February 16, 2006
Topic: Racial Profiling, ACLU Freedom Flies video
Discussion about video:
Q: Should profiling be used?
-Yes, but racial/religious/ethnic profiling is wrong and does not get results.
-Still, there’s a reason the profiles are out there in the first place. However, there are ways around it and minorities are disproportionately searched and caught.
Q: How can we keep racial profiling from happening?
-Video cameras in police cars
-Include proper profiling methods in police training.
Q: What was the most interesting part of the video?
-The idea of racial profiling by community. Power plants and sewage plants go on the “poor side” of town, which hurts a whole community of minorities.
February 9, 2006
Topic: Muslim Cartoon Discussions
Q: Why do you think there has been such a violent reaction of the images?
A: The cartoons were solicited by the Danish paper to create controversy. A harsh reaction was expected.
Q: Is this a conflict between Freedom of the Press and Religious Tolerance? (some opinions)
-Is it really intolerance? No one is forced to read the cartoons.
-It is intolerant to do something so abhorrent to a religion.
-There is a difference between intolerance and disrespect. This is more religiously disrespectful.
-It is also intolerant, and intolerance opens the door for oppression. Nazi Germany is an excellent example. In a time of religious turmoil, such things [like the cartoons] are perceived as a threat. Europeans perceive religion differently. They can be insulting and not realize it.
Q: Should the government step in to prevent such intolerance? Should be self-censor? (some opinions of meeting attendees)
-No, the government should only censor in extreme circumstances.
-Where’s the line and where should self-censorship step in?
-We should be sensitive to other culture’s norms
-The cartoons are not the biggest problem here anyway. The problem is the gulf between two cultures. Muslims in Europe are the underclass and that needs to be taken into consideration. These cartoons are just another example of racism masquerading as freedom of speech. The Danish papers were being purposely hurtful to a group of people. The reprinting of those cartoons was mean-spirited.
Q: What is the message to be taken from these cartoons? (a dialogue)
-Islam is a terrorist religion. We can do whatever we want, so ha.
-Still, we have to remember that this is a two way street. They have done offensive things too, and their leaders haven’t encouraged tolerance.
-The reaction to the cartoons is a human reaction. The Muslims aren’t acting any differently than any other group would.
-Oh really? No one has died over anti-Christian cartoons or the sort.
-You have to look at it within the cultural framework. We aren’t living in a war zone, and maybe if we were, we’d understand the reaction better. Being offensive about Islam is a newer problem, whereas we’re more used to jokes about our religion.
-This still has to do with the fact that Islam is a culture that responds violently to provocation. That’s not an excuse.
-The US has had violent protests. Just look at the Race Riots of the 1960’s. It’s not necessarily a cultural thing. You can’t expect people in such situations to have the best manners.
October 19, 2005
Speakers:Annise Parker, City Controller, highest ranking GLBT in a major city, and a Rice Grad and Jerry Simoneaux, GLBT family lawyer and President of Family Equality Organization
Q: What is Proposition 2 about?
Annise: Karl Rove, George W's chief of staff, pushed
the issue of gay marriage to get Bush re-elected. Gay
marriage is a no-lose issue for republicans, and is a
good way to stir people up. It enables them to raise
more money and bring out "single issue voters". They
even mailed out ballots encouraging Republican
primarity voters and those over 60 to "prohibit
domestic partner benefits."
Q: Why is it so difficult for those who are pro-gay
righs to achieve the same status as anti gay-rights
organizations?
Annise: The other side is organized and homogenous.
We are a bunch of different organizations who can't
agree on what the message should be (i.e.
discrimination? hatred? shouldn't be a part of the
Constitiution?) Most organizations discuss
discrimination, but this hasn't been sucessful. Jerry
Simoneaux, in a commerical urging people to vote
against Proposition 2, used real GLBT families to try
to humanize the issue.
Q: What exactly does the amendment say?
Jerry: The amendment says that marriage is between a
man and a woman and that the state cannot recognize
any union similar or identical to marriage.
Q: Since those of the same sex can't get married in
Texas now anyway, what's the big deal about the
amendment?
Jerry: Those of the same sex cannot get married in
the state of Texas currently. Also, since the
passing of the Defense of Marriage Act, Texas won't
recognize partnerships granted in other states. The
big deal about the amendment boils down to politics.
Like Annise said, it's a way to get the conservative
base out and get Bush in the spotlight.
