Category Archives: Front Page

From the Factory Floors to the Halls of Congress, the Call for Unionization is Growing

From the Factory Floors to the Halls of Congress, the Call for Unionization is Growing

Gina Kelley
March 2, 2022

After decades of inadequate labor laws and declining union membership, the labor movement is gaining traction. Initially titled “Striketober”, the swell of strikes and contract negotiations have finally reached Capitol Hill.

Sparked by the viral anonymous Instagram account “Dear White Staffers” which shares horror stories of working in Congress, the call for labor reform is in the halls of the Capitol. The account calls specific attention to the obstacles faced by people of color on the Hill. Congress has not escaped the pay and treatment disparities that harm people of color across the country.

Studies have shown that white staffers make about 8% more than Black staffers because Black staffers are rarely hired into high-level positions. The account has become a megaphone for what was previously one of the worst kept secrets in Washington: Working on the Hill often means low pay, poor treatment or harassment, and burnout.

The folks who answer the call of public service in the efforts of committing themselves to the common good. They choose this occupation with hopes and ambition of working hard and making a difference. Instead, the broken system inside the Capitol spits many of them back out into the private sector, where they can make more money on a normal schedule.

Staffers on both sides of the aisle call out the hypocrisy of their employment practices. Republican legislators wage war against subsidies but pay their employees so little they have no choice but to utilize food stamps and Medicare. In contrast, Democratic lawmakers promote progressive labor policies and call for a celebration of diversity in the workplace but fail to implement equitable pay and hiring practices in their own offices. It seems dissatisfaction is bipartisan. One report of 516 respondents found 47% of staffers struggle to pay bills, 68% are unhappy with their compensation, and 85% believe Congress is a toxic work environment.

Congress currently operates with each office and committee run individually. This means there are more than 535 “employers” on the Hill with no unified hiring practices, paid leave policies, salary structures, or human resource departments. Even with previous legislative attempts to modernize Congress as a workplace, bills like the Congressional Accountability Act have failed to create adequate systems to support a safe and healthy work environment.

We work with Congressional offices to advance legislation that promotes the common good and we proudly support their efforts to unionize. In that commitment, we signed onto the Staffer’s letter to Congressional Leadership in support of their effort to unionize. Our commitment to equitable labor reform is a central part of our mission and is embodied in our efforts to pass key legislation like the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act and the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. We know that we cannot live out our faith and mission if we do not root ourselves in solidarity with workers and hear their lived experiences.

Despite statements of support from Democratic Leadership and the introduction of a Resolution by Representative Andy Levin, the future of a Congressional Union is unknown. What is clear is that the movement for workers’ rights is growing. From factory workers to television workers to congressional staffers the message is clear: Enough is enough.

Diane Nash: Civil Rights Leader of My Generation

Diane Nash: Civil Rights Leader of My Generation

Nita Clarke
February 25, 2022

As I watched the evening news with my parents and saw reports on the Civil Rights activities of the early 1960s, human rights activist Diane Nash was coordinating peaceful sit-ins at segregated lunch counters in Nashville, Tennessee. The success of the sit-ins in Tennessee and North Carolina, along with her participation with the Freedom Riders, would bring Nash to the forefront of the student campaign of the Civil Rights Movement and her co-founding of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

As we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, we must continue their stride for equality because we have not reached that gateway yet. “Freedom, by definition, is people realizing that they are their own leaders,” Nash said. As a member of my generation, her story resonates with my own and challenges me still.

Diane Nash in Louisville, Kentucky, February 1963, Carl and Anne Braden Papers, WHS

As the product of a military family, living most of my childhood on military bases, I experienced overt racism only when visiting or traveling to my southern roots in Louisiana. Diane Nash was born in 1938 to a middle-class Catholic family and raised in Chicago. “Because I grew up in Chicago, I didn’t have an emotional relationship to segregation. I understood the facts and stories, but there was no an emotional relationship,” she later noted.

Nash chose to attend Howard University in Washington, D.C. but after one year transferred to Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, where she would experience the intensity of Jim Crow laws and the efforts of Black people to gain their equal rights. She was furious but used her anger against segregation to become a renowned activist.

While travelling to my tiny hometown of Opelousas, Louisiana, my family met with racism at motels, restaurants, and gas stations as we motored across country from Army Base to Army Base. My parents would trade off driving all night long to avoid having to search for a hotel that welcomed Black people. They also packed lunches in a cooler to avoid trying to find a restaurant that would serve us. When having to stop for gas, we were forced to either use the filthy restrooms for “coloreds” or stopped alongside of the highway while my father stood guard.

