DOCSLIB.ORG

Rethinking Reentry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rethinking Reentry RETHINKING REENTRY EDITED BY BRENT ORRELL Foreword by Paul Ryan AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE RETHINKING REENTRY EDITED BY BRENT ORRELL Foreword by Paul Ryan January 2020 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE © 2020 by the American Enterprise Institute. All rights reserved. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author(s). American Enterprise Institute 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.aei.org Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................. v Paul Ryan Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Brent Orrell 1. Considering Reentry Program Evaluation: Thoughts from SVORI (and Other) Evaluations ....................................................................................... 7 Pamela K. Lattimore 2. Triaging of Services for Individuals Returning from Prison ................. 39 Edward Latessa 3. Integrating Lived Experience into Reentry Evaluation Design ............. 72 Nancy La Vigne and Janeen Buck Willison 4. Implementation and Intervention Sciences: New Frontiers to Improve Research on Reentry ......................................................................... 88 Faye S. Taxman 5. The Next Generation: An Automated Risk-Needs-Responsivity Assessment System for Correctional Populations ...................................... 119 Grant Duwe 6. What If People Decide to Desist? Implications for Policy .................... 140 Shawn Bushway 7. Creating Cognitive Behavioral Communities in Prison ......................... 163 Christy Visher, Daniel O’Connell, and Hannah Cortina 8. Identity and Agency: A New Approach to Rehabilitation and Reentry ................................................................................................................ 191 Brent Orrell iii iv RETHINKING REENTRY Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. 199 About the Authors ............................................................................................ 200 Foreword PAUL RYAN hile the media tends to sensationalize political conflict, 2018 saw a Wmoment of bipartisan collaboration and consensus with the passage of landmark legislation, the First Step Act, which reformed our nation’s criminal justice system. The political uniting of the left and the right to modernize elements of our justice system was one of the least-covered events of 2018, and yet, it might be one of the most consequential from a public policy perspective. So, how did Democrats and Republicans agree on a controversial, hot-button topic? One reason policymakers were willing to take a political risk was because of both practical and intellectual research in the field of criminal justice. My own experience is instructive: In 2007, I was one of several conserva- tives who voted against the Second Chance Act, but around that time, a sea change was occurring in this policy space. Beginning with Texas in 2007, a whole swath of generally conservative- leaning states reformed their laws in ways that better protect their citizens and ensure victim’s justice while ensuring a fairer system. These states focused on how they could reduce the need to imprison nonviolent offend- ers and reattach people to the workforce. And where these laws have been passed, we generally have seen reduced recidivism, crime, and costs asso- ciated with jailing offenders. The scholarly work done around these issues was key to policymakers when we passed the First Step Act with the strong support of Presi- dent Donald Trump, losing only two Republicans in the House of Rep- resentatives and passing 87–12 in the Senate. That is strong bipartisan consensus. But the First Step Act, as its name implies, is only the beginning. States continue to move forward in developing innovative ways to decrease v recidivism and reform their criminal justice systems with an eye toward ensuring the safety of their citizens and justice for all. This volume will be key in pushing future reform efforts and ensuring that the legislative changes enacted yield tangible results. The research con- ducted by the volume’s authors provides policymakers with the knowledge they need to understand what does and does not work in anti-recidivism efforts. But, it does not stop at just describing the difficulties and prob- lems associated with preventing recidivism; this volume provides a path forward on new ways to provide risk assessment, which is a key concern to policymakers. Importantly, it also takes on the decidedly less glamorous work of ensuring fidelity in program implementation. Evidence that new programs work is only as good as the faithful replication of program con- tent by program implementers. This volume also identifies best practices on ensuring faithful replication of reentry programs. Finally, this volume ties it all together with a new model for prisoner reentry. Brent Orrell provides a road map to federal and state policymakers for a new approach to anti-recidivism. This new approach unifies a num- ber of methodologies—such as case management, cognitive behavioral therapy, and substance abuse treatment. While modest in initial scope by cautiously calling for an experimental approach with rigorous evaluation, it