Author: The Opportunity Agenda

According to a 2007 poll, Americans define human rights as the rights to equal opportunity, freedom from discrimination, a fair criminal justice system, and freedom from torture or abuse by law enforcement. Despite the current political wrangling over how to reform it, a majority of Americans even believe that access to health care is a human right.

There was a time when America’s leaders echoed those sentiments. President Franklin D. Roosevelt embraced them when he told Congress, “Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.” And in 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act, forming the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission was intended to conduct critical reviews of social needs and public policy – in essence, to be the conscience of the nation. Regardless of circumstances or leadership, the body was to operate as an independent voice for the broad range of civil rights issues facing the country.
Regrettably, since the 1980s the Commission has become a politicized body that, whether intentionally or not, too often reflects the ideological views of its appointees. Consider the recent examples that call into question the current Commission’s ability to fulfill its mission:

•The Commission majority has taken a hostile position on the issue of school diversity;
•Some Commissioners have given testimony against renewing the Voting Rights Act;
•The Commission has endorsed voter identification requirements;
•The Commission allowed individual members to testify in Congress with the implication that the testimony was endorsed by the body as a whole.

Now more than ever, the United States needs a human rights monitoring body that lives up to its mandate and to the ideals of this country. This body would be financed by the government but would operate as an independent, nonpartisan entity, providing expertise and oversight to ensure human rights progress in the United States. Congress and President Obama should support legislation to establish such a body by restructuring the existing U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, converting it into an effective U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights.

Approximately 50 national organizations have come together to form the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda, and to call on President Obama and Congress to create such legislation. The coalition comprises major human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and social justice groups. Suggestions on how to revise the Commission include:

•Changing the Commission structure from 8 to 7 appointees, nominated by Presidents and subject to confirmation from the Senate;
•Expanding the mandate of the Commission needs to include all civil and human rights issues, including issues of the LGBT community;
•Securing the Commission’s subpoena power as an essential ingredient for its effectiveness;
•Creating an additional investigative body to help with research and collection, as well as report preparation and submission;
•Expanding the jurisdiction of the Commission to look at international policies that have an impact on domestic issues, therefore broadening the goal of the Commission to cover human rights.

Expanding the Commission’s scope would strengthen its ability to address the human rights implications of major disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, as well as pressing issues Americans are facing today such as inequalities in access to housing, racial discrepancies in sentencing for drug offenses, education, jobs, and health care.

A nonpartisan and independent U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights would also support government, even while it enjoys more autonomy as an honest broker. It would be invaluable to our government’s efforts to meet its human rights treaty obligations under both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Expanding the Commission’s mandate would also enable it to better address the full range of contemporary issues, such as access to basic needs, freedom from all forms of discrimination, voting rights, protection against torture and other abuse, and a fair criminal justice system. It would also go a long way toward reaffirming, to Americans and to the rest of the world, what America truly stands for.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Two weeks ago, in this space, I wrote about hiring inequalities at Silicon Valley technology firms—mostly focusing on disparities in employment for African Americans and Latinos.

However, the lack of women in technology jobs is similarly striking. The San Jose Mercury News has been forceful in highlighting the issue. The newspaper conducted an analysis of ten of the Valley’s largest companies. Their numbers are from 2005 but they still highlight a disturbing trend. In their analysis of these ten companies (including Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco, eBay, and more), women made up just 33 percent of the workforce. This is even down from 1999, when women made up only 37 percent of all employees at these organizations.

Turning specifically to managers, the Mercury News found that "women slipped to 26 percent of managers in 2005, from 28 percent in 2000."
This is despite evidence that women in workforce are clearly beneficial. Wired magazine took a look at the issue a few years ago and cited a study from Catalyst, a nonprofit group that studies women business. The study found that companies with the most women in senior management had a 35 percent higher return on equity than those with the fewest. These companies also paid their shareholders 34 percent more than companies with the fewest women in top management.