“Diane, you’ve gotten in with the wrong people!” Nash’s grandmother said to her about her affiliation with the Civil Rights Movement. But Nash was not only affiliated with the movement, she had become a leader. She encouraged the students in Nashville to protest the segregated lunch counters by sitting peacefully in seats, while being beaten, where paying white customers would usually sit.

The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), co-founded by Nash, was also founded in 1960 because of the student sit-ins and became the major channel of participation for the students in the Civil Rights Movement. Members of the SNCC worked closely with other major organizations such as the National Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Nashville became the first southern city to desegregate lunch counters in the United States.

Nash would meet and marry James Bevel, a Minister as well as a Civil Rights Activist, in 1961. They would have two children. In 1961, Nash was arrested for “contributing to the delinquency of minors,” because she led young people in the fight against segregation. She would be arrested many times including spending 30 days in jail in South Carolina and once while she was six months pregnant.

On May 1, 1961, 13 activists joined together to plan one of the most dangerous challenges to segregation; the Freedom Riders, a non-violent protest designed to end segregation on interstate buses and in bus terminals. The protesters began in Washington and traveled throughout the South on Greyhound and Trailway buses. When the buses were burned and the Freedom Riders beaten by white mobs, the Nashville Student Central Committee was alerted, and Diane Nash led the new group.

Because of the violence that the Freedom Riders were subjected to, Attorney General Robert Kennedy objected to the protests and had his assistant, John Seigenthaler, speak to Nash directly. Nash explained that the Freedom Riders were well aware of the dangers they faced and had even written their wills, in case they died on one of the rides, and given them to Nash.

In 1963, after the bombing of the church in Birmingham, Alabama, and the death of four little girls, Diane Nash and her husband took on the issue of voting rights. Nash was also a member of the committee that promoted the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Today, at 83 years of age, Nash still advocates for fair housing in Chicago, where she works in real estate. All of these issues are still with and demand our urgent attention and participation today.

Nita Clarke is a Black Catholic writer who attends St. Peter Claver Catholic Church in Lexington, Kentucky.

Celebrating a Black Woman Supreme Court Justice – A Justice for Our Times

Celebrating a Black Woman Supreme Court Justice – A Justice for Our Times

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, the National Black Sisters Conference, and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious
February 23, 2022

As Catholic women, rooted in our faith’s call to love one another and see God in every person, we strongly support the Biden administration’s promise to nominate a Black woman to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is the final arbiter on the most consequential legal issues governing our country and our society. The Supreme Court decides issues of law ranging from immigration to our criminal legal system, civil rights to healthcare. For that reason, it is imperative that the Court reflect the diversity of our country in order to act in a fully informed, deliberate way and arrive at sound decisions. In light of the renewed attacks on voting rights and racial progress we see today, it is even more critical to nominate a Justice who is committed to upholding the rule of law and the Constitution for this generation and the generations to come.

We also applaud the number of incredibly qualified Black women from different legal backgrounds who are ready to serve on the Supreme Court. The three most often cited potential nominees – Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Leondra Kruger, and Judge J. Michelle Childs – are all highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Each of these judges has both the background and judicial record to make them eminently qualified to join the other justices on the Court. Moreover, Supreme Court justices should possess good judgment, keen analytical skills, flexibility, and the ability to relate to the lives of everyday people and families in the United States – all people and families in the United States. Any of the potential nominees under consideration from the Biden administration would bring this combination of skills and experience to the Court.

We vigorously reject the comments of those who have already questioned the future nominee’s qualifications as racist and sexist. We must name and reject the racist and sexist narratives at play in this explicit and outright dismissal of the nominee’s qualifications before her name and record have even been made public. No such comments were heard when Presidents Reagan and Trump announced their intentions to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court and followed through on that promise. Clearly, the only conclusion that can be drawn about these current comments is that the objection is about the race of the potential nominees – hardly a valid reason to reject them.

This historic appointment will contribute to making the Supreme Court more representative of the people of the United States – all of the people.  Of the 115 justices on the Supreme Court since its creation in 1789, 108 have been white men, including five of the nine currently serving, and none have been Black women. Increasing the Supreme Court’s racial diversity and expanding the professional backgrounds of the justices will improve decision-making on the bench and increase public trust in our courts. We the People encourage and support President Biden in his choice.

In this moment, the signs of the times cry out for us to build the beloved community here on Earth. Every person, no matter their race, origin, religion, or immigration status, has God-given dignity and deserves to be heard at the ballot box and respected in their home, workplace, and community. In faith, we will keep working to create a truly representative and inclusive multi-racial democracy.