calls for large-scale reform in how we approach prisoner reentry. If pur- sued and successful, it could fundamentally shift how we deliver prisoner reentry services in America. Good policy begins with good evidence. With this volume, AEI has pro- vided policymakers and practitioners with a wealth of information on how to pursue better programs for formerly incarcerated individuals. vi Introduction BRENT ORRELL olicymakers and researchers have been searching for a solution to Ppersistently high rates of recidivism for decades. While the number of incarcerated individuals under federal and state jurisdiction has decreased in recent years and is currently at a 10-year low,1 the United States still incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation.2 This level of incarceration has real consequences. By some estimates, nearly 70 million Americans have a criminal record.3 According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report, if you are a male born in 2001, there is a one in nine chance you will find yourself in prison in your lifetime. We see wide variations when broken down by race, with white men having a one in 17 chance of experiencing imprisonment, while black and Hispanic men have a one in three and one in six chance, respectively. Women have considerably better odds at a one in 56 chance, although the number of incarcerated women has jumped significantly over the past few decades.4 Unfortunately, the vast majority of the nearly 600,000 people released from federal and state prisons every year cannot successfully transition back into our neighborhoods and communities, often swiftly return- ing to incarceration for new crimes. A 2018 Bureau of Justice Statis- tics report reinforces this dismal reality. The study examined nearly 68,000 people released from state prisons in 2005 and found that 83 per- cent—roughly equivalent to five out of six—were arrested again within nine years of their release.5 Why the recidivism rate has remained so high has puzzled criminolo- gists, practitioners, researchers, and justice authorities for decades. Some have argued that the justice system is excessively “sticky,” essentially trap- ping those with criminal records in a cycle of crime and incarceration. 1 2 RETHINKING REENTRY Others have pointed to racial bias in the criminal justice system or to the array of social, economic, and family challenges that many reentering indi- viduals face when they return to their neighborhoods and communities. Federal, state, and local governments and private and philanthropic orga- nizations have devoted billions of dollars to strategies and programs tar- geted at stopping the revolving door of crime and imprisonment. To date, the positive results from these programs have ranged from low to nonexis- tent. Whatever the solutions might be, it is safe to say limited progress has been made in finding them. This volume seeks to explore the roots of the reentry challenge and new approaches for trying to break out of the current policy box. It contains chapters by some of America’s leading researchers, policy experts, and evaluators in criminal justice, reentry, and recidivism. Each brings a partic- ular perspective on the reentry challenge and how existing programs and practices might be strengthened or reformed to help improve criminal jus- tice system performance and outcomes. Others propose more significant departures from existing strategies and practices as alternatives to explore. In Chapter 1, Pamela K. Lattimore, senior director for research devel- opment in the division for applied justice research at RTI International and a former senior official at the US Department of Justice, reviews outcomes of several seminal reentry evaluations, with a particular focus on the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative’s multisite eval- uation. Lattimore synthesizes decades of reentry literature addressing the 1975 finding that “nothing works” in reentry6 and finds that many reentry and recidivism studies had “incomplete implementation for the treatment group(s), partial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SFFA V. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 4-2019 SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus Jonathan P. Feingold Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan P. Feingold, SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus, 107 California Law Review 707 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/828 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus Jonathan P. Feingold* In the ongoing litigation of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Harvard faces allegations that its once-heralded admissions process discriminates against Asian Americans. Public discourse has revealed a dominant narrative: affirmative action is viewed as the presumptive cause of Harvard’s alleged “Asian penalty.” Yet this narrative misrepresents the plaintiff’s own theory of discrimination. Rather than implicating affirmative action, the underlying allegations portray the phenomenon of “negative action”—that is, an admissions regime in which White applicants take the seats of their more qualified Asian-American counterparts. Nonetheless, we are witnessing a broad failure to see this case for what it is. This misperception invites an unnecessary and misplaced referendum on race-conscious admissions at Harvard and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirming Affirmative Action by Affirming White Privilege: SFFA V
