WSSN Stories

(CNBC)—- After failing to reach a contract resolution with the studio association, more than 11,000 film and television writers remain on strike. Of the many topics under consideration in this year’s Writers Guild of America contract discussions, one nascent technology has fueled dissent among the negotiators: artificial intelligence.

“I hope I’m wrong, but I do think that the use of AI is going to take over the entertainment industry,” said Justine Bateman, a member of the writers, directors and actors guilds. “And I think it’s going to be really bad.”

The implementation of generative AI could mean sweeping changes for the entertainment industry. Advocates for AI technology see it as a tool that will uplift content creators and break down the barriers to entry.

“It’s going to be very soon until we can literally just type in a prompt and see something as a consumer,” said AI filmmaker Caleb Ward. “And you don’t have to have any sort of skills as a visual effects artist or as someone in the entertainment industry.”

Since the last writers’ strike in 2007, widespread consumer adoption of video streaming has exemplified how novel technologies can upheave the entertainment industry. Now, however, the leaders in the streaming space are dealing with the ballooning costs of high-output, high-quality content.

“Today, the only one we know of that is cashflow positive is Netflix,” said Dan Rayburn, a streaming media analyst. “Every other company out there is losing money—Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, losing billions and billions and billions of dollars a year.”

As streaming companies scramble to save their bottom lines, content is being removed from platforms, cutting off creators from being compensated.

“Every time a content deal is done with a streaming platform or distribution, it has a direct impact on those who created the content — distributors, producers, writers, actors — because they’re getting royalties based on that,” said Rayburn.

As the entertainment industry faces another disruptive technology in the form of AI, the Writers Guild of America is demanding that regulatory standards around the technology ensure fair labor conditions and compensation for Hollywood professionals.

(SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN) —- Imagine being handcuffed in front of your neighbors and family for stealing watches. After spending hours behind bars, you learn that the facial recognition software state police used on footage from the store identified you as the thief. But you didn’t steal anything; the software pointed cops to the wrong guy.

Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical. This happened three years ago to Robert Williams, a Black father in suburban Detroit. Sadly Williams’ story is not a one-off. In a recent case of mistaken identity, facial recognition technology led to the wrongful arrest of a Black Georgian for purse thefts in Louisiana.

Our research supports fears that facial recognition technology (FRT) can worsen racial inequities in policing. We found that law enforcement agencies that use automated facial recognition disproportionately arrest Black people. We believe this results from factors that include the lack of Black faces in the algorithms’ training data sets, a belief that these programs are infallible and a tendency of officers’ own biases to magnify these issues.

While no amount of improvement will eliminate the possibility of racial profiling, we understand the value of automating the time-consuming, manual face-matching process.

We also recognize the technology’s potential to improve public safety. However, considering the potential harms of this technology, enforceable safeguards are needed to prevent unconstitutional overreaches.

FRT is an artificial intelligence–powered technology that tries to confirm the identity of a person from an image. The algorithms used by law enforcement are typically developed by companies like Amazon, Clearview AI and Microsoft, which build their systems for different environments. Despite massive improvements in deep-learning techniques, federal testing shows that most facial recognition algorithms perform poorly at identifying people besides white men.

Civil rights advocates warn that the technology struggles to distinguish darker faces, which will likely lead to more racial profiling and more false arrests. Further, inaccurate identification increases the likelihood of missed arrests.

Still some government leaders, including New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, tout this technology’s ability to help solve crimes. Amid the growing staffing shortages facing police nationwide, some champion FRT as a much-needed police coverage amplifier that helps agencies do more with fewer officers. Such sentiments likely explain why more than one quarter of local and state police forces and almost half of federal law enforcement agencies regularly access facial recognition systems, despite their faults.

This widespread adoption poses a grave threat to our constitutional right against unlawful searches and seizures.

Recognizing the threat to our civil liberties, cities like San Francisco and Boston banned or restricted government use of this technology. At the federal level President Biden’s administration released the “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” in 2022. While intended to incorporate practices that protect our civil rights in the design and use of AI technologies, the blueprint’s principles are nonbinding. In addition, earlier this year congressional Democrats reintroduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act. This bill would pause law enforcement’s use of FRT until policy makers can create regulations and standards that balance constitutional concerns and public safety.

The proposed AI bill of rights and the moratorium are necessary first steps in protecting citizens from AI and FRT. However, both efforts fall short. The blueprint doesn’t cover law enforcement’s use of AI, and the moratorium only limits the use of automated facial recognition by federal authorities—not local and state governments.

Yet as the debate heats up over facial recognition’s role in public safety, our research and others’ show how even with mistake-free software, this technology will likely contribute to inequitable law enforcement practices unless safeguards are put in place for nonfederal use too.

