old rapper, was mocked and ridiculed widely on social media after reports circulated that she was shot (NYTimes). Oluwatoyin Salau, a 19-year-old Black Lives Matter activist, who went missing and was found dead a week later, had recently shared feeling unsafe after a sexual assault (CNN). The injustice against Breonna Taylor isn’t a singular story; many Black women have lost their lives to police brutality that still goes unchecked (WFPL).

No one ever needs external validation for how they feel. But this outdated narrative is especially damaging today. With a global pandemic exposing the systemic racial inequities in our society, the protests and rallying to change our police systems, and a contentious upcoming election, there hasn’t been a better time to be angry. And we need to acknowledge the anger of Black women to create transformative change.

And that starts at the polls. Regardless of how you feel about Harris as a candidate, we need to validate the space she takes up and the role she plays in activating a nation towards change. That means actively dismantling the angry Black woman trope in this election – and how it shows up in conversations with those around you.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Kamala Harris follows a long line of Black female political figures that have been discredited with the "angry Black woman" trope
This trope has been persistent throughout history, and used as a way to police the voices and perspectives of Black women
It is up to us to center the voices and perspectives of Black women

RELATED ISSUES

7/31/2020 | Keep fighting for Breonna Taylor.

7/30/2020 | Support Black maternal health.

6/15/2020 | Diversify your media consumption.

6/13/2020 | Center Black trans lives.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/16/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/16/20

Think before eating out.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

I was once a bartender and line cook, and currently travel the world as a nomad. Between the two, I've always considered restaurants a second home, and find solace whenever I cozy up at the bar for a dinner for one. Today, as part of our ongoing series on the racial disparities exposed by COVID-19, I researched how new trends of dining in at restaurants are increasing the likelihood of contracting the virus.

Do you currently work in the restaurant industry? I'd love to hear from you. Reply to this email or send us a note on our submissions page.

As always, consider making a contribution to help this work grow. You can give on our website, Paypal, Venmo (@nicoleacardoza) or subscribe $5/mo on Patreon. A huge thank you for those that have already supported!

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

Tell Congress to pass the RESTAURANTS Act, which prioritizes funding and support for independent restaurants to weather COVID-19. Read an overview of the bill here.

Protect farmworkers in your state/region. There are different calls to action for various states, including New York, southern California, and Florida.

Consider how your efforts to support local businesses can also center the needs of those most vulnerable in the restaurant industry.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

Many states have started to re-open businesses, encouraging communities to head to their favorite bars and restaurants. But data indicates this trend has unfavorable results. About 25% of new cases in Louisiana stemmed from bars and restaurants, and so did 9% of outbreaks in Colorado. 12% of new Maryland cases started in bars and restaurants last month, and 15 of the 39 new cases in San Diego stemmed from restaurants in only one week (NYTimes).

This doesn’t just threaten the safety of guests. Workers, often forced to return to their jobs, carry the brunt of this impact. And these workers are disproportionately from the Latino community, who are already disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The Hispanic and Latino population represent 17% of the total U.S. workforce, but over 27% of restaurant and food service workers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

And this goes beyond the restaurant where you may be dining. Consider how eating out affects the supply chain that fuels the restaurant industry. According to a PBS report, farmworkers are three times more likely to contract COVID-19 than workers in other industries, where lack of affordable housing and personal transportation forces workers to live in closed proximity in shared homes and cars (PBS). Although the federal Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) has issued workplace guidance to protect employees, none of them are mandatory, and many employers aren’t providing the necessary PPE to support practicing these policies (PBS).

And a significant percentage of workers across the restaurant industry are also undocumented, which exacerbates the stress of the persistent lack of employment. Most workers pay taxes in this income, but they aren’t eligible for government aid, nor are they protected by the eviction moratorium. Many face a difficult decision: stay at the open and available jobs and expose themselves to risk, or go without pay indefinitely (Eater).

Undocumented or not, there are millions of workers in the restaurant industry who were already paid too little to be eligible for unemployment (Time), a critical part of the unemployment gap we referenced in last week’s newsletter. This is because many restaurants operate off of the subminimum tipped wage policy, where workers get paid less than minimum wage in addition to tips provided by customers. But this practice stems from our legacy of slavery. After slavery was abolished, restaurant owners weren’t keen on paying their newly freed Black workers. Instead, they created policies that customers would pay employees on their behalf, based on the service they provided. This makes front-of-house workers’ pay subject to discrimination of guests, making “customer prejudice into public policy” (Time). It’s no surprise why front-of-house workers are predominantly white, while 70% of tip-ineligible cooks and dishwashers are people of color (Time). Furthermore, many restaurants don’t share tips between front-of-house staff and back-of-house employees, fueling pay disparities within the restaurant itself.