    Affirming Affirmative Action by Affirming White Privilege: SFFA v. Harvard JEENA SHAH* INTRODUCTION Harvard College’s race-based affirmative action measures for student admissions survived trial in a federal district court.1 Harvard’s victory has since been characterized as “[t]hrilling,” yet “[p]yrrhic.”2 Although the court’s reasoning should be lauded for its thorough assessment of Harvard’s race-based affirmative action, the roads not taken by the court should be assessed just as thoroughly. For instance, NYU School of Law Professor Melissa Murray commented that, much like the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Grutter v. Bollinger3 (which involved the University of Michigan Law School), the district court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, by “focus[ing] on diversity as the sole grounds on which the use of race in admissions may be justified,” avoided “engag[ing] more deeply and directly with the question of whether affirmative action is now merely a tool to promote pluralism or remains an appropriate remedy for longtime systemic, state-sanctioned oppression.”4 This Essay, however, criticizes the district court’s assessment of Harvard’s use of race-based affirmative action at all, given that the lawsuit’s central claim had nothing to do with it. In a footnote, the court addresses the real claim at hand—discrimination against Asian- American applicants vis-à-vis white applicants resulting from race-neutral components of the admissions program.5 Had the analysis in this footnote served as the central basis of the court’s ruling, it could have both * Associate Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Asian Americans As “Model” College Applicants
    Racial Politics, Resentment, and Affirmative Action: Asian Americans as “Model” College Applicants Corresponding author: Michele S. Moses, University of Colorado Boulder 249 UCB, School of Education Boulder, Colorado 80309 [email protected] @MicheleSMoses Co-authors: Daryl J. Maeda, University of Colorado Boulder 339 UCB, Department of Ethnic Studies Boulder, Colorado 80309 [email protected] @darylmaeda Christina H. Paguyo, University of Denver Teaching and Learning 2150 E. Evans Avenue Anderson Academic Commons Library Denver, Colorado 80208 [email protected] Abstract This article uses philosophical analysis to clarify the arguments and claims about racial discrimination brought forward in the recent legal challenges to affirmative action in higher education admissions. Affirmative action opponents argue that elite institutions of higher education are using negative action against Asian American applicants so that they can admit other students of color instead, using race-conscious affirmative action. We examine the surrounding controversy, positing that the portrayal of Asian Americans as a model minority in this debate foments a politics of resentment that divides racial groups. Our analysis centers on how key concepts such as racial discrimination and diversity may be central to this politics of resentment. Given persistent threats to access and equity in higher education, it is important to gain conceptual clarity about the racial politics of anti-affirmative action efforts. Keywords: affirmative action, Asian Americans, college access, model minority myth, politics of education, race 1 Introduction Affirmative action in selective higher education admissions is being challenged again in the courts and by the federal government. While the case Students for Fair Admissions v.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Discounts to Print
    Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats A Report of the American Enterprise Institute Dissent and Reform in the Arab World Project Edited by Jeffrey Azarva, Danielle Pletka, and Michael Rubin The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington D.C., 20036 www.aei.org/books © 2008 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. Printed in the United States of America Contents INTRODUCTION, Jeffrey Azarva, Danielle Pletka, and Michael Rubin 1 PART I: ESSAYS BY PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS 9 1. BAHRAIN 11 Challenging Government Control of Media Omran Salman 11 2. EGYPT 19 Challenges to Democratization Ayat M. Abul-Futtouh 19 3. IRAQ 26 Pluralism—Its Wealth and Its Misery Haider Saeed 26 The Development of Shi’ite Islamic Political Theory Sama Hadad 32 4. JORDAN 41 Building a Political Will Jamil al-Nimri 41 The Challenge of Progress Emad Omar 51 5. LEBANON 59 Together: Equal but Different Jad al-Akhaoui 59 Hezbollah and the Problem of State Control Lokman Slim 63 A Country to Be Born Najat Sharafeddine 71 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slow Demise of Race Preference