‘White Too Long’ Details Why Christians Should Be Uncomfortable With History

‘White Too Long’ Details Why Christians Should Be Uncomfortable With History

Laura Peralta-Schulte
February 22, 2022

As I write from my home in Arlington, Virginia, newly elected Governor Glenn Youngkin has opened a “hotline” for parents of school-age children and teens to report teachers for teaching lessons that make students feel “uncomfortable.” Under the guise of stamping out “critical race theory” in public schools, Youngkin has radically politicized the classroom.

I wonder how my former high school teaching colleagues, who are required by law to teach about slavery, the use of violence to control slaves, and later freed Black persons, are faring. Do they worry that a student –- or their parents -– may be uncomfortable with lessons on the freedom riders or the beating of John Lewis at the Edmund Pettus Bridge?

Robert P. Jones’s book, “White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity” provides valuable insight into what is happening in Virginia and other states. The attempt at erasing history, replacing it with a sanitized restoration of a “golden age” is all too familiar. While the role of white supremacy is well documented in political and economic historical analysis, less understood is the primary role religion played to maintain white power and white institutions. Whatever the new governor says, it really should lead to white discomfort.

Jones, a Southern, white Christian who founded the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), traces the historical record of white supremacy in white Christian churches from the beginning of the colonization of America and institutional slavery, through the use of Bible texts and racist structures moving through our founding period before and during the Civil War.

He details how politicians supporting slavery served as church leaders legitimizing their standing in the community. Churches were dependent on contributions from slaveholders who used their wealth to fund the construction of churches as well as seminaries to teach the next generation of church leaders.

After the defeat of the Confederacy, white Christianity adapted both its theology and structures enabling it to spread from the Southern Christian churches to become mainstream throughout white Christian and Catholic churches in the latter half of the 20th Century.

From the creation post-Civil War of individualist theology, which insists that Christianity has little to say about social injustice, shielding white consciences from the evils and continued legacy of slavery and segregation, to the use of religious and cultural symbols honoring leaders of the Confederacy in an attempt to whitewash slavery, white Christian leaders bare responsibility for “damage to those who live outside the white Christian canopy.”

Jones ultimately challenges white Christians to live into their call for justice both to redeem relationships with those who suffer oppression and to claim their own humanity.  His book is a must-read particularly for those of us who are white and who want to do the work of racial justice and racial healing. We need an unvarnished telling of the many ways white supremacy has infected white churches. May this book disturb us in order to imagine and work towards dismantling and healing of our collective past.

Hear more from Robert P. Jones at NETWORK’s upcoming event, “White Supremacy and American Christianity” April 9 at 12:30 PM Eastern. Register for the event here.

Tragedy of Amir Locke’s Death Demands Action from Our Elected Officials

Tragedy of Amir Locke’s Death Demands Action from Our Elected Officials

Min. Christian S. Watkins
February 18, 2022

On February 2, 2022, yet another Black person in the United States, 22-year-old Amir Locke, was shot and killed by the police. Amir Locke died with two wounds in the chest and one in the right wrist while lying on a couch just after 6:45 AM as Minneapolis Police Department and SWAT team members conducted a ‘no-knock’ warrant raid. Locke was not the subject of the warrant, and he should still be alive today. For how long must we wait for comprehensive policing systems reforms while Black and Brown lives lie in the wake?

This is yet another occurrence of police in the U.S. utilizing tactics that deny human dignity and sacred worth. Minneapolis was also home to George Floyd, who died while a police officer’s knee was placed on his neck for over 9 minutes, and Philando Castille, who was killed during an unwarranted traffic stop. Nationwide pleas for justice and meaningful change in the wake of Floyd and Castille’s deaths have seemingly gone unheard, unmet, unaddressed, as policing reform negotiations failed on Capitol Hill. Our elected officials on Capitol Hill and across the country must not fail to act now.

Cornell Law defines a “no-knock warrant” as, “A search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises. Such warrants are issued where an entry pursuant to the knock-and-announce rule (i.e., an announcement prior to entry) would lead to the destruction of the objects for which the police are searching or would compromise the safety of the police or another individual.”

The ’no-knock’ raid that resulted in the death of Amir Locke is similar to what transpired with Breonna Taylor two years ago in Louisville, Kentucky. Ms. Taylor was an EMT who was shot and killed in her home during the execution of a no-knock warrant, of which she was not the intended focus. There is an ever-growing divide between law enforcement, local and federal government officials, and the public trust given the lack of action and transparency following so many deaths of Black people across the country at the hands of police.

