A hard-fought victory, civil rights leaders struggled for decades in the face of racial discrimination. These efforts reached a fever pitch in the 1960’s, culminating in a triad of legislation — the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — which substantially improved the living conditions in the United States.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case from Shelby County, Alabama which challenges Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires certain states and counties with a history of voter disenfranchisement to have any changes to voting procedures approved by the U.S. Attorney General before they are implemented. Though a final decision on the case could be months away, the justices appear to be leaning 5–4 against Section 5.

States currently covered by Section 5 include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Counties in a few other states are also covered, including Monterey County in California. Shelby County asserts that black Alabamians no longer face voting discrimination such as poll taxes and literacy tests and that Section 5 therefore constitutes an unfair intrusion of the federal government into state responsibilities.

The idea of “states’ rights,” cherished by many Republicans both modern and in the past, has sadly become a code word for racism.

The kick-off of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign of 1980 was held in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 with the cooperation of members of Neshoba County’s Sheriff’s Office.

Reagan did not acknowledge the tortured history of this town but instead told the white audience he was a champion of “states’ rights.” Considering that “states’ rights” had formerly allowed the state of Mississippi to disenfranchise almost all black voters, Reagan’s statement can be viewed as thinly veiled race-baiting.

Opponents of Section 5 who argue voter discrimination no longer exists are either naive or making a purposeful attempt at deception.

Voter ID laws — which largely affect people of color, poorer Americans, students and the elderly — exist in 30 states, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. Each of these states have a history of voter disenfranchisement, according to the Section 5 provisions. Each of these states have made their voter ID laws more stringent in the last 10 years.

Arizona, a state covered by Section 5, printed 50 Spanish-language voter registration cards with the wrong election date in Maricopa County — a county that has a long history of issues existing between Hispanic residents and white officials. Officials said the misprint was a mistake.

Five counties in Florida are covered by Section 5. Each of those counties attempted to cut early voting hours in the 2012 election.

In Cleveland, Clear Channel Communications put up 30 billboards reading “Voter fraud is a felony!” These billboards were placed in predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhoods.

Gerrymandering, the process of redrawing district lines to ensure that a particular party has a majority of support in that district, is also a continuing issue.

After the 2010 elections, in which Republicans gained a large measure of power in state legislatures, Republicans led redistricting in seven states. As a result, in 2012, it took over three votes to elect a Democratic House member compared to one for a Republican House member in North Carolina. In Ohio, it took over two and a half votes to elect a Democratic member as compared to one to elect a Republican member.

A major impetus for the passage of the Voting Rights Act was “Bloody Sunday” in 1965, when dozens of young people protesting voter discrimination were beaten by police while attempting to march from Selma, Ala. to Montgomery. March 7 marked the 48-year anniversary of Selma. And yet the Supreme Court is threatening to invalidate these struggles by reversing the legislation they devoted their lives to winning.

If the Supreme Court eliminates one of the most significant provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the civil rights movement will have suffered a major blow. It has been almost half a century since those battles were won. Let’s not allow Shelby County to force us to fight them again.

Illustration by Leigh Douglas.

Apparently, all it takes for ESPN to lose their standards of professionalism is for Jeremy Lin to lose a game.

For those who haven’t followed the story, ESPN recently ran a headline on NBA player Lin’s recent loss titled “A Chink in the Armor.” True, ESPN apologized and is conducting a review of its editorial process, which involved firing the editor who chose the headline. But no amount of review can mask the fact that Asian Americans are subjected to levels of casual derision that, applied to any other underrepresented group, would come off as callous and bigoted. It’s this blasé application of racial slurs that is the most troubling in this case.