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 1-1-2015 The loS w Demise of Race Preference Mark S. Brodin Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Mark S. Brodin. "The loS w Demise of Race Preference." NYU Review of Law & Social Change 39, no.3 (2015): 369-380. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BRODIN_9.20.15_FINAL_AN.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 9/20/15 5:59 PM THE SLOW DEMISE OF RACE PREFERENCE MARK S. BRODIN∞ 2014 SYMPOSIUM ISSUE DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION AND THE FUTURE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION I. THE “REAGAN REVOLUTION” ......................................................................... 371 II. THE WHITE APPLICANT AS VICTIM ............................................................... 374 III. PREFERENCE VERSUS “MERIT” .................................................................... 378 IV. CLOSING OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................ 379 I recently saw an interview with cultural historian Richard Slotkin in which he was asked to explain the American obsession with guns. He attributed it, at least in part, to “a sense of lost privilege, that men and particularly white men in the society feel their position to be imperiled and their status called into question.”1 He observed that “one way to deal with an attack on your status in our society is to strike out violently.”2 A similar phenomenon may explain the backlash against affirmative action and race preference in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Unintended Consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
    The Unintended Consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act The Unintended Consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Edward Blum The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. NATIONAL RESEARCH NRI INITIATIVE This publication is a project of the National Research Initiative, a program of the American Enterprise Institute that is designed to support, publish, and dissemi- nate research by university-based scholars and other independent researchers who are engaged in the exploration of important public policy issues. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Blum, Edward. The unintended consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act / Edward Blum. p. cm. ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4257-1 (pbk.) ISBN-10: 0-8447-4257-0 1. United States. Voting Rights Act of 1965. 2. African Americans—Suffrage. 3. Minorities—Suffrage—United States—States. 4. Voter registration—United States—States. 5. Election law—United States. 6. Apportionment (Election law)— United States. I. Title. KF4893.B59 2007 342.73'072—dc22 2007036252 11 10 09 08 07 1 2 3 4 5 © 2007 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wash- ington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of Colorblind Jurisprudence
    Seattle Journal for Social Justice Volume 18 Issue 1 Article 9 8-2019 The Shaw Claim: The Rise and Fall of Colorblind Jurisprudence Molly P. Matter [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Election Law Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Psychology Commons, Law and Race Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Matter, Molly P. (2019) "The Shaw Claim: The Rise and Fall of Colorblind Jurisprudence," Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 18 : Iss. 1 , Article 9. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol18/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Seattle Journal for Social Justice by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. 25 The Shaw Claim: The Rise and Fall of Colorblind Jurisprudence Molly P. Matter* The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.1 −Amendment XV, Section 1, United States Constitution INTRODUCTION: Justice is not blind, nor should it aspire to be. Our training as legal professionals demands that we apply the law to the facts and produce the decision. However, facts come in the form of narrative, of storytelling– framed, clothed, dressed in skin.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 157 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011 No. 92 Senate The Senate was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Monday, June 27, 2011, at 2 p.m. House of Representatives FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011 The House met at 9 a.m. and was Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- in restraint on the President, and this called to order by the Speaker. nal stands approved. is where I disagree. I believe the word- f f ing is different. It says no funds for ground troops. But then it has excep- PRAYER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE tions, and the exceptions are for all the The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman things that we’re already doing. So I J. Conroy, offered the following prayer: from Mississippi (Mr. NUNNELEE) come believe if we vote and pass the second Eternal God, we give You thanks for forward and lead the House in the one, it will be the first time this Con- giving us another day. We pause in Pledge of Allegiance. gress has given authority to the Presi- Your presence and ask guidance for the Mr. NUNNELEE led the Pledge of Al- dent for what he is doing right now. men and women of the people’s House. legiance as follows: So I urge my colleagues to look at Enable them, O God, to act on what I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the both of these carefully.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutiny Over Strict Scrutiny?
