February, 25 2009, 12:31pm EDT

Stimulus Funds Should Go To Improving Education For Poor And Minority Communities, Says ACLU
Extending Human Rights Policies Essential To Fulfilling International Treaty Obligations
WASHINGTON
Education
funds included in the stimulus bill should be used to further human
rights policies in the schools, including programs to close achievement
gaps and to improve the quality of education for poor and minority
communities across the country, according to a letter the American
Civil Liberties Union sent today to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
According to the letter, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides an "opportunity not
only to make the distribution of educational funds more equitable, but
to fulfill fundamental U.S. human rights treaty obligations."
The ACLU's recommendations include
creating innovative human rights education programs to help teachers
incorporate universal human rights values into their curriculum
materials and addressing the inequitable implementation and provision
of education at the federal, state and local levels.
The ACLU's letter is available online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/racialjustice/38829lgl20090225.html
The full text of the letter is as follows:
February 25, 2009
Mr. Arne Duncan
Secretary
United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
RE: Using ARRA Funds to Meet Human Rights Obligations in Education
Dear Mr. Secretary,
We write to congratulate you on your
appointment as President Obama's Secretary of Education, and to express
our sincere hope that you will use the unprecedented opportunity
presented by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to
further the realization of human rights norms in the U.S. In
particular, we urge you to use the education funds in ARRA to close the
achievement gaps in the education system and to improve the quality of
education of poor and minority communities across the country, a
campaign promise made by the President. Such a commitment will have
the effect of helping the U.S. to meet its international obligations
under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD).
Achieving quality education for
every child in America is a crucial human rights goal that is
consistent with President Obama's stated positions. As President Obama
said in his Howard University Convocation speech in September 2007: "It
will take a movement to finish what began in Topeka, Kansas and Little
Rock, Arkansas. It will take a movement of Americans from every city
and town, of every race and background to stand up and say that no
matter what you look like or where you come from, every child in
America should have the opportunity to receive the best education this
country has to offer. Every child."
With the passage of ARRA, your
department has the opportunity not only to make the distribution of
educational funds more equitable, but to fulfill fundamental U.S. human
rights treaty obligations. Under CERD, a fundamental international
human rights treaty to which the U.S. is party, federal agencies must
review their policies and amend or repeal regulations that have the
effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination, including
those that affect racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous people,
women, and immigrant non-citizens. Every four years, the CERD treaty's
monitoring committee (CERD Committee) reviews the U.S. government's
compliance. In February 2008, the U.S. appeared before the CERD
Committee and reported on its record under CERD and on March 7, 2008,
the CERD Committee issued its findings, or Concluding Observations, on
the U.S.' compliance with the treaty obligations. The Committee
pressed the U.S. to improve in several areas, including its inadequate
implementation and provision of education at the federal, state, and
local levels - one of five matters on which our government was to
report within one year. In particular, the Committee focused on the
adoption and strengthening the use of affirmative action programs to
eliminate discrimination and allowing school districts to voluntarily
promote school integration. The U.S. is to submit its next periodic
report and detail progress made on all other issues in 2011.
ARRA offers an unprecedented
opportunity to take the obligations of CERD and the recommendations of
the CERD Committee into account with regard to the distribution of
these educational funds. In your confirmation testimony before the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, you
correctly called education the "civil rights issue of our generation -
the only sure path out of poverty and the only way to achieve a more
equal and just society." To promote this enlightened view of education
and to achieve conformance with basic human rights standards, the U.S.
government should create a more equitable distribution of funds and
target them in such a way as to address the compelling concerns cited
in the Concluding Observations.
Beyond these fundamental and
obligatory goals, using the discrete funding set aside for teacher
quality enhancement and incentive and innovation grants, the Department
could also create visionary and innovative special human rights
education programs that could help teachers incorporate universal human
rights values into their curriculum materials. Values such as the
right to dignity and the right to equality, neglected by the previous
administration, would not only meet this universal standard, but also
mirror the best of American traditions.
Several human rights organizations,
such as Amnesty International USA and the U.S. Human Rights Network,
have created successful human rights education and training models in
schools, universities, and other educational settings. Yet the
responsibility for developing human rights educational programs should
not fall exclusively to NGOs. Official governmental embrace of
fundamental international human rights such as the right to be free
from racial discrimination sends a very different message than the mere
creation, sponsorship, or promotion of these programs by
non-governmental entities. Many NGOs stand ready to work closely with
the government in developing such educational programs and ensuring
their effective implementation.
This is a historic opportunity to
break with the failed policies of the Bush administration and provide
necessary resources aimed at providing equal opportunity for all in a
safe, integrated, and equitable educational system. We welcome the
opportunity to discuss with you and with officials in your department
the ways in which human rights can strengthen the work of your
department and advance your work in educating the nation's children.
We would be pleased to meet with you
and your staff to offer suggestions for addressing compliance with CERD
educational recommendations through the use of ARRA funds. Please
contact Michael Macleod-Ball at 202-675-2309 if you should have
questions or comments or if you wish to advance the discussion on these
issues.
Respectfully,
Caroline Frederickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
Michael W. Macleod-Ball
Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel
Jamil Dakwar
Director, Human Rights Program
cc: Melody Barnes, Domestic Policy Advisor
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