First, the concentration of police resources in many Black neighborhoods already results in disproportionate contact between Black residents and officers. With this backdrop, communities served by FRT-assisted police are more vulnerable to enforcement disparities, as the trustworthiness of algorithm-aided decisions is jeopardized by the demands and time constraints of police work, combined with an almost blind faith in AI that minimizes user discretion in decision-making.

Police typically use this technology in three ways: in-field queries to identify stopped or arrested persons, searches of video footage or real-time scans of people passing surveillance cameras. The police upload an image, and in a matter of seconds the software compares the image to numerous photos to generate a lineup of potential suspects.

Enforcement decisions ultimately lie with officers. However, people often believe that AI is infallible and don’t question the results. On top of this using automated tools is much easier than making comparisons with the naked eye.

AI-powered law enforcement aids also psychologically distance police officers from citizens. This removal from the decision-making process allows officers to separate themselves from their actions. Users also sometimes selectively follow computer-generated guidance, favoring advice that matches stereotypes, including those about Black criminality.

There’s no solid evidence that FRT improves crime control. Nonetheless, officials appear willing to tolerate these racialized biases as cities struggle to curb crime. This leaves people vulnerable to encroachments on their rights.

The time for blind acceptance of this technology has passed. Software companies and law enforcement must take immediate steps towards reducing the harms of this technology.

For companies, creating reliable facial recognition software begins with balanced representation among designers. In the U.S. most software developers are white men. Research shows the software is much better at identifying members of the programmer’s race. Experts attribute such findings largely to engineers’ unconscious transmittal of “own-race bias” into algorithms. 

Own-race bias creeps in as designers unconsciously focus on facial features familiar to them. The resulting algorithm is mainly tested on people of their race. As such many U.S.-made algorithms “learn” by looking at more white faces, which fails to help them recognize people of other races.

Using diverse training sets can help reduce bias in FRT performance. Algorithms learn to compare images by training with a set of photos. Disproportionate representation of white males in training images produces skewed algorithms because Black people are overrepresented in mugshot databases and other image repositories commonly used by law enforcement. Consequently AI is more likely to mark Black faces as criminal, leading to the targeting and arresting of innocent Black people.

We believe that the companies that make these products need to take staff and image diversity into account. However, this does not remove law enforcement’s responsibility. Police forces must critically examine their methods if we want to keep this technology from worsening racial disparities and leading to rights violations.

For police leaders, uniform similarity score minimums must be applied to matches. After the facial recognition software generates a lineup of potential suspects, it ranks candidates based on how similar the algorithm believes the images are. Currently departments regularly decide their own similarity score criteria, which some experts contend raises the chances for wrongful and missed arrests.

FRT’s adoption by law enforcement is inevitable, and we see its value. But if racial disparities already exist in enforcement outcomes, this technology will likely exacerbate inequities like those seen in traffic stops and arrests without adequate regulation and transparency.

Fundamentally police officers need more training on FRT’s pitfalls, human biases and historical discrimination. Beyond guiding officers who use this technology, police and prosecutors should also disclose that they used automated facial recognition when seeking a warrant.

Although FRT isn’t foolproof, following these guidelines will help defend against uses that drive unnecessary arrests.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

By Elizabeth Faber

Having tracked the priorities, concerns, and motivations of the youngest generations in the workforce for the last 12 years, the annual Deloitte Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey has revealed a consistent theme: Young employees want their employers’ values to be aligned with their own–and they want to drive societal change through purposeful and meaningful work.

As I assume my new role as Deloitte’s global chief purpose and people officer, this is an area that I’m paying close attention to: More than 80% of Deloitte’s workforce–some 330,000 of Deloitte’s people worldwide–belong to these two generations. Actively listening to their views and empowering them to drive change is central to my role.

Encouragingly, this year’s survey finds that Gen Zers and millennials believe employers have made progress in key areas such as promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), enabling work/life balance, and driving positive societal change. But it also finds that they expect more from businesses when it comes to embedding purpose in work.

These generations hold organizations to high standards–and make career decisions accordingly.

Nearly four in 10 respondents said they have rejected work assignments due to ethical concerns. More than a third have turned down employers that they feel aren’t doing enough on matters such as the environment, DEI, or mental health. And less than half believe the impact of business on society is generally positive.

Research has proven that organizations that prioritize purpose and impact perform better. But, for many young employees, working for a purpose-driven organization is not enough.

Gen Zers and millennials want to take part in driving change through their individual work–and they are more likely to stay in their current organization when they feel empowered to do so. In fact, respondents have indicated for some time that they are more confident in influencing societal change through their work rather than through their personal choices.