Q: What happens if the amendment is passed?
Jerry: Gay couples with children won't be able to get
the legislature to help both parents have rights to
the child. Gay couples won't be able to recieve state
benefits (in Texas or anywhere else it is passed) or
federal benefits.
Q: What are some misconceptions about the amendment?
Jerry: Many believe that the amendment is the same in
every state, which is not true. The wording is
different is almost every state! In Texas, we say you
"can't create or recognize a relationship similar or
identical to marriage." Another misconception is that
gay couples can have the same rights as married
couples without being married. Marriage is the only
way to get a deceased parnter's social security
benefits, veteran's aid, and etc. Another myth is
that gay couples can protect themselves, their
children, and their property through contracts. This
is not true--there is no ironclad way to protect your
property/children through contracts.
Q: What is the difference between civil marriage and
religious marriage?
Annise: Civil marriage is about who gets access to
what rights, benefits, and property. Religious
marriage is about the religious ceremony performed
when being married. GLBT activists believe the two
need to be separated. They say that they church
should marry whoever they want to marry. Law should
deal with civil marriage.
Q: What affect could the amendment have on
heterosexual relationships?
Jerry: Because of the wording of the amendment, it
could greatly affect common law marriage. Common law
marriage is not a legal status, rather it is marriage
by default. Common law marriages would become
questionable under the new proposition.
Q: How exactly will this affect same sex couples?
Jerry: When one member of a same sex couple dies, the
remaining partner often must go up against hostile
family members. Already there are movements to cut
off children resutant from a gay union/the remaining
partner from money or property. The new proposition
would make it VERY hard for the GLBT partner to win.
Also, the number of years the partners have been
together does not matter. I defended a man whose
partner had died after they had lived together for 8
years. They built their life together--a business, a
home. Everything was in the deceased man's name,
however, since his partner didn't have excellent
credit. A son from a previous relationship (who did
not even know his deceased father) sued his father's
partner and took everything--the money, the house, the
car, the business, and even the body. Since property
is given by blood or marriage, if a couple can't get
married then they are pretty much screwed.
Annise: Oh, they can get married...just not to who
they want to marry. (sarcasm)
Jerry: Yeah, I always say, "If you don't like gay
marriage, don't marry a gay person."
Q: What happens when a GLBT couple wants to adopt
foster children?
Annise: My partner and I have been together for 15
years and have adopted 2 children after we fostered
them for three years. Neither of the children we
adopted were babies--they were elementary aged
siblings who had been stuck in foster care for a long
while. 80% of kids who aren't babies are in foster
care for life. When we tried to adopt our girls, we
ran into some roadblocks. The judge in charge of the
case told the lawyer for the adoption agency that he
would not allow the adoption because they were a
lesbian couple. This is in spite of the fact that I
was doing a single parent adoption (because two
unrrelated people cannot adopt a child together).
Eventually, another judge agreed to do the adoption.
However, when it came down to it, he made them wait
until very last, and then snuck in another judge to
quietly approve the adoption. This made my partner
and I and our children feel like 2nd class citizens.
Jerry: And this amendment will just justify treatment
like that.
Q: Does my vote really count?
Jerry: Absolutely. This amendment could pass
everywhere but Houston, but since Houston is so large,
Houston could win it for the rest of the state. So
please get out there and vote!
October 13, 2005
Intelligent Design and Separation of the Church and State
Speaker: Rev. Dr. Belinda Windham
History of the Presbyterian Church of the USA
-The Presbyterian Church is part of the reform tradition, a movement that
started with the reformation and came to the US from Scotland. Presbyterian
Church structure influenced the structure of the United States government--they
are the only church with equal representation between the church and the
clergy. Civil liberties are important to the Presbyterian Church--they don't
want religious indoctrination in government or schools. They have fought to
keep prayer out of public schools and have fought intelligent design in
schools. Presbyterians believe that since ID is not based on empirical data,
it is not a science, and therefore should not be included in science curriculum
(and it shouldn't be paid for by the public sector). They have no problem with
ID being taught has a philosophy or faith.
Intelligent design came to the forefront in 1996. It was pushed by the Center
for Renewal of Science and Culture, which "wants to liberate science from
atheistic naturalism." Reform movements, like Presbyterians, believe Biblical
stories up to Abraham are folklore/myths. This includes Creationism. ID
argues there is room for the creationism myth in the scientific community.
