Author

Commentary

Loretta LynchThe national news site Politico has a new and interesting story that shines additional light on the new U.S. Attorney General, Greensboro native Loretta Lynch. The story is entitled “What made Loretta Lynch’s father see red,” and it features several candid comments from the A.G.’s father, 83-year-old Lorenzo Lynch) about his daughter’s rise and the obstacles she has had to overcome as an African-American woman raised in late-20th Century North Carolina.

Here’s a particularly poignant excerpt:

In elementary school in the late 1960s, Loretta took a standardized test and did so well that the stunned white administrators forced her to take it again. “At the time, we were just a few years out of this dual [segregated] society, so we were not as shocked,” says her father. We were used to going to the back of the bus, or front of the train.” His daughter was still living the injustice of the society, Lorenzo says, “but I don’t think she understood it, I think she just took it as routine.” As a child, she spent hours with her father, watching court proceedings in the local courthouse, and reading in the town library, which was only four blocks away.

Loretta Lynch endured the backdoor racism of low expectations all the way through high school; though she graduated at the top of her 1977 senior class, Durham High School asked her to share valedictorian honors with a white student. She won a full scholarship to University of North Carolina, her father says, but all she wanted was Harvard. She had seen the school during a family trip when she was a little girl and had declared: “I want to go there.”

Of course, Lynch eventually overcame the obstacles thrown up by the remnants of Jim Crow, but it hasn’t been easy. Moreover, as has been reported repeatedly in recent weeks, conservative forces in North Carolina (namely, Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis)  haven’t stopped trying block her from getting where she wants and deserves to go. As the Politico story also notes:

Read More

Commentary

2013 DOJ logo CIRCLE-2--PMS313Don’t miss out on the 17th Annual Defenders of Justice Awards

When: Thursday, May 14, 2015,  6:00-9:00 p.m.

Where: William and Ida Friday Center, 100 Friday Center Drive in Chapel Hill

Each year, the North Carolina Justice Center presents its Defender of Justice Awards to honor individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions in the fight against poverty in four areas that reflect the scope of the Justice Center’s work – legislative advocacy, policy research and advocacy, litigation, and grassroots empowerment.

CLICK HERE TO BUY TICKETS
CLICK HERE FOR SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
Click here for photos from last year’s event.

THE 2015 HONOREES: Read More

Commentary
Source: www.aspca.org

Source: www.aspca.org

The North Carolina House passed a bill Wednesday with the misleadingly simple title of “Property Protection Act.” The bill has also come to be referred to as the “ag gag” bill because it is widely understood to be targeted at silencing those who would record and publicize disturbing images or sounds from facilities used to raise and/or slaughter and process animals.

Under the bill, employers can sue any person (including employees) who gain access to “nonpublic areas” of their premises and who then, without authorization, record images or sounds and then use those recordings to breach their “duty of loyalty to the employer.”

Defenders of the bill, which included widely respected progressives like Rep. Rick Glazier, argued forcefully that the language of the bill is drawn in a very narrow fashion so as to protect whistle blowers and others who would expose wrongdoing or illegal activity. And indeed, the proposal includes references (both direct and indirect) to numerous anti-retaliation statutes and includes none of the criminal penalties that were present in previous “ag gag” proposals.

It’s also easy to envision compelling scenarios in which employers would be rightfully aggrieved at the idea of employees secretly recording and posting to the Internet the contents of, say, staff meetings or private strategy sessions.

That said, the bill as written still raises serious and nagging questions about freedom of speech and the public’s right to know important information. For instance, it appears that under the terms of the bill, an employee who becomes aware of inhumane or unsanitary (but not necessarily illegal) food preparation practices could be sued, silenced and ordered to pay damages if she recorded a video of such practices on her phone and publicized the recording. Similarly, an office worker who, for instance, records and publicizes the fact that his boss keeps a noose in his office along with some racist posters and literature would appear to be potentially liable for damages. Read More

Commentary

pv-423It didn’t take long for state lawmakers to fire up women’s health advocates with the anti-choice bill that was unveiled and rammed through the House Health Committee yesterday morning.

Advocates at NOW, Planned Parenthood and other organizations have announced a rally at the state Legislative Building this morning at 10:45. You can learn more at the Stand Up for Women North Carolina Facebook page by clicking here.

Commentary

The following post appeared earlier today on the N.C. Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty blog.

Reasonable doubt: N.C. says 900 convictions based on bad evidence

By Kristin Collins

This week, buried in a Charlotte Observer editorial, was a surprising admission: The N.C. Commission on Actual Innocence is reexamining 900 convictions in which the State Bureau of Investigation may have used unreliable forensic evidence.

In all these cases, the SBI used hair analysis to prove the defendant’s guilt. In most cases, that means analysts used a microscope to compare hairs found at the crime scene with the defendant’s hair, and said they matched up. This technique was used in North Carolina until DNA testing of hair became available, around 2003. We don’t know how many of the 900 are death penalty cases.

We now know that this kind of forensic “science” is junk. Subjective forensic evidence, such as hair comparisons and bite mark comparisons, have been a contributing factor in more than a quarter of the 329 DNA-exoneration cases in the U.S. since 1989.

Last week, the FBI admitted that it has overstated the reliability of hair analysis in virtually every case where hair evidence was presented, including 36 cases where defendants were sentenced to death.

Only three of the cases the FBI identified were in North Carolina, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a big problem.

Guess where North Carolina’s SBI learned its hair analysis techniques? From the FBI.

We already know bad hair analysis has contributed to one wrongful conviction in North Carolina: that of Joseph Sledge, who was recently exonerated after 36 years in prison. Read More