Skip to content

MLK Week Promotes Diversity at UNC-Chapel Hill

January 24, 2012
BY: SARAH RUTHERFORD
In keeping with its mission to advocate and promote diversity among UNC-Chapel Hill students and the local community, the Chancellor’s Committee for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday Celebration held a Unity Dinner on Jan. 16 to both honor King’s work and create dialogue on social justice issues.
The Mu Zeta Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity invited students to break bread, build bonds and be a part of engaging conversation. Focused on advancing the principles of peace and equality, the dinner began with a video which showcased images reflecting the work of Dr. King and interlaced audio of his “I Have a Dream” speech. Once the food was served, students were encouraged to discuss topics such as education, diversity in business and the future of the United States of America.
First-time attendee and junior Ebony Shamberger found the dinner eye-opening.
“We tend to forget that diversity also includes different opinions, backgrounds, emotions and more,” Shamberger said. “It’s so easy for us to base it off of things that we can see, such as skin color, instead of the things that we can’t see, like someone’s mind. We must stop overlooking things that present true diversity.”
While it lasted only a few hours, the dinner provided a key forum for starting dialogue about social justice issues facing UNC today.
“Those in attendance may not realize this, but they were able to make a valuable contribution to this university,” Shamberger said. “By coming together in this way to share their experiences, they have taken a step to make UNC a more diverse and accepting environment.”
The Unity Dinner, however, was only one of the events planned by the committee to celebrate MLK week. A panel discussion on popular movements brought in dozens more students on Jan. 19 as well.
First-year Cora Went, who currently serves as one of the Campus Y’s First-Year Members-at-Large, helped to organize both events.
“[King would] still be fighting injustices if he were alive today,” she said.
Reflecting back on the week’s events, Went finds that the committee largely achieved its goals of starting a dialogue.
“The honesty of the conversations this week surprised and pleased me,” Went said. “People like to champion MLK, and champion civil rights in the United States, but this week people willingly acknowledged that we still have work to do.”

Republicans, Recess Appointments and Hypocrisy

January 19, 2012

BY: WILSON PARKER

The Heritage Foundation described it as a “tyrannical abuse of power.” Ron Paul lamented, “It is disappointing that a former constitutional-law professor does not understand that the president is not a dictator or king.” Or, in the words of Newt Gingrich, the president has “a total willingness to violate the law and impose an imperial presidency.”

It may sound as if conservatives are warning against an invasion of another sovereign nation, but what has got the GOP up in arms this time seems petty in comparison—they disapprove of President Barack Obama’s recent decision to nominate Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And these statements, which characterize the president’s actions as abuses of power, display at best a tendency toward hyperbolic exaggeration and at worst a fundamental misunderstanding of policymaking. Yes, the circumstances under which the president nominated Cordray present a completely novel constitutional question. That does not mean, however, that the president knowingly violated the Constitution, or even that he violated it at all.

Republicans argue that because the Senate was conducting pro forma sessions, the Senate was not in a recess and therefore the president lacks the authority to make appointments under his recess power. But their argument ignores important constitutional principles. The Constitution provides for the presence of a continual authority to fill vacancies and make appointments to positions. The founders knew that the government might need new ministers quickly, more quickly than the time required for the Senate to convene. That is the rationale behind the Recess Appointment Clause. If a majority of the Senate agrees to recess, the power to deal with appointments and fill vacancies is transferred to the President until the Senate reconvenes.

When the president appointed Cordray, the Senate was not in session. As the Justice Department noted, the Senate cannot “receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments” during these pro forma sessions, so it is incapable of fulfilling its Constitutional role to approve or reject appointments. Thus, to accept the Republican argument that the Senate’s pro forma sessions block the president from exercising his recess appointment power in light of the fact that the Senate is itself unable to confirm anyone would be to acknowledge that there currently exists no power to fill vacancies, in direct defiance of the Constitution.