    Nguyen/Ward 1 Mutiny over strict scrutiny? Interpreting the judicial approach to race-conscious higher education admission policies in Fisher and Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) David H.K. Nguyen, MBA, JD, LL.M. Adv., Ph.D., University of North Dakota LaWanda Ward, JD, PhD candidate, Indiana University Introduction During the upcoming 2015-16 term on December 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court) is scheduled to hear for a second time, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (hereinafter referred to as Fisher I and Fisher II). The main issue in this case centers on the question of whether the University‟s implementation of its admissions plan, in conjunction with the state‟s Top Ten Percent law, meets the two-prong strict scrutiny standard of first, being a compelling state interest and second, a narrowly tailored means to meet the stated objective. In its 2013 ruling in Fisher I, the Supreme Court surmised that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to properly apply the strict scrutiny analysis to the contested plan. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the first appearance of Fisher I in 2011 and the second in 2014 that the University‟s admissions format is constitutionally sound based on a strict scrutiny analysis. Since the application of the doctrinal framework for strict scrutiny is at odds between the high court and the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court‟s analysis in Fisher II will be of great interest. In this article using colorblind discourse, we posit why the Supreme Court has accepted Fisher I for a second time especially in light of justiciability questions regarding the “troublesome threshold issues relating to standing and mootness,”1 speculate on what the Supreme Court‟s ruling will be in Fisher II, and share best practices on what higher education 1 Girardeau A.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Cancer with Every Mile Texas Country Singer Kevin Fowler Will Be Performing a Free Show As Part of KVET’S Free Texas Music Series at Nutty Brown Cafe
    P1 THE DAILY TEXAN Serving the University of Texas at Austin community since 1900 Garrett Gilbert is out for the season after SPUTNIK LANDS IN AUNSTIN ON THE WEB Young entrepreneur funds his surgery on his right shoulder; should he stay Gastropub converts to comfort food focused burger joint invention through Kickstarter SPORTS PAGE 16 at Texas? LIFE&ARTS PAGE 10 bit.ly/dt_video >> Breaking news, blogs and more: www.dailytexanonline.com @thedailytexan facebook.com/dailytexan Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Freshman SG candidates compete in election TODAY By Allie Kolechta 5 p.m. and the winner will be an- in financial disclosure forms on I guess.” not know what they were getting Daily Texan Staff nounced at 6 p.m. tonight. time, along with at least one other The process of getting involved involved in, Irvin said. Four candidates dropped out of candidate, he said. and campaigning was made more “Nobody really knows what the An official list of the more than the race and several others left af- “It was extremely hectic getting complicated by changes such as position is going to do because this Calendar a dozen first-year student govern- ter breaking rules last week, said involved,” Irvin said. “Nobody re- one made to the name of the po- is the first year that it’s been avail- ment representative candidates public relations freshman Jacob ally knows what the first-year rep- sition from freshman representa- able to anyone,” he said. “No one was released last night. Elections Irvin. He was in the race until resentative is.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2013 Section 3: Civil Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 3: Civil Rights" (2013). Supreme Court Preview. 125. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/125 Copyright c 2013 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview III. Civil Rights In This Section: New Case: 12-682 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action p. 95 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 95 “SUPREME COURT TAKES NEW CASE ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, FROM p.120 MICHIGAN” Adam Liptak “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN TEXAS AND MICHIGAN” p. 122 Stephen Wermiel “U.S. COURT TAKES SMALL STEP TO BRIDGE IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE” p. 125 Joan Biskupic “6TH CIRCUIT: PROPOSAL 2 UNCONSTITUTIONAL” p. 127 Rayza Goldsmith “SUPREME COURT IS URGED TO REJECT MICHIGAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION p. 129 BAN” David Savage “WHAT’S YOUR HURRY” p. 131 Linda Greenhouse New Case: 12-872 Madigan v. Levin p. 134 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 134 “U.S. SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER APPLICATION OF ADEA TO STATE AND p. 147 LOCAL WORKERS” Jennifer Cerven “SUPREME COURT TO TAKE ON AGE DISCRIMINATION: MADIGAN V. LEVIN” p. 149 Donald Scarinci “HARVEY LEVIN V. LISA MADIGAN, SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS p. 151 DECISION” Edward Theobald “HIGH COURT TO MULL CIRCUIT SPLIT ON GOV’T WORKER ADEA CLAIMS” p.
    [Show full text]
  • Racial Exhaustion Darren Lenard Hutchinson University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected]
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2009 Racial Exhaustion Darren Lenard Hutchinson University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Politics Commons Recommended Citation Darren Lenard Hutchinson, Racial Exhaustion, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 917 (2009), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/ 385 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RACIAL EXHAUSTION DARREN LENARD HUTCHINSON* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: Two LOUISIANA STORIES-RACE, INEQUALITY, AND R HETORIC ................................................................................ 918 II. NINETEENTH-CENTURY RACIAL DISCOURSE ..................................... 924 A. Racial Exhaustion: An American Narrative............................ 924 1. N arrativesand Society .................................................... 924 2. Social Narratives on Race ............................................... 925 3. Particularsof Racial Exhaustion .................................... 926 B. Low Stamina: Racial Exhaustion in the ReconstructionEra.. 928 1. From Abolition to Freedom............................................
    [Show full text]