The New York Times recently ran a piece on the
apparent lack of sensitivity in sports journalism. Its writer, David Carr, elegantly outlined Lin’s career and lamented the fanboy-ism endemic among sports reporters which, unfortunately, manifests itself in racial caricatures on a regular basis. We would take it a step further and
argue those sports reporters — ESPN or otherwise — wouldn’t have made such an egregious misstep had their culture not subtly condoned it. By their culture, we mean ours — the American melting pot that ostensibly celebrates its diversity every chance it gets. If this is what passes for a celebration, we don’t want to be there for the after party.

It’s a two-part gaffe. As a supposedly post-racial culture, we have made casual racism only mildly distasteful. On top of that, racism against Asian Americans hasn’t recieved the same attention as other underrepresented groups.

UCLA student Alexandra Wallace’s racist “Asians in the Library” rant earlier last year serves as a solid
example of how easy it is to take advantage of the
seemingly endless tolerance of America’s “model minority” — a term that has negative connotations in itself. Model, as in modeled after “normal” white Americans? And what does that make other underrepresented groups? Failed models? This is exactly the sort of language that we shouldn’t be using.

Lest we forget, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps during World War II. Yet the American populace at large is remarkably ignorant of the marginalized status of Asian Americans. The well-being of the nation’s underrepresented groups isn’t a matter of convenience, and while it may be slightly hyperbolic to equate the ESPN slur with a hate crime, it stands as an equally abhorrent example of the American sense of
convenient colorblindness.

Asian Americans have a long and involved history within the United States; to trivialize their experiences with a slur like “A Chink in the Armor” is almost more dangerous than outright aggression. Modern racism is increasingly taking this more insidious form, and we need to be ready for it. Racism is alive and well, and ignoring even seemingly minor infractions in political correctness does nothing to hasten its demise.

Students gather in the College Nine and Ten Multipurpose room for Breaking the Silence, a community forum on hate and bias at UCSC. The event featured several keynote speakers and forums for discussion. Photos by Kyan Mahzouf

Standing before about 150 people, Cherine Badawi broke the silence by speaking sharply into her microphone: “Help with immigration — kill a Mexican.” Badawi is not promoting discrimination. She is quoting a real instance of hate crime, a message scrawled on a wall at UC Santa Cruz this past year.

Badawi was one of two guest speakers presenting at the “Breaking the Silence” forum on Feb. 6 in the College Nine and Ten Multipurpose Room. She was accompanied by her longtime friend and collaborator, Arthur Romano, an international peace advocate and professor at George Mason University.

The night’s events opened with a spoken word performance by UCSC undergrad Storm Thomas.

“You tell me,” she said with raw emotion. “If a black body swings from a tree and no one is around, does it make a sound?” Thomas’ words were met with a standing ovation and thunderous applause.

“We’re here because we know hate hurts… it leads to despair, violence, self-harm and even suicide,” Badawi said. “And believe it or not, three out of four incidents of hate go unreported.”

Badawi and Romano asked students about the apathy that seems to follow issues of hate speech. One student answered, “I’m not really sure — I guess it just seems like there isn’t enough we can do.”

Badawi explained the psychological nature of human interaction, citing examples of scientific experiments where 90 percent of the time in a group setting participants would respond only if someone else responded first. She said the more people begin to stand up against hate speech, the more they will influence others and be able to collectively make a difference.

Joy L. Lei, event coordinator and assistant campus diversity officer, said the event was spurred by real hate crimes and recent instances of bias that occurred within the UCSC community.

“This past fall we received a number of reports of hate graffiti,” she said. “One of the sprays had a swastika. There were also derogatory slurs used against African Americans, Asian Americans and Muslim students, for example.”

A student community response team was organized to address these concerns, as well as a hate and bias response team made up of staff, faculty and administrators.

After about an hour the audience split into three workshops to speak in close-knit groups about the issues.

Herbie Lee, vice president of academic affairs and member of the hate and bias response team, spoke out in a workshop at one of the event’s breakout sessions. He explained how the response team addresses acts of hate on campus.

“When a report is filed,” Lee said, “an email goes out to the administration. We have to then decide which one of us will look into the issue, to meet with the student if they would like to meet with us, and see what can be done.”