Following Breonna Taylor’s death, activists have advanced  Breonna’s Law to end to the use of no-knock warrants, at the local, state, and federal level. However, more concrete steps and substantive legislation need to be enacted to make these changes real.

In solidarity with Amir’s parents, Andre Locke and Karen Wells, we ask for policing reform negotiations to resume, and for President Biden to include a federal ban on no-knock warrants as well as reforming the harmful 1033 and 1122 programs in his anticipated Executive Order on policing reform. As Democratic Senators Schatz, Wyden, Baldwin, Smith, Sanders, Brown, Van Hollen, Warren, Markey, and Casey recently wrote in a letter to President Biden, “Militarized law enforcement increases the prevalence of police violence without making our communities safer.”

A more perfect Union must establish justice in order to provide domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty that should be afforded us all. Congress and President Biden can – and must – implement these federal reforms to create a country where everyone, no matter our color, origin or gender, is safe and our human dignity is respected.

Unnecessary and Harmful: The Security Bars and Processing Rule

Unnecessary and Harmful: The Security Bars and Processing Rule

Ronnate Asirwatham
February 17, 2022

While the preposterous Title 42 expulsion policy and ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy continue at the border, we are very concerned that the Biden Administration would install yet another Trump Era policy – Security Bars and Processing Rule.

In December 2020, one of the Trump Administration’s last acts on immigration was to propose the Security Bars and Processing Rule to go into effect in 2021. This rule would label asylum seekers a “danger to the national security of the United States” merely because they transited through or come from a country with a communicable disease, or exhibit symptoms “consistent with” such disease. This is ANY communicable disease ranging from the flu, to cholera, to HIV AIDS — not just COVID-19. Under the rule, covered asylum seekers would be barred from refugee protection in the United States. Which violates both U.S. law and international treaty obligations; all but ensuring their deportation to persecution or torture.

The Biden administration extended the period of comment in 2021 so that it didn’t go into effect then. However, now it is closing the comment period on February 28th, and advocates fear that the administration will then work to make the rule permanent.

A plethora of experts have already highlighted grave concerns that this rule is both fatally flawed and “xenophobia masquerading as a public health measure.” In their comments leading public health experts, including at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and School of Nursing, found no public health justification for this sweeping ban. In a comment submitted by Physicians for Human Rights, Dr. Monik Jiménez of Harvard Medical School concluded that the targeting and classification of asylum seekers as a public health threat is “not based on sound epidemiological evidence.” Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian organization with 50-years’ experience responding to disease outbreaks, characterized the rule as “counterproductive” and noted that “public health measures work best when they are inclusive. They fail when vulnerable people, like migrants and asylum seekers, are excluded.”

As the African Human Rights Coalition commented, the rule “exacerbates racist tropes and myths of immigrants as carriers of disease.” Deeply rooted in eugenics, this ideology echoes throughout this rule. Many LGBTQ groups and HIV advocacy and treatment organizations also expressed alarm that the rule, similar to the discriminatory immigration ban on individuals living with HIV that was finally lifted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2010, would discriminate “against individuals on the basis of immigration status [and the] countries in which the person has lived or traveled” and would put particularly vulnerable populations such as “women, people from the LGBTQ+ community, and people from ethnic or religious minorities at risk.”

The rule violates U.S. law and treaty obligations, including those adopted by Congress through its passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus stressed in its comment that the rule would have “devastating and senseless consequences” for asylum seekers and violate the clear intent of Congress, “reiterated over and over for four decades,” “that the United States provide a meaningful and fair path to protection for those fleeing persecution.” The American Bar Association and the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, a bipartisan group of dozens of former immigration judges, similarly objected to the rule as inconsistent with domestic and international law.

We urge the administration to withdraw this unjustifiable, illegal, and harmful rule. The Departments have repeatedly paused the rule’s implementation due to ongoing litigation against a related regulation and as they are “reviewing and reconsidering” the rule and “whether to modify or rescind” it. The Departments now request comment on whether to further delay implementation. Ample time to study the legality and impact this baseless ban would have on asylum seekers has already elapsed. There is no need for additional delay. The administration can and must swiftly and completely rescind the rule.

Comment here to join our call for the Administration to rescind the Security Bars and Processing Rule.

Yes, Please Contact Your Member of Congress “Even If”

Yes, Please Contact Your Member of Congress “Even If”

Catherine Gillette
February 16, 2022

As a NETWORK organizer, I spend a lot of time talking with our field about how they can most strategically engage to advance our policy priorities.  We discuss tactics like making phone calls, sending emails, writing letters to the editor, attending town halls, hosting rallies, canvassing in their communities, and so much more.  In these conversations, folks often have questions about how to choose a tactic or implement it successfully. However, more than anything else, folks ask me…

“Should I still contact my Member of Congress even if they ALWAYS agree with me?”

or

“Should I still contact my Member of Congress even if they NEVER agree with me?”