The article also quotes Carol Kovac, at IBM, arguing that without women "you’ll just end up with just 50 percent of people represented" resulting in technologies that might simply be unappealing or simply not work for women.

Apple might now understand the benefits of women in their workforce after the flak they received for naming their latest product the iPad. All Apple executives are white men.

These older numbers remind us that as we work together to come out of this economic downturn, it’s not sufficient to return to where we were before the crisis.

The past few years have seen an economy in turmoil and impaired financial mobility. As research from The Opportunity Agenda shows us, at the end of 2008, different American groups and communities experienced starkly unequal levels of opportunity. Continuing with today’s focus, in 2008 women made only 76.8 percent the medan income of men.

The current recovery process is an opportunity to prepare us as a country for the 21st century global economy. Any economic recovery policy should not only jump-start the economy in the short-term, but also invest in lasting opportunity for all—this means that recovery efforts must do more than simply return us to the conditions that existed at the beginning of this economic crisis.

To learn more, visit here.

From Reform Immigration for America:

On March 21st, we will march on Washington, DC to demand immigration reform and economic justice for all Americans. Our vision of reform includes immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens working shoulder to shoulder to achieve better wages, working conditions, and labor protections, and of an American that’s back to work, with a fair balance between main street and wall street.

People from all across America will lend their voice in the fight for reform. We will come together as one voice on the National Mall for a strong America – for families, for workers, for businesses, and for security.

Join thousands from across the country in the March For America in DC on March 21st, and demand Congress act NOW to pass immigration reform and move quickly to put all Americans back to work

Where: National Mall, Washington DC

When: March 21st, 2010 – Interfaith Service at 1:00 pm, March at 2:00 pm

Sign up here to MARCH!

Here at The Opportunity Agenda, we talk a lot about values, and the importance of building communications around them. In fact, we built a whole organization around six core values that drive our work and the way we talk about it. We do this, of course, because these values matter to us.  Seeing them realized and supported are central to our goals. But as NPR explained recently, leading with values is also a savvy communications strategy. In a story on people’s beliefs about climate change, reporter Christopher Joyce describes findings from Yale’s Cultural Cognition Project that people form their views about climate change, among other things, based more on their existing worldview – and values – than on the facts presented to them.

"Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values," says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project. Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.

"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.

And if the information doesn’t, you tend to reject it.

Meg Bostrom describes this same phenomenon in an article for Frameworks Institute, "When the Facts Don’t Fit the Frame," which looks at several studies on how people interpret facts. Basically, we rely on our personal experience and our values to make sense of facts. Facts alone don’t convince. As mentioned above, we’re such great rationalizers that we will actually discard facts that do not fit into our world view. In the case of climate change, the solutions that aligned with people’s world views were more persuasive than facts. For instance, when conservatives heard that nuclear energy was a solution to climate change, they were more ready to accept global warming as a problem. If limiting omissions was posited as a solution, they were less likely. One solution fit with their values and worldview, another conflicted.

For more visit The Opportunity Agenda website.

The economic collapse and ensuing high unemployment rates have reminded us that no one is immune to the vagaries of the 21st century economy.  While there has been significant disagreement about how to jumpstart the economy, motivated as often as not by partisanship, most people in Congress understand that, at least in the short-term, basic human decency demands that our social safety net remain accessible to the millions enduring hardship because of the extended recession.  For one Senator, though, it is simply too expensive to provide even modest support to those among us who are have been hit hardest.

In using procedural mechanisms to block a temporary extension of unemployment benefits, which passed the House on a simple voice vote, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky made clear that he believes that compassion, even in a time of crisis, is not a value he holds in high regard.  This is not a matter of parochialism or politics—Kentucky’s unemployment rate since the beginning of the collapse has been higher than the national average, and, in any event, Bunning has chosen not to run for reelection.  Rather, it is pure callousness from a man who, after a successful baseball career and more than 20 years in elected office, has forgotten what it means experience economic uncertainty.
The Senate will certainly find a way to overcome Senator Bunning’s intransigence, but restarting unemployment support for people who temporarily lost access to it will be expensive and time-consuming.  Whatever Senator Bunning believes he will have accomplished with his obstructionism, let’s hope it was worth the cost, both in dollars and in personal suffering.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda .

The upcoming November elections draw near, both Democrats and Republicans are in an election state of mind. Both parties are focusing on trying to appease their voter base, while Obama and his administration push forward to make due on some promises such as health care reform and the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ military policy.

According to recent surveys 32% of Americans affiliate with the Democratic Party and 26% self-identify as Republican, while 39% identify as independents. Regarding the upcoming fall election, 34% of Americans say that they will definitely vote Democratic, while 37% say that they definitely will not.A majority of the public view both Democrats and Republicans unfavorably. 51% of the public view the Democratic Party negatively, and 57% for Republicans. Three- quarters of the American public disapproves of Congress, which is their highest disapproval rating since 1977. Additionally, half of the public would like to see the filibuster rule changed, in order limit back and forth politics of Congress, and ensure sure legislation actually can be passed.
HEALTH CARE
Despite the disfavor, 44% of those surveyed in early February think that Obama would be better at handling health care reform, compared to the 27% who think republicans would do better

The long awaited reform of the health care system has seen a waning public interest. In early February, 43% of respondents were in support of the proposed changes to the health care system, and a majority of the public, 53%, opposed the changes that would be put in place by the passing of the health care reform bill in Congress. Whereas, in mid-January, 44% of respondents were in support and 52% opposed, this divide falls largely along partisan lines:

                     Approve  Disapprove

Democrats:        72%      &nb

sp; 24%  

Republicans:      17        &n

bsp;   82

Independents:    38            57            

As compared to polls in January, where 42% of Americans supported and 41% opposed the health care reform legislation. Comparatively, in a CNN poll conducted in late December 2009, 42% of American voters were in favor of the health care reform bill and 56% were opposed.

In response to these large partisan divides, Obama held a bipartisan health care forum on Thursday, where he tried to bridge party lines by encouraging politicians to engage in an “honest discussion."

Although more people oppose the health care reform bill in Congress than support it, when asked about individual elements of the health care reform, a majority voted that it was somewhat or extremely important to them that each measure get passed into law. Delay is passage of the bill may be attributed to such low public support, yet the values and reform elements behind the health care reform bill seem to resonate with the American public. A majority of the public fear surrounding reform is that under the new system health care will cost more (53%), quality of health care will be worse (50%), and that it will cost more (56%).
In a poll this month, when asked reasons why people support comprehensive health care reform, a majority cited:

• So more people can afford health insurance coverage
• In order to reduce the cost of health insurance
• To reform insurance company practice

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

When asked why the people oppose health care legislation, the main reasons cited were that:

• The legislation would give government too big of a role.
•The U.S. can’t currently afford to pay for health care reform
•The health care reform involved too much deal-making and behind-the-door negotiations

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

Before Thursday’s forum, 54% of the public thought that is was either likely or somewhat likely that Congress will sign a health care reform bill (February). According to 59% of Americans, delay in passing health care reform was to blame on both Democrats and Republicans for "playing politics." 63% of the public wants lawmakers to keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform bill. In this poll, 45% of respondents said that the country as a whole would be better off if a health care reform bill was passed by Congress, and 58% would be disappointed or angry if it did not pass.

"DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL"
Another contentious issue is the potential repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which Obama raised in his State of the Union address. A majority of Americans support allowing gay and lesbian people to serve in the military, according to various surveys conducted in the recent weeks. 66% of voters perceive the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy as discriminating.