But wait, Republicans counter, what about the pro forma sessions held by Democrats in 2007 and 2008 to prevent President Bush from making appointments. Surely if those pro forma sessions were enough to block the recess appointment power, they reason, these pro forma sessions must be able to do the same. Once again, they ignore important aspects of constitutional law. As I mentioned before, the Senate must willingly go into recess in order for the president to have the power to make recess appointments. And given that a Democratic majority voted to adopt rules that would ensure “no business [is] conducted” and that “no action or debate” is held during these pro forma sessions, that appears to be the case. In fact, the only reason that pro forma sessions are being held at all is that the House of Representatives and its GOP majority refuse to allow the Senate to adjourn for more than three days at a time. In these sessions, a senator from neighboring Virginia or Maryland may walk onto the floor and bang a gavel once every three days, taking up about 60 seconds of government time. A minute of gavel-banging does not mean, however that the Senate is not in recess.

This is not to say that there is no argument to be made against the constitutionality of the Obama’s actions; the Constitution is unclear about what constitutes a recess, and this situation is legally unprecedented. The president’s position, however, is far stronger than that of his Republican challengers. Furthermore, he has shown considerable restraint and tactfulness in navigating these uncharted constitutional waters. In fact, there are currently (even with these appointments) more than 200 government positions kept vacant by Republican obstructionism.

Important upper level management positions in executive agencies and departments are vacant, and seats on the commissions and Courts of Appeal  remain empty. Our country needs public servants in these positions. President Obama has nominated many candidates, but Republicans never allow his nominees to receive an up-or-down vote. The GOP’s excuses for rejecting candidates frequently lack substance and are obvious attempts at preventing the president from governing effectively. For instance, the Nobel-Prize-winning economist nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors found himself rejected by GOP lawmakers as being “unqualified.”

Instead of filling all 200 of these positions through recess appointments – which he arguably could have done – Obama chose the middle ground and only pushed through nominations on four positions. So what separates these nominations–of Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the nomination of three officials to the National Labor Relations Board–from the other vacancies? The NLRB requires a quorum of board members in order to issue rulings on unfair employment practices, and most of the CFPB’s powers are defunct without a director. This stands in contrast to other vacancies like the ones on the Courts of Appeal and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that are not essential to the agencies’ operations. Therefore, out of respect for the complexity of this constitutional issue, President Obama only made nominations that were of the utmost necessity for the continued operation of federal agencies and the enforcement of the law.

The debate over the recess appointments, in turn, leads to the question of whether or not our country can function when one political party can render agencies utterly useless by refusing to confirm anyone to manage them. The fact that a Republican minority aimed at such an end is unconscionable. What is even more preposterous, however, is that the very Republican senators who tried to legislate without a majority, in an obvious subversion of democracy, have the gall to accuse the president of subverting democracy.

Sudan: Proving a Genocide

December 8, 2011

By: AARON LUTKOWITZ

Advocates for Human Rights Feature

Dr. John Hagan from Northwestern University came to UNC last month to lead a discussion on the genocide in Darfur. The focus of the talk was mostly on a legal concern: how can it be proven in an international court that the atrocities in Darfur are considered genocide.

This should seem ridiculous. In a nation where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions of Sudanese have been displaced in Darfur in West Sudan, it seems absurd that genocide would not be the charge indicted. However, due to Hagan’s work and those like him, they are slowly finding enough substantial proof to show that Darfur has experienced genocide.

Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as the intention to destroy a group based on national, ethnic, racial, or religious reasons. One key omission in this definition is motivation by political reasons; instead, human rights violations based on political reasons falls under a different, less legally stringent category.

To help prove that the Darfur genocide meets the definition, Hagan’s team arranged the interviews for thousands of refugees in various camps around Darfur and Sudan. The surveys demonstrated that the atrocities fit within the definition of genocide. They asked minority groups why their tribes have been displaced, raped and killed. The surveys could prove essential in a hearing at the International Criminal Court.

The surveys also served a number of other purposes. International aid workers performing incredible tasks in Darfur are able to use the surveys to assess the immediate needs that these war refugees face.

The survey experience is also directly helpful to the refugees. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have faced unbelievable atrocities. They have never had anyone from the outside world listen to their stories. The interviews provide a forum for them to express their stories. In addition, many of the interviews, which started as one-on-one surveys, quickly turned into community events in which entire tribes sat and told their stories together. The interviews served as a bonding and healing experience for many.

Professor Hagan remains committed to providing legal proof that genocide occurred. His ultimate goal is to indict Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir and leaders of the Janjaweed militia on charges of genocide, and with the help of a relatively small number of helpers, he may very well succeed in his ambition.