My response is always the same, “YES! Absolutely! Please, please, please! Call them! Email them! Let them know what you are thinking!” And here is why…

If your Member of Congress “always” agrees with you, contact them! Here’s why…

  • Every point of contact is an opportunity to be in relationship with your Member of Congress and their staff, and we know that relationships are POWERFUL. You want them to know exactly who you are and what you believe in. You want them to pick up the phone when you call and help you to get the lobby visit that you need.  You want to be viewed as a both resource and trusted messenger.  Relationships are power.
  • There’s always the opportunity to address an angle or perspective that they might have not considered before. Several years ago, one of my NETWORK Advocates Teams met with a Democratic Senator’s staff about the importance of fully funding the U.S. Census.  The staff indicated it was the first time anyone had addressed the issue with them but promised to investigate it further. That same Senator ended up being a HUGE advocate for making sure the U.S. Census had the funding it needed to be successful. Members of Congress and their staff work hard and are very knowledgeable about many things.  However, it is a mistake to assume they know everything: you could be the one to bring an issue or piece of legislation to their attention!
  • Members of Congress have to make hard choices about what gets included in legislation. Even if they generally agree with you, it is important for them to hear what YOUR policy priorities are. If they are picking from a list of 25 generally good priorities, you want them to pick the 5 that matter most to you. Similarly, it can be an opportunity to tell them where you’d like to see them provide leadership.
  • Stories are powerful, and Members of Congress want to hear them! I am convinced that one of the major strengths of NETWORK’s field is how connected our members and supporters are to their communities. You all know and love your neighbors so well.  You know, in a very real way, how different policies might help or harm your community.  Members of Congress need to hear that. They need to hear about the lived experiences of their constituents.  Furthermore, it’s not uncommon for them to then take those same stories to the Floor to share them with their colleagues.  Again, stories are powerful!
  • Share your faith perspective! It is important to let Members of Congress know that people of faith care about an issue and are holding them accountable on it. This can be particularly important if another group from your faith perspective is advocating on the other side of an issue.  Help them to understand that your faith does not take a singular position.  You can be the one to provide them with cover! Beyond all that, it is particularly powerful if you can get a group of folks from diverse religious traditions advocating together on an issue.
  • You better believe they’re getting calls and emails from folks with perspectives different than your own. Members and their staff need to hear your perspective too!
  • Working for a Member of Congress is a tough job. Supportive calls mean a lot to staff morale!

If your Member of Congress “never” agrees with you, contact them! Here’s why…

  • Even if you don’t always agree with one another, relationships are POWERFUL. Many of our advocates have found that a relationship with the local state or district level staff is both possible and meaningful (as long as they are respectful in sharing their views).  In the past, these relationships have helped our advocates both to more easily schedule lobby visits with staff and to better understand a Member of Congress’ policy position (which often helps the NETWORK staff). Plus, you never know, you may agree on something! That leads me to my next point…
  • It is possible to find common ground! In 2021, NETWORK hosted a Virtual Lobby Day focused on the EQUAL Act (legislation addressing racial sentencing disparities in the criminal legal system).  As part of this event, over 120 NETWORK advocates went on 50 lobby visits with both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress.  In the days following the event, the EQUAL Act gained 10 new co-sponsors (3 Republicans and 7 Democrats). Don’t give up—your Member of Congress might surprise you!
  • You can help gather intel for NETWORK. If your Member of Congress opposes a piece of legislation, find out why! Do they have a specific concern? Is it something we can fix? As constituents, you sometimes have more information available to you than the NETWORK staff.  Your report-backs can help us tremendously!
  • Stories are powerful! Share your stories, and share your community’s stories! Remind them of the impact of their actions. You never know what seeds you will plant or what the impact will be.
  • Share your faith perspective! It is important to let Members of Congress know that people of faith care about an issue and are holding them accountable on it. This can be particularly important if another group from your faith perspective is advocating on the other side of an issue.
  • Changing policy positions is possible! My favorite example is related to health care. As it turns out, Americans like having their pre-existing conditions protected and aren’t shy about saying so.  They called their Members of Congress en masse, wrote letters to the editor, rallied, and marched in the streets! A 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation poll even found that 75% of respondents supported the Affordable Care Act’s protections for pre-existing conditions.  In response, a number of GOP candidates suddenly came out in loud support of same the protections they had once fought to end. It was all due to public opinion and pressure!
  • As people of faith, we are people of hope. The work of advocacy is often long and difficult, but we can take comfort in knowing that we don’t journey alone. We are accompanied in our efforts by NETWORK advocates from across the nation and are guided by the many saints who have come before us.  Most importantly, the Holy Spirit is present with us each time we pick up the phone, write an email, or attend a rally. With that in mind, I believe it is possible to change hearts, minds, and votes!

