Panel discusses civil rights challenges

Listen to this article

In the picture, left to right, Mark Agrast, Mary Rose Oakar, Daniel Kohrman, Paul Igasaki and Wade Henderson.

The 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act served as a springboard for discussion of the future of civil rights in the United States at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting earlier this month in Atlanta.

The panelists’ bottom line? While much progress has been made in the civil rights arena, much work lies ahead before “liberty and justice for all” is truly realized.

Flying While Brown

Former Ohio Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar, now with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington D.C., lamented the “tremendous erosion” of civil rights of Arab-Americans, and those perceived to be of Arab descent, since 9/11.

Of particular concern is racial profiling during airport security checks, where “flying while brown” has become a red flag for screeners. Although young men are especially targeted, Oakar observed that among those who have been detained are a Jordanian Catholic priest entering the U.S. to address a bishops’ conference, and a 5-year-old girl. In addition, hundreds of predominantly Arab, Muslim and South Asian men have been secretly detained and subjected to “voluntary” interviews and special registration procedures.

While the Bush administration early in its tenure took a stand against racial profiling, the Justice Department’s recent Racial Profiling Guidelines are disappointing, Oakar continued, because while they essentially forbid profiling based on ethnicity and race, they approve the practice when based on physical appearance.

Also troubling to Oakar’s group is the USA PATRIOT Act. Notably, they take issue with:

• Sec. 213, which allows delayed notice of the execution of a search warrant, or so-called “sneak and peek” searches;

• Sec. 215, which allows the government access to individual personal records, such as the books one checks out the local library or medical records, without notifying the individual that he or she is under investigation;

• Sec. 411, which allows deportation for certain associational activities; and,

• Sec. 412, which gives the government detention powers for non-citizens at the attorney general’s discretion without due process for the detainees.

She called for more cultural sensitivity and education. As an example of the ignorance fueled by fears of terrorism, she noted that the previously mentioned Catholic priest, when detained, was asked, “Are you a Christian Muslim?”

Further, Oakar urged all Americans who are concerned about civil rights to support the proposed Civil Liberties Restoration Act. That legislation would place more limitations upon the government’s secret surveillance activities, and restore due process rights for non-citizens jailed by the government.

Civil rights isn’t just important to specific groups of people, she stated, but to everyone. “When you start to take away the rights of one group, ultimately you’re going to take away rights from others as well.”

The Graying of America

Americans are going to seek the protection of age discrimination laws more often in the coming years, simply because there will be more older Americans as the Baby Boomers age, reasoned Daniel B. Kohrman, of the AARP Litigation Foundation in Washington D.C.

Age was left out of the 1964 Act, he explained, pointing to a 1965 Department of Labor study that concluded that people generally didn’t “hate” the elderly, as they might minority groups.

The AARP is well known for its legislative advocacy, Kohrman said, quipping that no one had better ask him about prescription drugs. But the AARP also engages in legal advocacy, which doesn’t always make newspaper front pages, but makes a significant impact nonetheless. Frequently this litigation focuses upon unfair financial practices, e.g. predatory lending targeting older Americans, or fair housing laws and individual living issues for seniors, such as access to nursing homes and assisted living.

He said the AARP was pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline, No. 02-11080, decided Feb. 24, in which the court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not prohibit reverse discrimination. Looking ahead, the AARP is closely watching Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., No. 03-1160, in which the high court will address whether disparate impact claims are viable under the ADEA. To date, most federal courts have answered that in the negative.

He concluded that coalition building will be a principal AARP strategy in the coming years, since more often there will be overlap among the affected populations.

Already, over half the AARP’s membership is female, and a significant and growing percentage is people of color and/or with disabilities.

Gay and Lesbian Rights

“The gaying of America.” A famous Time magazine cover coined that term, explained Mark D. Agrast, of the Center for American Progress in Washington D.C. It’s misleading because it connotes acceptance of gays and lesbians — hardly the case, when anywhere from 8 million-30 million Americans, depending upon whose numbers you believe, are not members of a protected class free from employment discrimination.

	Related Links American Bar Association

Workers in the federal government are protected from workplace discrimination, per a Clinton administration executive order. Further, 14 states and the District of Columbia have some sort of laws on their books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, and a handful of cities have similar local ordinances. Still, approximately two-thirds of the gay and lesbian population has no such legal redress, Agrast explained.

He traced the history of efforts to change the law. Back in 1975, Congress-woman Bella Abzug introduced an act to add sexual orientation to Title VII. It failed. Fast-forward to 1996, when Congress was debating the Defense of Marriage Act. An amendment proposed by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy to prohibit employment discrimination against gays and lesbians failed by a 49-50 vote in the Senate. Agrast noted that an absent lawmaker had stated his intent to support the measure, and former Vice President Al Gore was waiting in the wings to cast the deciding vote, had that senator been there and the vote resulted in a tie.

More recently, Kennedy introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 (ENDA). Agrast characterized ENDA as a “limited, modest bill,” noting that it pertains only to employment and not to groups such as the Boy Scouts of America or the military. Nonetheless, he is not optimistic that it will get on the floor for a vote, should Congress remain under Republican control.