Further Arab Spring Lessons from Amnesty International’s Geoffrey Mock

December 7, 2011

By: AARON LUTKOWITZ

Advocates for Human Rights Feature

An earlier blog post addressed a couple of the lessons from the lunch hosted by Advocates for Human Rights last month with Amnesty International’s Middle East Country Specialist Geoffrey Mock who offered his opinions about the uprisings and developments within the Middle East. Here are a few more of the points Mock addressed:

Women and minorities in North Africa and the Middle East require special attention and are becoming increasingly critical in addressing human rights concerns. Both women and minorities lack political participation which results in them failing to have a political voice or an ability to express political power.  This perpetuates rampant discrimination which is not been eliminated with changes in power.

Worse, Western media distorts the issue of women and minorities and often uses issues of discrimination to perpetuate existing Western stereotypes. Mock argues that the human rights documentation produced by Amnesty International is used to bash Arabs and Muslims by the Western media. For example, Amnesty International found one instance of forced virginity testing that was occurring. Of the myriad of human rights violations that were being ignored around the world, this issue was especially highlighted by the media in Europe and the United States. Mock suggests that by criticizing Arab countries, the West tries to avoid being criticized for their own discrimination.

Another point brought up by Mock was that human rights advocacy is most effective when applied single-standard to all parties. Mock brings up the example of Gaddafi’s death. He argues that the rebels who killed and tortured Gaddafi could very possibly have committed a war crime and violated multiple human rights. Just because an authoritarian ruler was ousted does not excuse further human rights violations to occur. The regimes that rise up to power must be held to the same standard and be expected to be just as friendly towards human rights as the last regime. Mock explained that double standards are counterproductive to the human rights advocacy effort.

Lastly, pessimism will quickly set in throughout the Middle East. Mock fears that soon observers, especially outsiders from the West, will proclaim that “the same old Egypt” is still in power. He argues that this is simply not true and that the world must stay optimistic for the future, both for Egypt and for the rest of the Middle East.

Mock concluded his talk by suggesting that one of the most helpful changes would be for women’s rights to be codified in legislation. Women played a crucial role in helping with the success of the uprisings and cementing their rights could be key in ensuring long-term peace, successful governance and human rights.

Amnesty Internationals’ Geoffrey Mock on Misconceptions about the Arab Spring

December 5, 2011

By: AARON LUTKOWITZ

Advocates for Human Rights Feature

Amnesty International’s Middle East country specialist, Geoffrey Mock, offered his opinions about the uprisings and developments within the region at a lunch hosted by Advocates for Human Rights last month. During his talk, Mock stressed how important it was not to reduce the situation to its moniker and looked at what sort of foreign policy revisions the United States will need to embark upon in the coming years.

The Arab Spring is neither Arab nor a spring. Mock spoke at length about the rich heterogeneity within North Africa and the Middle East. While a large portion of the population in that region is Arab, the title of “Arab Spring” marginalizes the many minority groups that coexist there, he said. The non-Arab Kurdish population presents only one example. In addition, the title of “Arab Spring” overlooks the differences between the Arab people as an ethnic group and Muslims as a religious group.

The uprising is also not quite a “spring” either. While Western media portrays these events as revolutionary and out-of-the-blue, in reality the revolutions have evolved out of growing trend of people pushing back against authoritarian governments. According to Mock, the only difference is that people in the region “have started to lose their fear” of their repressive governments, motivating them to take more dramatic action.

Mock also stressed that the United States may need to fundamentally revise the foreign policy model it has previously used in its dealings with the Middle East. In the past, the United States exclusively dealt with the region’s leaders and largely ignored the human rights violations taking place beneath their regimes. For example, the Mubarak regime and the military committed endless human rights violations against their own citizens while in power, yet the US continued to give billions of dollars to the Egyptian government.

Mock thinks that the changing governments in the Middle East will demand the United States adopt a different mentality towards them. In time, if the US wants to establish fruitful diplomatic ties in the region, American leaders will have to start both engaging the people and opposing blatant human rights violations vocally. Our policies must take into account what is in the best interest of the Middle Eastern societies as a whole, or we may find that these countries will stop listening to us.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.