Finally, in our increasingly polarized society, it seems like everyone puts their Members of Congress into one of these two categories.  If we write our elected officials off that easily, they will never hear from us! So, YES, please contact your Members of Congress even if they “always” agree with you or “never” agree with you. Your advocacy matters!

Mom Taught Me: To Love Your Neighbor Is To Suffer For Them

Mom Taught Me: To Love Your Neighbor Is To Suffer For Them

Deacon Art Miller
February 14, 2022

“I wanted to talk to you over dinner tonight. There’s something very important that your dad and I are going to require of you.”

This was not the normal dinner banter my family and I had at the dinner table back in 1957. My brothers and I – aged 9, 11, and 13 – normally fought over who would get the best piece of whatever we were having that night, playfully teasing one another as our 18-year-old sister Carol dismissed us with sisterly disdain.

Deacon Art Miller is a permanent deacon of the Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut.

After a glowering look from our father, Mom continued: “There’s a country in Africa, called South Africa that has a system of governing the people that is horrible and evil. It’s called apartheid. It means to separate. They require that their Negro citizens carry passes with them at all times. These passes are so they can make sure the Negro people don’t go anywhere they are not supposed to go. The Black people have no rights. They can’t vote. They are put in jail and are treated very poorly.”

My older brother Pete, whose friend and classmate at McCosh Elementary School was Emmett Till, was suddenly quiet.

He found his voice and whispered; “That sounds a lot like Mississippi.”

Mom responded; “Yes, it does. That’s one of the reasons we in this family, are going to protest, like they are doing in the South. There’s a company here in America that’s helping the South African government create these passes. The name of the company is Polaroid. They make a camera that makes a picture instantly. So the government of South Africa is buying these cameras to make it easier to create those dreadful passes. So we are not going to allow anyone to bring a Polaroid camera into our home. We will not buy one, and we don’t want anyone to take your picture with one. Do you understand?”

We all quickly agreed with the family mandate.

Mom was rarely so severe. She was an elegant woman, profoundly intelligent and deliberate, but always gentle in her approach to our learning. We knew she was very, very serious. Even Dad was quiet, almost bowing his head in deference to her passion.

I looked up to see a most remarkable thing, rare for a man who was as impassionate as she was passionate. He reached out and touched her hand, very gently. Almost startled by the gesture, Mom smiled at him. He returned the smile and removed his hand from hers. With that it was done. Polaroid Corporation had lost a customer.

That company would never know that a Black family in a little third floor apartment on the south side of Chicago had taken a stand against a horrid injustice. The South African government, more than 8,000 miles away, had no idea nor could it care that this little family had stood up against its ungodly tyranny. But we did. We knew.

That night I learned what social justice truly meant. We learned there was a new and important way to love your neighbor, even if you didn’t know them. Even if you had never met them, they were still your neighbor. We learned on that long ago night that to love your neighbor was to suffer for them.

This idea of deep love was embodied by our mother. She was a friend to Mamie Till-Mobley, Emmett’s mother. We prayed for her and Emmett when all the terrible things happened. The women in the neighborhood had brought food and comfort to Ms. Mobley during those days of torment.

Mom particularly embraced our Catholic faith as a safe harbor during that time, where she found the comfort only God can provide. In every difficult moment we faced, her faith got us through. We, that small family from the south side of Chicago, learned well the tenets of our faith, that faith is never restricted to the Sunday morning Mass.

Our faith is not static but transportable. We are to apply our faith to the moments we live outside the building we call church. For we are the church, we are where the deposit of faith is to be made manifest. We are the church that lives in the world which breaks down anger and injects love, which enables generosity to overcome selfishness, which causes humility to be more important than pride.

The church lives as long as our faith lives.

Deacon Art Miller is a permanent deacon of the Archdiocese of Hartford and former head of the archdiocese’s Office for Black Catholic Ministries, which has since closed.