The few administrators at the breakout session went on to collectively define what hate speech is and the difference between hate speech and hate crime.

“Hate speech,” they said, “is spoken, written or other forms of communication directed at a person based off a discriminative remark. Hate crime involves the same kind of discriminatory remark, but includes the commitment of a crime. Assault or graffiti would be an example.”

Regardless of the complications and differences among various types of discrimination, they said, if students feel uncomfortable with any remark that may seem discriminative, they should report it to the team.

“We hope through the educational campaign and what the forum presents, students can take away the knowledge and tools to use in their everyday lives,” Lei said. “This issue is all around us and we are far from addressing it to our potential as a community.”

Students can file reports here reporthate@ucsc.edu

Emotions Run High in “The First Seed,” written by UCSC alum Aman Gohal, directed by students Sharif Zakout and Aye Thant. Photo Courtesy of Katie Ventura.

An arranged Indian marriage and four men held captive by a group of women — what do these two plots have in common? For one, they both bring up issues of racism and gender inequality. And they also are both plays currently being put on by UC Santa Cruz’s own Rainbow Theater.

The theater troupe illustrates the connections between cultures in the two plays “First Seed” and “Captivated.” Creative and well produced, these shows address issues of sexism and ethnicity among a wide range of people, leaving audiences with a new perspective.

“First Seed,” directed and written by UCSC and Rainbow Theater alumnus Aman Gohal, tells the story of a contemporary Indian family and the arranged marriage of their eldest daughter. The play draws contrasts among the varying cultural identities of the family’s three sisters. For example, the eldest sister wears the traditional Indian caftans and scarves, while the youngest sister wears short dresses and caked-on makeup. The eldest sister grapples with having an arranged marriage with a wealthy Indian doctor, who has her parents approval but isn’t quite a perfect match for her.

Differing expectations of cultural gender roles, chauvinistic jokes and stereotypical bread-winning husbands all have a part in this play, which focuses on domestic violence toward women and dueling cultures.

While the message in “First Seed” is very clear, it often feels overbearing. Yes, the repeated quarrels and clashing personalities of the sisters effectively show the struggles of immigrant cultures, but in a way that weakens the effect with every repetition. Similarly, although the intense action and dialogue keep the audience captivated through about an hour and 20 minutes of drama, the piece at times lacked subtlety.

Regardless, Gohal succeeds in getting his audience to take a deeper look at domestic abuse, ethnic differences and sexism.

“Captivated,” the second show, written by Darryl Davis, addresses gender expectations between men and women in an extreme setting: a laboratory with four cages, each cage with its own captive human male. The men are held captive by three female scientists who perform “experiments” on them.

The main character is a black man who represents the racial contrast between himself, the other captives and the scientists. He is confused as to where he is or what is going on.

The audience shares the captive’s confusion as to what the imprisonment and experiments mean. It might be frustrating at times for the viewer to be asked to go along with the play without having reference points for the plot. But as issues rise between the captives and experimenters, it becomes clear the play centers around exploring male privilege.

In one scene, the black experimenter, who is wearing tight black pants and a matching tank top, lets the main character out of his cage. Moments later, the freed man starts to make offensive comments about the experimenter’s body, objectifying her, giving her pet names and even trying to cop a feel. The experimenter turns on him in an instant, throwing the man on the ground.

“Captivated” is most effective because it takes a look at commonplace social conflicts in an unrealistic and jarring setting, forcing the audience to reevaluate their own prejudices. Though it was difficult to follow at certain points, Davis without a doubt conveys a strong message to the audience, and the confusion only added to that strength.

Photo by Sal Ingram.

Photo by Sal Ingram.

“What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!”

Marching across campus, holding signs condemning hate speech and chanting in unison, nearly 100 student demonstrators denounced racist graffiti found in a men’s restroom in Cowell College on Cinco de Mayo.

