The Story Of The Chinese Family That First Fought To Desegregate Southern Schools

Racial politics in the Jim Crow South were more complicated than you think.

 11/04/2016 04:12 am ET

·          

Rebecca Klein Education Editor, The Huffington Post

Decades before Brown v. Board of Education ― the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that found “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” ― a Chinese family from rural Mississippi brought its own legal challenge to Southern school segregation before the Supreme Court.

In 1924, grade school students Martha and Berda Lum were barred from attending their local, all-white school because of their status as people of color. The family sued the school in an unprecedented but little-known lawsuit that made its way to the nation’s highest court.  

A new book, Water Tossing Boulders: How a Family of Chinese Immigrants Led the First Fight to Desegregate Schools in the Jim Crow South, documents the family’s struggle for educational equality. 

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Thurgood Marshall, seen here in 1958, argued Brown v. Board of Education, the case that ended state-sanctioned school segregation. Marshall went on to become the Supreme Court’s first black justice.

Although the Lums sought to fight racism against Asian-Americans and provide their daughters with access to a quality education, their lawsuit was itself rooted in pronounced anti-black racism. The Lum family brought the challenge because they didn’t want society to see their daughters as being in the same category as black students, or force them to attend the same institutions as black children.

The girls’ mother, Katherine, “knew that such a classification would have instantly disenfranchised her family,” the book says. “For Katherine to send her children to the colored school would be to yield to the trustees, to agree with them that her daughters were not worthy of the privileges afforded to whites.” 

The case could have changed the course of history. Instead, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Lum family. They ended up leaving the state. 

The Huffington Post spoke with author Adrienne Berard about how she unearthed this family’s unique history.

This case isn’t very well-known. How did you come across it? 

I wasn’t looking for it at all. It was a lucky accident that I came across it. My family is from the Mississippi Delta and I was there doing research ― I was interested in writing about my own family. I went to the archives of Delta State University. When I was there, the archivist had just come out of a meeting with a group interested in preserving the Chinese heritage of the Mississippi Delta. After talking with her and learning more about it, I wanted to change [the] focus of the book I thought I was writing. I wanted to move away from my family but still tell the story of a family. Generations had passed since the case, but people still talk about the horror of it.

You spoke to members of the Lum family. Were they interested in telling this story? 

They were excited to meet me and excited to learn more about their history. They were also pretty guarded, and rightly so. It wasn’t a victory. They lost the case, and because they lost that case, it created a precedent that was detrimental to the Chinese-American South as a whole. It’s not like they were pariahs by any means, but there is that stain of losing the case. 

Why do you think this case has been so overlooked by history?

I think part of it is because it conflicts [with] what we think we know about the South. We have a very strict narrative of what the South is, and to add a third race into what has been described as a binary racial society really complicates the history. I’m not surprised I didn’t know anything about it and that most people don’t know anything about it. In order to explain those dynamics, you have to grapple with a lot of history and talk about the layers that go into the racial discrimination of the South.

Had the ruling in this case gone differently, how could that have affected the history of school desegregation in the South?

It is interesting because so much of this case is so wholly racist. There were racists on both sides ― the plaintiffs and the defense, the school board and the state of Mississippi and the U.S. Supreme Court. Even the appeal, everything along the way has all these layers of racism. 

Had the court favored the Lum family, it would have been a dent in the hard wall of racism throughout the South. Instead, they made that wall stronger. Had they said “We’re willing to blur this line for this ethnic group,” then maybe another ethnic group would have come along and said “Maybe you should blur this line for us.” Maybe African-Americans would have come along and said “If all these groups can attend these schools, why shouldn’t we?”

Hindsight is 20/20, so I have no idea. But had it not been unanimous and only one justice written a dissent, that could have been huge. Had one person in the justice system somehow ruled in favor of this family, it could have set a precedent. They didn’t necessarily have to win to make a difference. 

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. 