Learn About the Three Sentencing Reform Bills Moving Through the Senate

Learn About the Three Sentencing Reform Bills Moving Through the Senate

Min. Christian S. Watkins
February 11, 2022

Members of the US Senate are currently considering a package of three sentencing reform bills already approved on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate passage of The First Step Implementation Act (S. 1014), the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act (S. 601), and the Covid-19 Safer Detention Act (S. 312) would make meaningful if incremental, progress toward a more just criminal legal system. Sentencing of those who have been found guilty of wrong-doing must be based on values that honor human dignity, sanctity, and the allowance for redemption. However, our system for sentencing those convicted of crimes has for too long borne no relation to these values, resulting in prisons that are heavily populated by Black, Indigenous, and other people of color.

Over the last 30 years, the United States has come to rely on its criminal justice system and lengthy prison terms more than any other nation.  With just 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. holds nearly a quarter of the world’s prisoners, including one-third of all women incarcerated worldwide.

The ACLU has reported [1] that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. In 2019, approximately 2.1 million people were in adult correctional jails and prisons around the United States. Many thousands of people, disproportionately people of color, are cycled in and out of state jails or prisons every day.

Extreme sentencing laws and practices are keeping people in prisons for far longer than ever before. The result is that more people are spending more of their lives in prison than at any point in U.S. history. Over-reliance on incarceration is fiscally unsustainable and has imposed a burdensome human toll and a disparate impact on African American and Latino persons and communities.

The federal prison population has increased nearly 800% since 1980 and more than doubled since 1994, with spending up 1700% during that time, and federal prisons are currently operating at 131% of capacity. This is due to a significant degree to the proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences.  Nearly half of all federal prisoners are serving sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. [2]

There is consensus across the political spectrum that our criminal justice system is out of balance and in need of significant reform. Many states have enacted bipartisan “smart-on-crime” reforms that achieve significant cost savings and reduce crime. Now, it is time for these reforms to be made at the federal level.

 

Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act of 2021 (S.79)

Introduced by Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) on January 28, 2021, this bipartisan legislation that seeks to eliminate the disparity in sentencing for cocaine offenses, established in 1986 when Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act–a major contributor to mass incarceration–and apply retroactively to those already convicted or sentenced. Congress set a 100:1 disparity, sentencing crack cocaine offenses at a higher level even though the drugs are nearly identical chemically and comparable in physiological and psychoactive effects. Although it did not address the disparity fully, Congress passed the bipartisan Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity to 18:1 for pending and future cases only. The change was not made retroactive until the bipartisan First Step Act of 2018.

Prospective Impact: The Sentencing Commission [3] estimates that approximately 827 offenders each year would benefit from this section of the bill.2 The current average sentence for those offenders is 74 months. The estimated new sentence for those offenders would be 43 months.

Retroactive Impact: Approximately 7,787 offenders in BOP custody would be eligible to seek a modification of their sentence based on this section of the bill. The Commission estimates that up to 7,644 offenders would receive a reduction in their sentence. [3] The current average sentence for these offenders is 173 months. The estimated new sentence for these offenders would be 100 months

 

First Step Implementation Act of 2021 (S. 1014)

Introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) on March 25, 2021, this bill would further the goals of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) by correcting unfairness that has resulted in implementation and interpretation errors that contravene the spirit of the FSA by:

  • Allowing courts to apply the FSA’s sentencing reform provisions to reduce sentences imposed prior to the enactment of the FSA;
  • Broadening the safety valve provision to allow courts to sentence below a mandatory minimum for nonviolent controlled substance offenses if the court finds the defendant’s criminal history over-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal record and the likelihood of recidivism;
  • Allowing courts to reduce sentences imposed on juvenile offenders who have served more than 20 years;
  • Providing for the sealing or expungement of records of nonviolent juvenile offenses; and,
  • Requiring the Attorney General to establish procedures ensuring that only accurate criminal records are shared for employment-related purposes.

 

Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S. 601)

Introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) on March 4, 2021, this bill would end the perverse practice under which federal courts consider acquitted or dismissed charges as aggravating factors when imposing sentences for convictions. It would do so by:

  • Amending 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to preclude a court of the United States from considering, except for purposes of mitigating a sentence, acquitted conduct at sentencing, and
  • Defining “acquitted conduct” to include acts for which a person was criminally charged and adjudicated not guilty after trial in a Federal, State, Tribal, or Juvenile court, or acts underlying a criminal charge or juvenile information dismissed upon a motion for acquittal.