The increase in acceptance over the years may be due to the fact that half of all respondents did not see homosexuality as a moral issue. Additionally, 63 % of Americans have a gay friend, family member or acquaintance. A GQRR survey found that in general, voters are becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians, citing that 30% of the public reported that they have become more accepting in the past decade. Additionally, 60 % of the American public regards that in the midst of two wars, the need for qualified service members gives precedence over sexual orientation.

The support for the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is not a politically polarized issue, support crosses demographic and partisan affiliations.

According to a GQRR survey, 68 % of Democrats, 55 percent of independents, and 41 percent of Republicans support gay and lesbian people being able to serve in the military. Despite the cohesive majority that gays and lesbians should be able to serve, voters are more divided as to how the military would go about incorporating such reforms.

Source: CBS- NYT Poll

Although support for the repealing of the don’t ask, Don’t Tell policy is well in the majority,support tended to vary depending on the phrasing of the question. When respondents were asked whether they favor or oppose ‘gay men and lesbians’ serving in the military, they were much more likely to respond positively, than when the term homosexual was used.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

This week’s Immigration Blog Roundup will cover new research on the economic impact of immigrants, detention issues, the March for America on March 21st, and more…

The New York Civil Liberties Union has released "Voices from Varick: Detainee Grievances at New York City’s Only Federal Immigration Detention Facility" which analyzes detainee grievances and highlights the inadequate medical care and mistreatment by staff.  Click here for key findings.

Last month ICE had announced that the Varick Detention Center would close this week, however relocating the 300 detainees to New Jersey has been difficult with the amount of detainees suffering from serious medical problems.  Immigration officials say that the Varick Center will only be used as a processing hub where detainees would be held no more than 12 hours, however advocates are skeptical. 

The Immigration Policy Center has released their research on the economic and political influence of immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in Kansas:
-Immigrants make up 6.0% of Kansas’s population.
-31.2% of immigrants in 2007 were naturalized U.S. citizens eligible to vote.
-If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Kansas, the state could lose $1.8 billion in expenditures, $807.2 million in economic output, and approximately 11,879 jobs.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are struggling in securing the Latino vote.  According to NBC-Wall Street Journal polls fewer Latinos view the Democratic party favorably than did a year ago.  While the Republican Party is threatened by immigration debate hard-liners and anti-immigration activists.

Lastly, be part of Reform Immigration for America’ campaign and show your support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the March for America on March 21st, 2010 in Washington, D.C.  For more information go here.

While it is a deeply-held American belief that we’re all in this together, there has long been a truism that when the economy gets a cold, the poor get pneumonia. It’s a glib way of noting that any downturn in the economy has a disparate impact on those least prepared to handle it.

On February 20, 2010, the New York Times published an article on the “new poor,” millions of Americans struggling with long-term unemployment. As the Times notes, changes in the economy have stripped away some of the jobs that traditionally offered a path to the middle class for those with less education. “Some labor experts say the basic functioning of the American economy has changed in ways that make jobs scarce.” … “Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 — the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.”
These stark facts support the argument that our economic recovery must be carefully crafted to ensure an equitable recovery for all. Although American social safety nets over the past two decades have been designed with an eye toward self-sufficiency, it’s clear that underlying principle doesn’t apply in current economic circumstances. The Times article quotes Timothy M. Smeeding, the director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, “We have a work-based safety net without any work.”

Mr. Smeeding notes that the expected recovery is not anticipated to be quite as robust for some sectors of American society. “People with more education and skills will probably figure something out once the economy picks up. It’s the ones with less education and skills: that’s the new poor.” However, rather than accept a lessening of opportunity for those who have already experienced disadvantages, we must craft a recovery that, indeed, lifts all boats with the rising tide.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Last week President Obama used a strategy that should become an important part of his leadership going forward.  On February 18, he issued an executive order creating a bipartisan commission on addressing the budget deficit, after the Senate failed to enact legislation that would have done so.  Whatever one thinks of the commission’s mission or likely recommendations, the order should represent a rediscovery of the power of the presidency.