A photo of the graffiti posted on the UC Santa Cruz ethnic and critical race studies Tumblr account shows the image of the graffiti in its entirety, which reads: “STOP the invasion kill a Mexican!”

This latest incident comes after the discovery of swastika graffiti — which contained a threat of violence on 4/20 — in March, as well as the images of nooses drawn in restrooms on campus last year.

“This is bigger than just this incident,” said fourth-year Frank Bejarano, who was demonstrating with the crowd today. “It is sad that we have to do this. For us to be in the higher institutions and have to deal with this – it angers us.” Bejarano is the internal affairs officer for the UCSC chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicana y Chicano de Aztlan, a student organization promoting the values of the Chicano movement.

In calling attention to the instances of hate speech across the UC recently, the demonstration underscored the imperativeness of supporting programs on campus that encourage ethnic diversity as well as the incorporation of an ethnic studies major.

“Without those programs, this campus would be entirely white,” said a co-chair of Engaging Education to the crowd gathered in front of the Cowell/Stevenson dining hall.

The demonstration began at Kerr Hall, where students tried to meet with Chancellor George Blumenthal, before moving across campus onto a knoll in Cowell College and eventually into the Cowell/Stevenson dining hall.

Several Cowell students leaned out of their windows and balconies as Cowell College provost Faye Crosby approached the demonstrators atop the knoll and spoke though a megaphone.

“It diminishes our community,” Crosby said regarding hate speech and racism on UCSC’s campus. “We need to be united and respectful of all members of our community.”

Barrios Unidos representatives take part in the first public peace forum at the Louden Nelson Community Center. The event was organized in response to widespread concern over recent acts of violence in Santa Cruz. Photo by Morgan Grana.

Last week inside the Louden Nelson Community Center, concerned citizens gathered for the first of many “Unity in our Community” public peace forums. The Community Center seemed hardly large enough to hold the group of at least 120 people that attended. Prospects for seats looked grim before the welcome ceremony even began.

“The response has been so overwhelming that we might be looking into a larger venue to do at a different date,” said Vivian Levine, an employee at Barrios Unidos, one of the four organizations that helped put together the event.

Local organizations CoAction, Yes! and Youth in Action also helped coordinate the forum. Organizers hoped to foster a community discussion about violence in small groups. The forum also included several presentations by notable speakers from the community, including City Council members Don Lane and Lynn Robinson.

The event was put together in less than two weeks, partly in response to the deadly stabbing of Santa Cruz High School junior, Tyler Tenorio, on Oct. 16 of this year. The forum was also organized in light of the fact that incidents of larceny, homicide and rape have all increased more than 50 percent in the city of Santa Cruz in the past year, according to the Santa Cruz Police Department.

“People want an answer. People want something to be done, and in order to do that we have to come up with a game plan to do it,” Levine said. “In a forum over these events that have happened recently, people come together in fear and anger and want results immediately and it’s not going to happen that way, it has to be a process.”

Levine feels that there is a disparity between generations when it comes to violence awareness, and she hoped this event would help families, adults and youth talk about difficult issues and ultimately curb violent crime in Santa Cruz.

Before the event, Lauren Parker from CoAction also stressed that she expected intergenerational and interracial discourse from the forum.

“We began to organize [the forum] in response to the lack of community dialogue. We all wanted there to be a place where youth could drive the conversation as much as adults,” Parker said.

After everyone settled in chairs, discussions began. The crowd transformed into a number of small circles of people eager to talk. They exchanged personal accounts of their various violent and non-violent pasts and their hopes for the future. Most came to create a safer community, some for their children and still others in order to break down racial and class barriers — a move they felt might help create a path to nonviolence.

“We need to help stop violence and build bridges to a safer community,” one woman said. “Open dialogue with people you love will help it stop.”

An African-American man in one circle talked about racial barriers within the community.

“People automatically judge you because you are Latino, because you are black, because you look ethnic,” the man said. “Barriers need to be broken down.”