Four scientists have pushed ID, all of whom have been refuted by scientists
with reputable credentials. Instead of spending their money to do research or
publications, ID puts its money toward public relations. They are trying to
manipulate science to serve their purpose. They want to spread the belief of
Creationism because they believe the "educated elite" (i.e. The Scientific
Community) are atheistic and therefore bias.
How have Liberal Christians tried to combat intelligent design? They have
formed watch groups and advocacy groups. The main problem they keep running
into is lack of funding (especially when compared to the massive funding the
Religious Right has). Also, the Liberal Christians are not in "attack mode"
because that conflicts with their Christian beliefs, so they often get
steamrolled by the Religious Right. Lastly, the term "Christian" has been
co-opted by fundamentialist conservatives, whose distrust of academica has
breeded ignorance. This leaves the "Liberal Christians" trying to combat a
vicious cycle.
For more information on Intelligent Design, please visit www.aclu.org. A good
case to look at is Dover v. Katzmilller, a current intelligent design case in
Dover, Pennsylvania.
September 29, 2005
Screening of "hate.com"
Discussion Questions
1. What place does speech like this have in our culture?
2. After seeing this film, how do you feel about free speech?
3. Does our right to say what we choose have limits?
4. Can we impose limits on free speech without undermining its essence? If you believe we can and should impose limits on free speech,
what should we limit? What should we allow?
September 14, 2005
ACLU Legal Observers
Discussion Questions
1. What exactly is the ACLU's stance on immigration? The
organization's website states that while they agree that
unauthorized immigration is illegal, they believe that once here
the immigrants should not be subject to discrimination or
violence. Does the ACLU promote any sort of border patrol
authorized by the government?
2.
Should the control of illegal immigration be in the hands of the
state or the federal government? Why?
3.
What are the arguments in support of and against the temporary
work visa?
4.
What about the rights of American citizens to “protect” their
country? So long as they are not violent or aggressive, do
Americans have the right to patrol their own border voluntarily?
5.
What, if any, are the important differences between border control
at the hands of the government and border patrol at the hands of
U.S. citizens?
6.
Is there a distinction between patrolling the border and
attempting to catch illegal immigrants once they have entered the
country?
7.
How do the barriers to legal immigration square with the idea of
our nation as a refuge from persecution and unfavorable circumstances?
April 20, 2005
Academic Freedom and the AAUP.
Dr. Haskell from the History Department spoke about his involvement with the American Association of University Professors. He explained the procedures of the AAUP and how important it is for teachers to have independence.
April 6, 2005
Reproductive Rights. Cosponsored by Rice for Life and Rice for Choice.
Speaker Meryl Cohen from Planned Parenthood lead an exciting discussion with topics ranging from sex education, to abortion, to contraceptives, and the laws that are affecting these issues right now. The debate heated up when the discussion turned to the Federal Refusal Clause which allows for pharmacists to refuse birth control because of personal beliefs. Overall the meeting was exciting and informative.
March 23, 2005
The Houston Bible Case. Cosponsored by the Secular Students of Rice.
Randy Kallinan, the president of the local chapter of the ACLU, and his client Kay Stayley, the plaintiff in the Houston Bible Case, spoke about their case, religion in government, and religious intolerance. Mrs. Stayley, who went so far as to question the mental health of Christian fundamentalists who sent her hate mail, felt that the neon-lit Bible inside of a podium outside of the Harris County Court House is unconstitutional and should be removed. However, the legal battle has been tough and might soon go to the Supreme Court.
March 2, 2005
Is the Death Penalty Racist?/Is Justice Colorblind?
Dr. Phillips from the Sociology Department explained his project and research that he has been conducting for the last several years surrounding the question: Does race influence who receives capital punishment? His research has been conducted in Harris County, and includes factors such as socio-economic status. His graphs and tables pointed out the staggering amount of executions within Texas and Harris County, age and race of people given the Death Penalty, and how many are actually executed.
February 16, 2005
Are We Becoming a Theocracy?
For our first real meeting, Nancy Friedman, an ACLU board member, spoke about extreme right wing groups/movements like the Christian Coalition and The Religious Right and their views on certain issues like gay rights, reproductive choice, stem cell research, sex education and prayer/intelligent design theory in schools. She reminded us that the ACLU has been misunderstood and blamed for many of “society’s troubles,” despite the fact that the ACLU is very consistent in protecting civil liberties.