In some ways, you can argue that it’s better that these restaurants can open at all. Many restaurants have been forced to shutter, even if they did receive some time of business relief grants. Nationwide, about 25% of those unemployed in the U.S. because of the pandemic are food and beverage workers (Washington Post). In NYC, a culinary epicenter, 80% of restaurants could not pay their full rent (Eater). Although many restaurants and local organizations started GoFundMe initiatives to support staff earlier this spring, many of those funds have long been disbursed. And as of now, there’s no plan for future relief funding for small businesses. Many restaurants are tasked with choosing whether to close or expose staff and guests to risk to recoup costs.

And many of the guidelines open restaurants are encouraged to follow center the safety of the guests, not the staff. For example, tables might be placed further away from one another, but wait staff still have to serve guests nearby. Back-of-house staff still have to cook and clean in smaller conditions, and decreasing staff support places more stress and burden on those remaining. In New York and other major cities, temperature checks and contact tracing is encouraged for guests, but not required, so diners can come and go as they please. In a way, it doesn’t matter if restaurants make these precautions required for their staff; there’s such high traffic of other people not committing to the same rules. And if a diner finds out they’ve contracted COVID-19 and want to hold a restaurant accountable, they could sue. Read more of the double standards in Eater.

And there’s no reprieve from the virus on the horizon, but we’re transitioning from summer to fall and winter. With temperatures dropping, many of us may be more tempted to escape our homes for the atmosphere of a restaurant and sit indoors. With windows closed to contain the heat, the likelihood of contracting the virus may increase. And this will be paired with an upcoming flu season that, at minimum, will conflate how we respond to the virus (Science Magazine).

So when supporting your local businesses and boosting your local economy, take extra care. Take-out may be a safer alternative – or, consider buying gift cards to enjoy the food and drink later. But as you do, remember that this is less of an individual failing than a political one. The safest option, for many industries, is to close businesses and pay people adequately to stay at home – it’s just not an option our government is considering. Another effective way to support your local restaurant is by exercising your civic duty and advocating for the needs of local businesses and vulnerable workers.

Do you currently work in the restaurant industry? We'd love to hear from you. Reply to this email or send us a note on our submissions page.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Restaurants are faced with difficult decisions between shuttering businesses and operating during a global pandemic
A rise of cases in many states have been linked to the return of dining-in establishments, like restaurants and bars
The likelihood of contracting the virus at bars and restaurants disproportionately affects the staff, who are more likely to be communities of color and undocumented
The impact of eating out impacts marginalized workers across the supply chain

8/2/2020 | Protect those vulnerable to extreme heat during COVID-19.

7/27/2020 | Support Asian Americans through COVID-19.

7/19/2020 | Rally for representation in science and research: COVID-19 and CDC.

6/28/2020 | Understand disparities in healthcare treatment.

6/21/2020 | Protect essential workers: Racial Disparities of COVID-19

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/15/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/15/20

Study Hall! Affirmative action, sliding scale pricing, and the right intentions.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Welcome to our weekly Study Hall where we answer questions and reflections from the previous week. We dove into some tricky topics this week, and I appreciated your kind and thoughtful reflections.

Remember that you can always respond to these emails with a question and we'll do our best to add it to future newsletters! It can be related to the topic or something else that you're learning about. Sometimes it sparks an idea for a future newsletter!

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

ps – if you opted-in to weekly digests this is the only newsletter you will receive. If you prefer to get weekly newsletters than the daily ones, update your profile here.

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.

2. Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza

In review: The newsletters we published this week.

8/14/2020 | Support Black mental health.

8/13/2020 | Don't tokenize people of color.

8/12/2020 | Demand justice for Elijah McClain.

8/11/2020 | Travel for diversity and inclusivity.

8/10/2020 | Respect the relationship between name and identity.

8/9/2020 | Understand the unemployment gap | COVID-19

You mentioned that the government should do more to support unemployed workers right now. What do you think that should look like?
From Understand the unemployment gap | COVID-19 on Sunday, August 8.