Mamel Amijo, who works with the Santa Cruz County Community Coalition to Overcome Racism, was also frustrated with barriers to education and barriers to wealth in Santa Cruz. She suggested that while “there are more people of color in the police force [and] as judges,” many authorities still lack empathy towards those of different classes and backgrounds.

Several people in the discussion called for targeting this systemic problem of societal barriers with increased community economic development. Many participants expressed the belief that a fairer, more equal community would make for a safer, less violent future.

One man pointed to another woman’s children playing on the floor before turning to address his group.

“This is our future. We need to invest the money in our children, and we need unity and intervention. That’s the only way to solve this.”

Illustration by Joe Lai.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is no stranger to controversy; in fact, one might call it his lifeblood. He is a notorious presence on the airwaves for his outlandish comments, devised, at least in part, to keep his name in the headlines while pulling in more listeners.

This past week Limbaugh managed to make news in both the sports and political worlds when he was dropped from a group of bidders — spearheaded by sports executive Dave Checketts — who want to purchase the lowly St. Louis Rams, a football team whose days as the “Greatest Show on Turf” are long behind them.

This news was met with many sighs of relief from football players and fans alike, as everyone from National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell to Reverend Al Sharpton spoke out against the possibility of Limbaugh becoming a partial owner of a professional football team.

But the question that still remains is this: why did Checketts’s group even present Limbaugh with this opportunity to begin with? Besides the fact that he has no previous experience with football whatsoever (other than the fact that he likes to talk about it), Rush Limbaugh has proven time and time again that he is, to put it mildly, racially insensitive. It’s really no surprise that his reputation wouldn’t sit well with many people in involved in professional football — a sport with a player base of more than 75 percent African-Americans.

Case in point: on the 2003 set of the television show “ESPN Countdown,” Limbaugh commented that “the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is little hope invested in [Donovan] McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.” After a significant amount of public backlash, Limbaugh resigned from his position at ESPN.

Blatant, negative and racially-fueled commentary hasn’t ceased flowing from Limbaugh’s mouth in the past several years since that incident, eliciting continuous anger from the public and the creation of Web pages like “Top 10 Rush Limbaugh Racist Quotes.” This is a man who once said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) should “have riot rehearsal … and practice robberies,” and who two years ago likened the NFL to “a game between the Bloods and Crips, without weapons.”

That someone as unabashedly loose with racial commentary as Rush Limbaugh would want to become involved in an organization with a predominantly African-American contingency seems terribly incongruous.

Fortunately, Checketts had the sense to publically expel him from the group of bidders after it quickly became obvious how unpopular he was in NFL circles. Checketts realized that very few team owners would vote in favor of his group of bidders with Limbaugh as a member, and that it would be extremely difficult to find players who would want to come to St. Louis and play for a team that listed Limbaugh as an associate in any capacity.

New York Giants defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka summed up the sentiments of many fellow athletes on this issue when he told the New York Daily News, “[Limbaugh] can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play.”

The NFL should be commended for taking swift action and expressing their misgivings on the possibility of Limbaugh becoming an owner. They moved quickly to try and nip this controversy in the bud, as they realized they couldn’t afford any more bad publicity after just starting to rid themselves of the Michael Vick dogfighting case. The league realized that having an owner with a reputation like Limbaugh’s would be detrimental to the NFL as a whole and would go against its standards for racial equality and inclusion — standards that have existed since the 1940s when, ironically enough, the then-Los Angeles Rams became the first football team to integrate.

And in case you’re wondering — it should come as no surprise — Limbaugh did have a response to being let go from the bidding group. He claimed what happened to him was the result of “blind hatred” of him by the media and “Obama’s America on full display.”

Limbaugh’s lame attempt to use the media as a scapegoat fails to acknowledge that he is implicit in the blind hatred perpetuated by the media every time he opens his mouth — and promptly inserts his foot.