 

Covid-19 Safer Detention Act of 2021 (S. 312)

Introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) on February 12, 2021, this bill would clarify and expand the eligibility for the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program (introduced by the FSA), including explicitly naming COVID-19 vulnerability as a basis for compassionate release under this program. It would do so by:

  • Clarifying that the percentage of time served required for the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program should be calculated based on an inmate’s sentence, including reductions for good time credits (H.R. 4018, which passed the House by voice vote last Congress);
  • Expanding the eligibility criteria for the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program to include nonviolent offenders who have served at least two-thirds of their term of imprisonment;
  • Clarifying that elderly nonviolent D.C. Code offenders in BOP custody are eligible for the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program and that federal prisoners sentenced before November 1, 1987 are eligible for compassionate release;
  • Subjecting elderly home detention eligibility decisions to judicial review (based on the First Step Act’s compassionate release provision); and
  • Providing that, during the period of the pandemic, COVID-19 vulnerability is a basis for compassionate release and shortening the period prisoners must wait for judicial review for elderly home detention and compassionate release from 30 to 10 days.

There are too many people in prison serving unnecessarily long sentences.  These people are not a threat to the public and serving inhumanely long sentences actually reduces their chances of becoming productive law-abiding citizens.  We must support shorter sentences when appropriate.  These bills are not only appropriate, but also imperative.

Events of the past few years have illuminated the systemic inequalities in our country’s criminal legal system. At NETWORK, we cannot continue to tolerate racial profiling, police brutality, the loss of another generation to mass incarceration, or the perpetuation of poverty. As we Build Anew, we affirm the truth that every person is entitled to dignity and equal justice under law. It is time for Congress to act and take a firm stance against institutional racism embedded within the criminal legal system bypassing the First Step Implementation Act, the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act, and the Covid-19 Safer Detention Act.

[1] Sentencing Reform | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)

[2] Federal Sentencing Reform (americanbar.org)

[3] Prison and Sentencing Impact Assessment for the EQUAL Act of 2021 (ussc.gov)

Book Review: “Racial Justice and the Catholic Church”

Book Review: “Racial Justice and the Catholic Church”

Sister Emily TeKolste, SP
February 11, 2022

Since the 2010 publication of Racial Justice and the Catholic Church, Fr. Bryan Massingale has made a name for himself as the premiere voice on racial justice in the Catholic Church. Twelve years after its publication, Racial Justice and the Catholic Church holds up to its original review from Publishers Weekly as “Prophetic.”

Massingale’s prescient perspective even predicts the overwhelming white backlash that led just over a year ago to an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol. His most important contributions, though, are that racial justice needs to be an essential identifying mark of Catholic faith; about the deep work that needs to be done to ensure Catholic spaces are truly catholic; and why this matters for each of us – not just for Black Catholics.

With a thoroughness of an academic ethicist, Massingale defines his terms and goals. The assumption that he is writing an introductory text, though, does not take away from his willingness to drive straight to the heart – and the challenge – of the topic. Racial Justice and the Catholic Church is neither an endorsement of past (inadequate) efforts nor a wholesale repudiation of what the tradition has to offer.

With an authenticity that comes from his ability to be a voice that offers so much to the whole Church (People of God), Massingale highlights “the valuable and essential contributions of the black experience – the experience of creating meaning and possibility in the midst of the crushing ordinariness of American racism – can make to Catholic faith and theology.”

This last point is critical: the perspectives of Black Catholic theologians matter not just to Black Catholics or to theologies around racial justice; they have so much to teach all of us about theology in all areas. Yet the practical challenge is that there are relatively few Black Catholic theologians (mostly because of systemic exclusion). Thus, as Massingale explores in the fifth chapter, too often Black Catholic theologians are invited almost exclusively to speak on issues of racial justice – with an ignoring of their expertise on all areas of theology. We are all worse off for this.

Also critical is Massingale’s emphasis on action. The statements from the USCCB, he points out, too often lacked power because they never entered into catechesis and no resources were invested in creating offices to implement the charges.

“We cannot offer what we do not ourselves genuinely believe,” he says. “Too often, the Catholic faith community is ‘catholic’ in rhetoric and aspiration alone. Becoming genuinely ‘universal’ in our welcome will entail dying to the ‘empty promises’ of racial and social privilege” (178). So what practical things can we challenge ourselves to do? He gives us some ideas: Sing in another language. Pray in another idiom. Welcome darker faces into church leadership. Imagine new configurations and possibilities of being ‘church’ that are not dependent on our racialized values and idolatrous identities.

There is so much else Massingale has to offer for conversation in Racial Justice in the Catholic Church. It is worth reading – and inviting others to join you in a book discussion. And maybe you can start to find ways to engage in a truly universal faith tradition, embracing the Paschal Mystery that life comes after death – in this case, death to white supremacy.

Hear more from Fr. Bryan Massingale at NETWORK’s upcoming event, “White Supremacy and American Christianity” April 9 at 12:30 PM Eastern. Register for the event here.