______

Rebecca Klein covers the challenges faced in school discipline, school segregation and the achievement gap in K-12 education. In particular, she is drilling down into the programs and innovations that are trying to solve these problems. Tips? Email: Rebecca.Klein@huffingtonpost.com.

Copyright © 2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.    "The Huffington Post" is a registered trademark of TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

Part of HuffPost • HPMG News

Supranational Courts: Are they the New Legal Titans?

By Harold Young, PH.D.

The Hague, Netherlands – August 2, 2016: The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations. Seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

In October 2016, South Africa followed Burundi in withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC) asserting bias by the United Nation’s Security Council in its case referrals (Duggard, 2013; Strydom, 2015; The East African, 2016). They point out that the United Nations Security Council has referred cases from Sudan and Libya with only black Africans brought before the court (BBC, 2015). South Africa and other African states charge that the ICC has “lost its direction” (Strydom, 2015). Established in 1959, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is another exemplary supranational court. The United Kingdom’s (UK) Conservative Party pledges to sever ties with the ECtHR (Travis, 2015) as it impinges on British sovereignty (Watt, 2015). The previous Labour Party government was supportive of the ECtHR and continues to support it while in opposition (Hansard, April 26, 2016). During the last half century, there has been a marked increase in the number of supranational courts and the number of acceding states. Having acceded, however, why do states sever ties with supranational courts?

In acceding, states delegate legal decision-making authority to supranational courts (Helfer and Slaughter, 1997).  As the highest court in the judicial system, the final appellate court is the last judicial forum reviewing legal challenges. A central issue for all states, therefore, is the organization of the judiciary and its role in furthering “peace, order and good government” (POGG) as a feature of constitutional rule (Yusuf, 2014).  The final court lends legitimacy to the policies of the governing coalition, which Dahl (1957) describes as the congressional “lawmaking majority” (284). This legitimizing role makes the judiciary an important participant in the national decision-making process (Dahl, 1957) as governing coalitions pursue their visions of POGG. It is itself, therefore, a “national policy maker” (Dahl, 1957). Shapiro (1964) refers to this notion as “political jurisprudence” (16). As challenges to policies percolate up the judicial hierarchy, legitimization of those policies by the judiciary is an important issue (Dahl, 1957). Reliance upon a supranational court as the final appellate court is seemly incompatible with the modern notion of sovereignty (Swinfen, 1987). I suggest, therefore, that the governing coalitions will seek to remove the supranational court if it perceives a disconnection with the court. This perception is influenced by changes in the political environment that make the state more sensitive to a court over which it has no direct control. If the governing coalition perceives a disconnection with the court, the remedy is to replace it with a national court. I suggest that states sever ties when they perceive the court as incompatible with the policies goals of the governing coalition. This potential juncture is a function of a change in the political environment that increases the disconnection between the governing coalition and the supranational court.  At that juncture, it is more likely that the governing coalition will abandon the court. The importance of the political will to effect change was summarized by the former President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Sir Thaddeus McCarthy. He stated in 1976 that he had no doubt that the questions surrounding severing ties with the JCPC “are ultimately political questions” (Richardson, 1997).

The Hague, Netherlands – July 5, 2016: The International Criminal Court forecourt, entrance and sign at the new 2016 opened ICC building.

I assert that the political environment can be captured in three categories – drastic change, subtle change, and no change. I define the categories as follows: (1) no change – the state does not experience any change in the political environment when a new governing coalition comes to power with a commitment to the constitution and the continued good governance of the state. This does not preclude law reform, but does not fundamentally change the relationship between the state and its citizens. While there may be a new governing coalition after an election cycle, the basic tenets of a free political environment continue. The new coalition basically pursues the same broad policies but pledges to do a better job; (2) subtle change – the election of a governing coalition with a new vision that underpins new domestic and international policies (Elordi, 2000). These are pursued without fundamental systemic changes to the governing institutions or the rights and liberties of the citizens of the state. While this may also involve constitutional changes, the changes do not fundamentally change the governance landscape (Grace, 2015); and (3) drastic change – includes the promulgation and adoption of a new constitution that fundamentally changes the governing institutions, as well as the rights and liberties of the citizens of the state. In other words, these changes generally alter the relationship between the citizens and the state, or they expand or reduce the range of fundamental constitutional rights (Grace, 2015; Thoburn v Suderland City Council, 2003). Though the process may differ, drastic and subtle changes increases the likelihood that ties with the supranational court will be severed but no change maintains the status quo.

There is evidence that supranational courts will continue emerge in the world community (Specht, 2015). As supranational courts such as the ICC, the ECtHR, the International Court of Justice, the Caribbean Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and People’s Rights continue to adjudicate and other courts emerge around the proliferation of international law, understanding the dynamic relationship with states is crucial. Ultimately, ties with supranational courts depends much less on the performance of the court. It is the governing coalition’s emergent political will in a changed political environment that drives the relationship with the court. The future of supranational courts, therefore, depends on the domestic political environment that influences governing coalition commitment to development and vibrancy of supranational courts.

About the author: Harold Young is an Assistant Professor at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. His research area is Public Law and examines an American and comparative perspective on judicial institutional changes and decision making. In his previous lives, he was a social worker, a health communications project manager and an attorney-at-law. He can be reached via email at youngh@apsu.edu.

The World Just Made A Major Shift Toward Renewable Energy

“We are witnessing a transformation of global power.”

 10/26/2016 06:00 am ET

·          

Nick Visser Reporter, The Huffington Post

   FABIAN BIMMER / REUTERS

More than half of all energy generation capacity added in 2015 came from renewable sources.

The world installed more new renewable energy last year than coal, as countries attempt to shift away from fossil fuels and take advantage of massive cost reductions in wind and solar technology.

More than half of all energy generation capacity added in 2015 came from renewable sources, as the world installed more than half a million solar panels a day and two wind turbines every hour, the International Energy Agency announced Tuesday.

“We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables and, as is the case with other fields, the center of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol said in a statement.

Those statistics only reflect the total amount now able to be produced, not the energy that was actually generated.

The agency said renewables would be the fastest-growing source of electricity production over the next five years and would “rapidly close the gap with coal.” More than 65 percent of this capacity will come from development in China, the U.S., the European Union and India ― also the world’s four biggest polluters.

The cost of renewable energy has fallen dramatically in recent years as funding for new technology has skyrocketed. Investment in clean energy capacity beat that of fossil fuels 2 to 1 between 2008 and 2015, according to the United Nations Environment Program.

Leaders in the environmental community praised the statistics. Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, hailed the move as a “historic milestone,” but he called on leaders to “maintain our focus to keep up the momentum” behind the clean energy transition.

“The international community has reached a turning point as we hit the accelerator on the transition to a clean energy economy,” Brune said in a statement. “This news doesn’t just mean the world installed more renewable energy than dirty coal ― it means cleaner air, new jobs, and a more stable climate.”

While the IEA did raise its estimate for the amount of renewable energy produced by 2021, the agency also warned of barriers to entry in developing countries and renewed calls for “stronger policy efforts” in the heat and transportation sectors.

Here’s How The World Can Adapt To The Rapid Rise Of Cities

More than half of the people on the planet live in cities — so it’s more important than ever for countries to make a plan for sustainable growth.

 10/21/2016 08:43 pm ET   

       

Kate Abbey-Lambertz  National Reporter, The Huffington Post

                      

                                CREDIT: GUY EDWARDES/GETTY IMAGES

Aerial view of Quito, Ecuador. The city was a destination for thousands of urban planners and local leaders this week for a United Nations summit addressing sustainable urban development.

Leaders from more than 150 countries came together this week to formalize a sweeping guide that charts a sustainable future for new and existing cities, rapidly growing across the globe.  

More than 35,000 people attended a United Nations summit in Quito, Ecuador, this week, and on Thursday, UN member countries formally adopted the New Urban Agenda. The document focuses on sustainable, inclusive development, covering things like the role of climate change in urban planning and how cities get rid of residents’ trash.  

The UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, commonly referred to as Habitat III, occurs every 20 years. This was the third time it was held.

Over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and the number of city dwellers could increase by 3 billion by 2050. Cities can provide a better quality of life and greater economic opportunities, but they’re also places of persistent inequality and are putting a major strain on the earth’s resources.

The New Urban Agenda says ending poverty “is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.” Here are some of the other fundamentals outlined in the New Urban Agenda:

·         Ensure everyone has access to affordable and adequate housing, safe drinking water, suitable nutrition, education and health care.  

·         Create public gathering places and green space that is open to everyone.

·         Develop emergency response plans to protect residents and come up with long-term strategies to make cities more resilient to natural and manmade disasters.

·         Protect the environment and combat climate change; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution; conserve natural resources and ecosystems.

·         Promote equitable economic growth.

·         Design transportation systems that give all residents mobility.

The New Urban Agenda particularly emphasizes that cities should respond to the specific needs of women when it comes to policy and urban design ― women should have equal access to jobs and education and be safe from violence in public and private space. They should also be involved in city decision-making and represented in local government. 

The agreement isn’t binding, and while there are general policy recommendations (like giving cities more political power and funding), it purposely leaves many details of implementation up to individual countries and cities. Some see this as a major flaw and criticized the guidelines for being too weak.

“The planet has already moved beyond critical planetary boundaries related to climate, biodiversity, land use and fertilizer use,” urban ecologist Timon McPhearson said in a press conference at the summit. “Yet, urgency is entirely absent in the New Urban Agenda.”

There is also at at least one glaring omission from the wide-ranging set of goals outlined in the document: LGBTQ rights are never mentioned, even though it is repeatedly stated that cities must be inclusive and accessible to other marginalized groups who face discrimination.

A push to address LGBTQ rights in the document was blocked by a group of 17 countries, led by Belarus, according to Reuters. The U.S. is one of the countries that fought to include LGBTQ protections, but is still an example of why they’re critical, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro explained in one of the Habitat III sessions. 

“People are still denied housing because of their sexual orientation to this day in the U.S. and elsewhere,” Castro said, according to the Guardian.

“The 21st century will belong to those nations which embrace freedom and equality for everyone,” he added.

____

Kate Abbey-Lambertz covers sustainable cities, housing and inequality. Tips? Feedback? Send an email or follow her on Twitter.   

In the Shadow of Tragedies: Our Responsibility to Protect by Harry Young, Ph.D.

“State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined-not least by the forces of globalisation and international co-operation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples, and not vice versa.”

-Kofi Annan (1999), Former Secretary General of the United Nations

In the shadow of the tragedies in Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo, the world is witnessing the horror of the ongoing and complicated intrastate war in Syria and the smoldering conflicts in Burundi and Ukraine (to name only a few). Calls for intervention to stop flagrant human rights violations have not yielded real results. It begs the question of the responsibilities of the state for the welfare of its citizens and what responsibilities other states have to those impacted by intrastate wars.

The modern state is generally recognized as having emerged in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Year War (1618-1648). The state is a pillar of the international community where the sovereign state as the primary and most powerful actor in international relations (Mearsheimer 2001). Keck and Sikkink (1998) argue, however, that the state has lost some of its potency as a political variable and have elevated the role of non-state actors. Further, the authority of the state “is, increasingly, being either shared with, sustained by, or constrained by these proliferating authorities” (Strange 1995, 67). The growth and thickening of international law, therefore, is an important issue as the role the state plays in global politics evolves.

The effects of these changes indicates a reappraisal of the concept of sovereignty and internationalizes the protection of human rights. This may be opening the door for more internationally sanctioned humanitarian intervention particularly when the state is experiencing intrastate conflict. Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the threat or use of force by a state, group of states, or international organization to protect people in the target state (Murphy 1996). Humanitarian intervention also includes those state interventions whose declared goal is to stop or prevent human suffering though the intervening state(s) may have unrelated and/or underlying motives for intervening (Voon 2002). The debate around the issue of protecting of human rights, therefore, juxtaposes the support of universal human rights against the premium of national sovereignty (Booth, 2001). Further, the idea of international human rights law departs from the concept of state sovereignty and the state-centric approach to international law (Brown 1999). Finnemore’s (2003) assertion that post-cold war intervention in states are legitimized when based on humanitarian grounds, not only changes the purpose for which interventions are used but possibly rearranges the concept of sovereignty (see also Ling 2013; Hopwood 2013).

This issue of a third party state(s) intervention can be examined through the prism of two questions. First, what is the status of ‘sovereignty’ if a government exercises authority or acquiesces to actions detrimental to the citizens? Second, can a new paradigm of legitimatized humanitarian interventions be reconciled with the asymmetry of power between states? An examination of the U.S. policy developing out of the Kosovo intervention in 1999 may be helpful in understanding the state’s criteria for supporting humanitarian intervention. Following President Clinton’s speech on U.S. involvement, National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, offered three criteria underpinning the policy: (a) there must be genocide or ethnic cleansing; (b) the U.S. must have the capacity to act; and (c) a U.S. national interest must be at stake (Brown 1999). It should be noted, however, that the commitment to act does not reflect any international commitment but primarily reflects U.S. interests.

This combination of state foreign policy doctrine and use of force for humanitarian interventions, concerns some states. Smaller and weaker states are concerned that this trend makes them possible targets under the ruse of a ‘humanitarian intervention’ by stronger states (Hall 2013). This dampens clamors for intervention in other troubled states as leaders wonder if they could be next. Even more powerful states have reservation as was seen with Russian opposition the intervention in Kosovo although that did not preclude their intervention on the Crimean Peninsula. In reality, condemnation of or action in support of human rights are not distributed equitably to suspected and known violators (Schachter 1995).

The literature is not short on suggested ways forward. Despite discussions about prevention and enforcement of international law (Wang 2004; Telhami 1995; Damrosch 1993), the focus continues to be on armed interventions (jus ad bellum) and the nexus between protection and international criminal tribunals (jus post bellum). Former U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan (Annan 2012), calls for the international community to “devote our energies to strengthening and using those measures short of the use of force. These must include more effective and enforced use of targeted financial, travel, and economic sanctions on the leadership” (para 28). I suggest, therefore, that the primary goals should be twofold. First, preventing the crisis in the first place thereby retaining the integrity of the individual, the state, the U.N. and international law system. Second, building the political will to respond to crisis thereby upholding the world community’s commitment to human rights and international law with force as a last resort. Meanwhile, wars rage and smolder in the hotspots around the world as a seemingly paralyzed international community struggles with sporadic attempts at cease fires and humanitarian aid to victims.

About the author: Harold Young is an Assistant Professor at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. His research area is Public Law and examines an American and comparative perspective on judicial institutional changes and decision making. In his previous life he was a health communications project manager, a social worker and an attorney-at-law. He can be reached via email at youngh@apsu.edu.

Making Sure the Light at the end of the Tunnel is not a Train: Securing a Faculty Position by Harry Young, Ph.D.

After more than six years as a graduate student, and having survived the rigors of academic life including assignment deadlines, student teaching, qualifying exams, proposal defense and drafting my dissertation, the end was in sight. What followed in quick succession was the realization that I needed a job! Of course, not just any job but a faculty position where I could engage young minds and pursue my other academic interests.  This is a time consuming process and one requiring your attention while in the final throes of completing your dissertation. Neither can be neglected. During a five-month period, I submitted 67 applications. I received four invitations to interview which ultimately led to two job offers. Here are some salient points that will make your job search less stressful and help you land a faculty position.

1.   
        Start early as possible. Consult your Chair before entering the job market.

Consider the following to determine the scope of your initial search:

·         Research or teaching?

·         Instructor, lecturer, adjunct, non-tenure or tenure track?

·         Size of school, department, classes?

·         Region of country?

Time is precious: Based on #2, do not apply for positions you do not plan to seriously consider if contacted or to an institution in a location where you are not prepared to live. Respect your time, your committee and that of the institution.

Register for job sites: highered.com is good start and your may want to join APSA for access to ejobs. (Editor’s Note: A list of open positions is also available on the MPSA homepage.) While job alerts can be useful, I found it rewarding to personally review postings as they appeared. I, therefore, checked the job sites daily which brought to my attention other positions within my preferred framework.

Prepare your resume: research an appropriate format. You need a format tailored for a new graduate on the job market. Remember that this is the first “view” the search committee has of you. A well presented resume increases the odds that your application packet is immediately put in the “consider box”.

Cover letter: One crisp and clear page is preferable. Certain applications may ask you to address something specific in the cover letter so an extra half page may be appropriate. Review carefully to avoid unnecessary verbiage

Letters of References:

·         Identify at least 5 references (sometimes called referees) as early as possible. Discuss with them what your goal is and share your resume.

·         Get accurate names, address, e-mail, phone number, and work titles of each person and create a List of References.

·         Pay close attention to applications that require Letters of References along with application. Some institutions only ask for letters if you are selected for an interview. Do not send documents not requested unless the application has accommodation for “other documents”. Note, however, that some applications will specify what can be submitted in that category.

·         Check with your Chair about whether the Department has a staff member who coordinates those letters that must be sent directly to the institution.

o   Some institutions ask that you submit the letters yourself. If that is the case, then identify the portal and ensure the referees are prepared to give their respective letter to you for submission.

o   Be sure to provide your referees with the appropriate portal when necessary.

Transcripts: Have all transcripts on hand. Be prepared to provide any of the following in specified format:

·         PHD coursework.

·         One version with all other tertiary transcripts.

·         One version containing all transcripts in a single document.

Statement of Teaching Philosophy: Identify specific goal(s) and objectives.

1   Statement of Research Interest: Identify your current work and topics of future interest.

1   Teaching Evaluations:  teaching evaluations by students are testaments to your skill and knowledge. Nevertheless, do not ‘edit’ out unfavorable comments.  Search Committees keep such evaluations in perspective.

1   Create a spreadsheet to track applications:

·         Name and address of school

·         Specific point(s) of contact

·         Application due date; date when review process starts as you want to get application in by that date (even if job announcement says reviews continue until filled).

·         Minimum requirements

·         Description of position

·         Prescribed path for delivery of Letters of Reference, if required.

1   Before submitting every application, carefully review to ensure you have followed all instructions. Many institutions do not allow you to edit the application once submitted. In those cases, if you delete the application, you cannot resubmit for the position.

1   Keep your cell phone charged. The last thing you want is for a Research Committee Chair (or a representative) to call offering you the opportunity to interview and your cell phone battery dies during the call. Also, be prepared for teleconferenced interviews (Skype or similar platform).

1   When you get “the call”, prepare for the interview:

·         Review institution’s website and the department’s pages.

·         Prepare to respond to questions based on your application. You should have an “elevator blurb” prepared about your dissertation topic.

·         Prepare questions you want to ask the committee. Don’t ask about money at this point.

·         Do not “wing-it”!

1   Be patient and flexible.  Try to work with the schedule and constraints of the research committee.

Success in landing an interview that will lead to an offer ultimately may depend on five factors: your resume, application package, presentation, attitude, and, of course, luck. Work as closely as possible with your Chair, put your best foot forward in each application and prepare to shine in interviews!

About the author: Harold Young is an Assistant Professor at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. His research area is Public Law and examines an American and comparative perspective on judicial institutional changes and decision making. In his previous life he was a health communications project manager, a social worker and an attorney-at-law. He can be reached via email at youngh@apsu.edu.

https://blog.mpsanet.org/2016/08/17/securing-a-faculty-position/