Perhaps because he came to the White House directly from the Senate, the President has been overly reliant on that body to achieve his goals.  It goes without saying that the Senate is dysfunctional and divided—by contrast, the House has passed superior versions of many of the President’s legislative priorities, only to see more anemic version die at the other end of the building.  But while the Senate is crucial to federal legislation, and federal legislation is crucial to transformative change on many issues, such as health care, financial regulation, and immigration reform, presidents wield tremendous power as presidents through their constitutional authority as executive.  The executive order is a prime example.

President Obama has issued some 42 Executive Orders since he took office.  But the Deficit Commission order served as a public notice—or at least it should—that the President stands ready to move solutions forward, within constitutional limits, when the Legislative Branch fails to act.
Proactive use of the executive order has been an important tool for past presidents and, in particular, those pushing forward progressive policies in the face of conservative filibuster threats.  In 1941, for example, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 to prohibit racial discrimination in the national defense industry. It was the first federal action, though not a law, to prohibit racial discrimination in employment in the United States.  In 1948 President Truman signed Executive Order 9980, ordering the desegregation of the federal work force, and Executive Order 9981, ordering the desegregation of the armed services.  And in 1961, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and required that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.

Throughout this period, civil rights legislation was proposed, debated, and killed by filibustering segregationist Southern Democratic senators.  Even when legislation initially passed, in the 1950s, it was largely toothless.  By contrast, the civil rights executive orders had huge impact, both practical and symbolic, and showed the nation what was possible.  Similarly, in 1998 President Clinton signed a groundbreaking executive order, 13087, prohibiting discrimination in federal Executive Branch employment based on sexual orientation.

Starting now, President Obama should wield the executive order more publicly, as many of his predecessors did, to solve problems and protect basic rights.  While Congress dithers over ending the shameful Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the president should immediately outlaw discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation or sexual identity in federally funded programs and in federally assisted housing.  As a much needed jobs bill is stripped down and delayed in the Senate, the president should issue an order requiring that federal agencies administer all federal appropriations so as to maximize job creation for all Americans and equal opportunity based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. And as the fifth anniversary of the Hurricane Katrina tragedy approaches, the President should issue an executive order providing that federal responses to national disasters and emergencies must meet established international human rights standards, known as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

This is just a start, and must be accompanied by a cogent explanation to the American people about why these and other Executive actions are necessary and in the country’s best interest.  Over time, however, they will achieve important change, put pressure for action on both parties, and demonstrate what leadership really looks like.

One year ago our nation, and much of this world, was in a state of panic and turmoil. Companies and industries were shedding jobs faster than we could count. The stock market was tanking in front of our eyes. Waking up every morning to look at the headlines of the newspaper was a daunting task in fear of what a new day could bring to the American people. We needed a lifeline.

And so President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009. Critics have been very vocal at pointing out the persistently high unemployment rate as well as flagrant examples of waste and inefficiency. At the same time, supporters have ample evidence to defend the act—a couple million jobs saved or created, a depression averted, and billions of dollars supporting and aiding colleges and universities to invest in the future of our country. Both sides have valid arguments and substantial verification. Undoubtedly, there have been great benefits from the act, but inevitably there is also vast room for improvement in the second year of the two year plan. With a year behind us, we must look ahead and focus our attention and energy in avoiding past mistakes by demanding greater transparency, and demanding higher quality outcomes. As the White House begins to craft the new jobs bill, we must make sure the bill creates good jobs—jobs that offer living wages, provide benefits, and have the potential for long-term growth and advancement.
Moreover, throughout the recovery process, it is imperative that we take into consideration the situation of all Americans, not just those in traditional industries like construction, but also, those individuals that were already struggling before the economic crisis hit. These people cross city and county boundaries, range in age, gender, nationality and economic status. It is easy to lose sight of the goal of the recovery, and point fingers to blame others for mishaps, but at this critical time in our nation’s history we must work together as a nation so no one falls behind. The only way forward is as a union.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.