I'm certainly not an economic expert, so I'll leave this up to the officials. But I do think we need a more long-term, sustainable solution than the federal aid announced last weekend. And that proposal was more generous than the actual outcome; it looks like most people will receive $300, not $400, and these extended benefits don't support some of the lowest-wage workers. Workers must qualify for at least $100 a week in unemployment benefits to be eligible. According to the NYTimes, would exclude roughly one million people, nearly three-quarters of them women (NYTimes).

I agree with the importance of learning names as parts of identities. It's also important to honor when individuals choose to use their Americanized names instead of their given names, too!
From Respect the relationship between name and identity on Monday, August 9.

Absolutely. Some people may choose to adopt a name that's easier to say for their own comfort and ease. And if that is their choice, it's our responsibility to respect that. Names are an important part of our identity, regardless of which ones we choose to adopt. Your response cautioned us not to "bulldoze people with our good intentions" of asking for a different name or using it without consent, which I appreciate. Thank you for this important note, Risa!

Why didn't this piece talk about how the travel industry exploits different communities and harms the environment?
From Travel for diversity and inclusivity. on Tuesday, August 11.

There's many ways we can look at how white supremacy impacts certain industries, including travel. We are committed to publishing one newsletter a day in perpetuity – that's 365 opportunities to talk about racism this year. We often publish a newsletter / day that focuses on one aspect of large and complex issues. This issue was about Black representation and stigmatization in the industry.

When we write about one issue, we don't consider it the only issue. And one issue within an industry shouldn't minimize the issues of another. We have a lot of work to do to unpack the patriarchal, colonized approach to travel in America, and reckon with its environmental impact. But as we do, we can also rally for inclusivity and representation to make the industry safer for those marginalized.

Many of the issues that affect communities of color are sidelined because they don't seem "as important" as others. That dismissal in itself is systemic oppression in action. As we continue this work remember that there is enough space in our hearts and minds to take action on a wide range of issues, even if they're not "as important" to you.

How does tokenization differ from affirmative action? I know that affirmative action is looking to add more representation in certain spaces, but can it cause more tokenization as a result?
From Don't tokenize people of color. on Thursday, August 13.

I had a feeling this question would be coming, so I'm writing a whole newsletter on affirmative action for next week. But in short, there's absolutely a relationship between the two. Tokenization can happen consciously or unconsciously. Our newsletter last week looked at more conscious examples of how we can tokenize people – hiring them and placing them in visible roles without addressing racism internally, using people of color as examples that "racism doesn't exist anymore," etc.

But tokenization can also happen because of other structures and systems that place people of color into visible and inequitable spaces. Affirmative action is one of them. Although the intentions of affirmative action may not be to tokenize, the impact may be the same. And, there are absolutely affirmative action programs that are intentionally designed so organizations "look diverse" without "being diverse;" using the diversity data of new members to avoid blame and guilt, and maintaining oppressive systems that don't truly support non-white communities. We see this often in colleges and universities.

I'm a therapist and when I was starting private practice, I wanted to advertise a sliding scale fee for BIPOC to decrease barriers to services. I've seen a few organizations do this. But colleagues responded that I should not do this as it assumes BIPOC people don't have the capacity to pay. What are your thoughts on the two perspectives?

General question

Sliding scale pricing (which means providing a range of payment options for products and services) is a great way to increase accessibility for people of all socioeconomic statuses. And non-white people are more likely to be lower-income than white people (Pew Research). But, as your colleagues mentioned, advertising services that connect socioeconomic status with racial identity does infer that all non-white people can't afford to pay, which is likely untrue. I also think it alienates the white people that could also benefit from lower prices – most lower-income people by population size are white, most lower-income individuals are feeling the strain of the economic impact of COVID-19.

I'd recommend offering sliding scale pricing for everyone, regardless of racial or ethnic identity.

8/1/2020 | Study Hall! Racist actions, doulas, and intersectional change.

7/25/2020 | Study Hall! How to be a better ally, petitions, and plastics.

7/18/2020 | Study Hall! Ebonics, capitalizations and cultural appropriation.

7/11/2020 | Study Hall! Raising multiracial children and addressing microaggressions.

ARCHIVES

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

Key Takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

Key Takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

key takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

key takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

key takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

key takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

key takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

key takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

Key Takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT