patdowningpolicy-blog

[patdowningpolicy-blog]

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin-2/

SCOTUS blog was all over this one!

 Affirmative Action.

 The question in the case: Should University’s be able to use racial preferences in college admissions?

 Arguments held December 9th, 2015 and Opinion given from the Kennedy’s pen June 23rd, 2016.

 I move away from water in my third and final blog for Contemporary Policy class.

   Abigail Fisher was denied admission into University of Texas at Austin and she was upset. Her case made it to the Supreme Court, she said Affirmative Action discriminated against her being white. Some may call the strategy playing the white victim card, others may respond what is a white victim? They may go on to say, why does race need to have anything to do with someone’s admission to a school? Why can’t the decision be based on merit? And why the heck are we still talking about race? I am pretty fairly often maybe certain the US is not racist anymore.

 Well, we need to talk about race. And race in the Supreme Court’s opinion, is not based solely on skin color, race is based on skin color, history and social context…how can government address discrimination without taking race into account? In 1995 the SC decided on Bush v. Vera where the historical and social context definition of race was determined. 

 “Strategy” – I typed it up first 8 lines above this one. Re-read that.

 I was inspired to write a blog on this case by a RadioLab podcast called “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” where the writers walk listeners through how Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin came to be. RadioLab interviewed and told the story of Edward Blum. Blum is pronounced Bloom. He’s kind of like Count Olaf. His story, he challenges race based policies through a non-profit and conservative funders and gets them to the Supreme Court. He brought Shelby County v. Holder to SC…dismantling the Voting Rights Act. The weight is enormous. “…” – how do you fill that space? When something is overturned, something that was doing its job. The law worked because it existed! History repeats itself. Violence on a systemic level. But my opinion, not the SC’s. EB’s thinking and the SC agreed is that we do not need laws if they have done their job, the Voting Rights Act is outdated.

 Edward Blum is using a strategy used by the Civil Rights Movement. He is not carrying on the Civil Rights Legacy. But he is using the strategy. His strategy is to manufacture litigation so that and eventually his litigation will make it to the SC. In this case Blum set up a website calling for proposals of why people should be the face of a case against the Affirmative Action practices of University of Texas at Austin. Manufacturing litigation was approved by a Supreme Court decision in which the NAACP challenged Virginia. The Supreme Court ruled that manufacturing litigation was protected by first amendment, political expression.

 Eddy B’s and Abigail Fisher lost their case. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of University of Texas at Austin citing the Equal Protection Clause.

 Edward Blum is employing a strategy fighting for a political minority. He has devoted his life to this. And, well, the political minority is now in many ways a majority. The white working class man, who votes the most, has made his voice heard. And really he has never been ignored. I am generalizing here. But hey it’s a blog. Listen, um, Edward Blum represents hate on a systemic level. We see hate in the streets, physical violence, of white supremacists against black and brown people and allies. Edward Blum represents systemic violence. But his strategy, his opinion, is protected by the Supreme Court, the Constitution.

 How do Social Workers fight for social justice considering this case. How do we make sure history does not repeat itself? How do we keep laws that are working, and remind those that think we need to get rid of those laws the reason why those laws were enacted? I can sleep on these questions, I got that privilege. As social workers we need to find our lanes, our roles, and advocate. Advocate for justice, not like a chicken with their head cut off, but like a coyote tracking prey. I’m not an expert on either headless chickens or coyotes but that was the first comparison that came up. We need a strategy. We need to take pages from social justice people and organizations that have employed preventative strategies before us. And frankly social workers have been fighting for justice for a while, let’s continue it. We need to be at the table.

 I realize I am not putting out anything concrete, I am ranting. So please, respond with how social workers can fight against the Edward Blum’s of the world.

 More on Blum:

http://www.scotusblog.com/media/scotusblog-on-camera-edward-blum-part-one/

Where I got most of my information for this post, RadioLad episode “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” - http://www.radiolab.org/story/more-perfect-plaintiffs/

[patdowningpolicy-blog]

Shamir - On The Regular [Official HD Video]

When I got 4 pages to write and I am a strong supporter of GWB’s 8hours of sleep value. Pick it up Pat!

[patdowningpolicy-blog]

National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense (it’s about water)

A handful of Harvard and Yale grads, a Gorsuch and a Trentonian walk into a cloaked room and try to figure out where a water tributary starts…they cannot! – my opening joke. Bush v. Gore water edition.

Water policy is not one of those things where you know it when you see it. I am reading a Middle English type case on the October 2017 term, a knuckle ball to decipher, don’t fraternize with legal tongues. Let us be like Michael Phelps at a pool and hop into it: National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense (say five times, fast) ---

Synopsis: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals 6th District “erred” when it decided on a permit concerning discharge of pollutants under U.S. Code 33 1342 (Clean Water Act). 6th District used 1342 rule to decide on issuing a permit to National Association of Manufacturers (manufactures from many different states, signing on to this Supreme Court challenge) under “water-of-the-United-States-rule, even though the rule does not “issu[e] or den[y] any permit” but instead defines the waters that fall within Clean Water Act jurisdiction.”  

In a shell of a nut, Manufacturers are saying, “yo, 6th District, we love you, but you stepped outside your bounds, the water of the united states rule does not cover issuing pollutant permits, it covers the definition of waters, we can still be friends despite our difference of opinion on this matter.”

Water of the United States rule is forlorn. It is being squashed by the current administration and this court decision has implications for the rule’s livelihood. WOTUS was barraged from the start by Republicans for being over regulatory, an over-reach by the federal government. Obama instituted the rule in 2015, “defining which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.”

Army Corps of Engineers, the gift that keeps on giving.

Right away Obama was attacked by Republicans and industries alike, as this subtitle for a Politico article puts it: “Industries like agriculture, oil and home-building are lining up to attack a rule aimed at protecting wetlands and waterways.” All of these industries lined up to fight the 6th district’s decision because they all have an economic stake in the outcome: AGROWSTAR, LLC; AMERICAN EXPLORATION & MINING ASSOCIATION; CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION; COALITION OF ARIZONA/NEW MEXICO COUNTIES FOR STABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH; DUARTE NURSERY, INC.; GEORGIA AGRIBUSINESS COUNCIL, INC.; GREATER ATLANTA HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; HAWKES COMPANY, INC.; LPF PROPERTIES, LLC; NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION; NEW MEXICO FEDERAL LANDS COUNCIL; NEW MEXICO WOOL GROWERS, INC.; OREGON CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION; PIERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY; R. W. GRIFFIN FEED, SEED & FERTILIZER, INC.; SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC.; AND WASHINGTON CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Scotty Prus and DJT have since moved to rescind WOTUS.

A dead horse is a dead horse. If it does not make money, it does not make sense. Obama had an environmental argument for the WOTUS ruling and many industries along with their backers in Congress needed an economic argument. People are caught up in the court melee. For social workers and policy makers the question remains how do we present an argument for water regulation? For clear definitions of where a piece of water begins and where it ends and whether an agency may put pollutants in that water? Presenting water regulation means to many people caught in between point A and point B – a loss of jobs, livelihood, mobility. A cry for environmental protections does not mean as much for someone looking for their next paycheck, survival.

I started with the unfunny joke because that is what I see this court case to be about: regulation of water, trying to define it so that people’s water is protected and industries have one more hoop to jump through before utilizing the water. I think about social control of water use. Governor Brown in California has had to place huge restrictions on individual water use. I keep thinking, what will that look like if restriction need is country wide and should we begin preparing? Social control of water, I am from the government and I am here to help, ha!

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-association-of-manufacturers-v-department-of-defense/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319

[patdowningpolicy-blog]

Drunk History - Solving Los Angeles's Water Crisis

[patdowningpolicy-blog]

No Homeless Allowed

Imagine yourself walking down the street, you stop by Starbucks and drop a fiver on a mocha caramel frappe, the sky’s blue, and it’s just a lovely day. You turn the corner and see someone who is panhandling with a sign asking for help. What’s your first thought of them? Do you even notice their existence?

Have you ever imagined what it might be like to walk in their shoes (if they even have any)? If not, close your eyes and ponder for a few moments about this scenario:

Picture what it would look like if you lost everything you own, from housing to all of your assets, and everything in-between. You have no family that can help you. Where do you go? What do you do when you’ve been turned away from the local shelter because they’re too full, or you’re too scared to go back because you’ve been sexually assaulted there?  

Maybe you’ll sleep on a bench, in an alley, an abandoned warehouse, or perhaps a park. Or perhaps there are laws in your city that make it illegal to do any these things.

Across America, we are seeing more and more cities implement policies that further cripple the lives of people experiencing homelessness. Cities are placing concrete spikes in locations where individuals who are homeless often sleep. This hostile architecture is only compounding the stigmatization that these individuals already encounter from the general public.

Recently, Columbia SC proposed legislation, which was struck down, that would make it illegal to sleep downtown. If you happened to be caught loitering, you would either be asked to go to a shelter, leave town, or go to jail.  These policies enable and normalize societal views that assume individuals who experience homelessness have nothing to offer and are worthless. We are sending a clear message to our homeless that we don’t want to see their struggles, we don’t want to see THEM, and we don’t care about them.

Since the rise of social media, we have seen numerous videos of people encouraging the homeless to fight each other for our entertainment, or videos of people abusing the homeless. For these people, the streets can be a terrifying and dangerous place.

Raising The Roof, A Canadian campaign recently asked individuals facing homeless to read tweets about themselves. I think it’s an eye opening project about how many conceptualize these individuals.

If you were homeless, you would want somewhere safe to sleep at night, right? I know I would. There have been many proposals that aim to solve the housing crisis and to provide individuals with safe and adequate shelter. Think about this for a moment: In the US, there are five abandoned houses for every one homeless person. That is a mind-blowing statistic. These houses are just sitting empty. Now I know there are several reasons as to why the homeless can’t habitat the houses, many political. But when are we going to get off our pedestals and really do something that matters? What is it going to take for our government officials to make a real change?

Many places have proposed building tiny home communities to house the homeless and provide cheap alternatives to housing. Though, most cities have zoning laws that prohibit this and make it impossible to create these communities. My home county in South Carolina has recently decided to readdress these zoning laws, and many are hoping that it’s a step towards opening up an avenue to build tiny home communities. Tiny homes are cheap to manufacture and can be made out of a variety of materials. By allowing these communities to exist, we can provide opportunities for our clients that they wouldn’t have without a stable living environment. This could give them an opportunity to completely change their life. This may sound exaggerated, but I know firsthand the power of a permanent address.

As someone who has experienced homelessness for a major part of my life, I can tell you that had it not been for the kindness of a stranger who provided me with a stable home when I was 18, I wouldn’t be where I am now. I couldn’t finish high school because I didn’t have a stable place to live. This meant that I couldn’t go to college, and since I was in a rural area, I couldn’t get a job to support myself due to lack of transportation. However, when I was provided with stable living arrangements, I was able to get a GED and later an Associates and Bachelors. Now I’m at an Ivy League institution working on my Masters. None of this would have been possible had it not been for a stable home where I was able to take the necessary time to achieve my goals; instead of worrying about where I was going to sleep that night.

I would like to note that I was privileged in many ways that others may not have been. I’m sure that my status as a white, able-bodied male has played a huge part in my success. When looking at these issues we need to remain mindful about the intersections of identity. People of color will have a different experience with homelessness than that of Caucasians.

I hope that Horry County does change their zoning laws, and I hope cities across the country adopt similar policies. Housing first initiatives are imperative to create real and impactful change within the homeless community.

In closing, I would like to leave you with a gentle reminder that individuals facing homelessness ARE in fact, people. Next time you cross paths with someone who is homeless, don’t ignore them. Even if you have nothing to give, a friendly smile and a warm hello makes all of the difference.

[patdowningpolicy-blog]

Water Wars. Supreme Court to decide on dispute between Florida and Georgia

Water is a slippery thing. Water is essential, an element. Water is scarce in many states throughout the Union. Florida needs more water. Florida says Georgia needs to share.

Geography determines how people live. Florida, Georgia and Alabama are entwined in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin). See below: 

From the Solicitor General’s pen they explain what links the states: The Chattahoochee River originates in north Georgia, flows southwest past Atlanta, and then flows south along Georgia’s border, first with Alabama, then with Florida. At Georgia’s southwest corner, the Chattahoochee joins the Flint River, which originates south of Atlanta and flows through central Georgia. The Chattahoochee and the Flint join to form the Apalachicola River, which flows south through northwest Florida and into the Apalachicola Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Army Corps of Engineers regulates water flow (per the River and Harbor Act of 1946), including 5 dams, in the ACF Basin. The regulations are detailed in the Corps’ Master Manual recently updated in 2017 after 59 years. Ok hold on listen, a brief history of the present to help explain why Florida is upset:

Georgia in 2000 asks the Corps’ in a formal way, “Yo Corps, please reallocate some water to help Georgia meet our needs through 2030″ The Corps’ responds “Well slow your role, Water Supply Act of 1958 says we need Congressional approval cause that’s like a LOT of water you are talking about.” And get this, it is a juicy court room drama, at the same time GA is saying they need more water a stakeholder by the name of Southeastern Federal Power Customers goes to DC to some judges there and says “Hey, we are paying for electric power from an ACT basin dam and that power is not worth as much as we are paying because Georgia is taking water from the dam and well frankly we’re upset.”  Georgia and SeFPC settle but then M. Night Shyamalan twist - Florida and Alabama want in on the action. The Eleventh Circuit (TEC) court eventually gets hold of the scales of justice here. TEC says to everybody, “Let’s all take a second to breathe, here have a drink of water and calm down.” They basically say to the Army Corps of Engineers (CoE), “Reconsider Georgia’s request for more water.” And in 2012 the Corps’ said “Sure Georgia, fine. We will meet your needs, first though we got to rewrite this darn Master Manual!”

Florida was not happy with the CoE’s decision. Because this water that will be redirected to meet Atlanta’s water needs, takes away from Florida’s dam and lake. Florida went in on Georgia. It’s like when your partner or romantic interest says they don’t really care about Valentine’s Day so you don’t do anything for it and then they go in on you because you’re not engaged in the relationship. This situation is kind of like that one. Florida cites that along with drought in the spring and summer, Georgia’s water consumption is killing the ecosystem and the economy in Florida’s affected ACT basin area. They say that as Georgia is expected to grow, Georgia’s water consumption will threaten the “ecology, economy and way of life.” Florida sued Georgia and the Supreme Court has taken up the cause.

So yea there was the shortened history of the present. The case has taken a long time. Kind of like an old librarian who takes a long time to do things. The CoE updated their Master Manual for the ACF Basin on March 30th, 2017 and allocated more water for Georgia. The SC appointed in 2013 a Special Master to recommend outcomes to the judges. In February of this year the court received the Special Master’s report. In May 2017 Florida took exception to what the Special Master had to say. This case is better than an episode of General Hospital. 

What does this case mean for social workers? 

Water is money, livelihood, survival. Water is life. Florida wants to protect its people’s way of life, and livelihood and Georgia wants to do the same. Georgia is looking out for a growing Atlanta and Florida fighting to sustain a rural industry. It is a confusing long drawn out case. Water in this case directly relates to how much money a region will receive. There is a need for social workers to do damage control when money inevitably leaves a region at the end of this case. From an article on Eater.com explaining the case and the impact on Florida’s Northwest oyster industry at Apalachicola Bay,  “The result of the oyster market's decimation has wreaked havoc on the local economy.” People hurt when the way of life changes, social workers can serve to soften the hurt, find resources to increase income, do damage control. There is a need through all the lawyers and justices and politicians for the human being affected to be heard. 

On a macro level social workers can work with local organizations to draft policy or fight in the courts with their side for their constituents. At this point I am blanking on specific routes of action so please comment and suggest ways to tackle this on a macro, or micro, level.

For more information see hyperlinked text within the blog and:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-georgia-2/

http://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-scores-major-victory-water-wars-feud-with-florida/kOdvkyyRf6yBFYLsx3bCML/

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/30/499985890/florida-and-georgia-argue-in-court-over-water-rights

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article132784134.html