Yet only half of this year’s respondents feel empowered to drive change at work, while one-third say that decisions are made from the top down within their organizations and that their feedback is not often acted upon.

This is particularly true when it comes to climate action: Only 15% of Gen Zers and millennials feel able to influence their organization’s efforts on sustainability. And climate change increasingly shapes career decisions: More than half of respondents say they research a brand’s environmental impact and policies before accepting a role, and a quarter say they plan to change jobs or sectors due to climate concerns.

Being a purpose-led organization requires a long-term and consistent focus, and Gen Zers and millennials are holding their employers accountable. Faced with cumulative challenges and rising uncertainty, they expect the organizations they work for, and the broader business community to play a bigger role in tackling societal and environmental challenges.

Thus, to secure their talent’s long-term commitment and create financial as well as social value, organizations must put purpose at the heart of both corporate priorities and individual responsibilities.

Elizabeth Faber is Deloitte’s Global Chief People & Purpose Officer.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

By Lou K Coleman

The sirens are sounding, blaring, warning that catastrophic impact is about to take place. Wake up! Because there is a storm on the horizon, that will come suddenly, and unexpectedly. This is a storm that cannot be compared to any storm of nature in its power and intensity. This storm will be the greatest storm to every hit mankind since Creation.  This storm, the approaching storm of the wrath of God will bring judgment upon the heart of every man and woman remaining in the earth and none will escape its power. I ask you; can you hear what I hear? The sirens are blaring, that catastrophic impact is about to take place.

Please don’t wait until the storm falls on you. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior today, for He is the only source of refuge from this coming storm. As [Zephaniah 1:14-18] tells us, “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly… a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness. A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. A day when I, the Lord, will bring distress upon you, that you shall walk like blind men, because you have sinned against Me: your blood shall be poured out as dust, and your flesh as the dung. For neither your silver nor your gold shall be able to deliver you in the day of My wrath; for the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of My jealousy: for I, the Lord shall make even a speedy riddance of all you that dwell in the land.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Therefore, take ye heed, watch and pray for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” Be sober, be on guard, keep awake! [Mark 13:28-37].

God has promised that the storm is coming. [John 3:36, Romans 2:5, the whole book of Revelation]. Hasten your escape from the windy storm and tempest before it is too late [Psalms 55:8] knowing that the Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness. [2 Peter 3:9]. For when they shall say, peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. [1 Thessalonians 5:3].

Why should you die? Heed the warnings and obey the call. Don’t sit idly by and be caught unaware and unprepared. You’ve Been Warned! Repent before it’s too late!

By Antonio Ray Harvey | California Black Media

The California Assembly ushered in new leadership last week with the swearing in of Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) at the State Capitol in Sacramento on June 30.

Rivas replaces Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood), the outgoing Speaker who presided over the Assembly for the last seven years.

Rivas is the 71st Speaker of the state legislature’s lower house. Known for being a pragmatic coalition builder, Rivas’ rise to power has been steady, colleagues say, since he was first elected to the State Assembly in 2018.

After being sworn in, Rivas informed the 79 other members of the Assembly that his leadership, which he says will benefit everyone, will be characterized by “urgency and unity” as his top priorities.

“California is still the greatest state in the union. But if we in this room do not act and do not act with greater urgency, it will get more and more difficult to build a good life here,” Rivas said. “I feel, and I know that you all do, too, a great sense of responsibility because we are the ones who can keep the door open for the next generation.”

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-11), U.S. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-18), Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass were among politicians, state officials, family members, members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) and others were present to witness 43-year-old Rivas take his oath of office.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) said the day celebrates “the new season of leadership under the Honorable Robert Rivas” and all members of the Assembly hearts’ “should be filled with joy” about a man who came from humble beginnings.

“On behalf of the Black caucus, congratulations on your success,” Wilson, the chairperson of the CLBC said to Rivas. “We look forward to working with you on monumental legislation to ensure equity for all and continue dismantling systematic discrimination and racism.”

Civil rights icon and labor rights advocate Dolores Huerta, Rivas’ mother Mayra Flores, his grandmother and about 30 farmworkers from his district were “scattered throughout the chamber” to see the swearing in ceremony along with his wife Christen and their daughter Melina, Rivas said.

The three African American state Constitutional officers Controller Malia Cohen, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and Secretary of State Shirley Weber also attended the proceedings on the Assembly floor.

“California is still the greatest state in the union. But if we in this room do not act and do not act with greater urgency, it will get more and more difficult to build a good life here,” Rivas told the audience. “I feel, and I know that you all do, too, have a great sense of responsibility because we are the ones who can keep the door open for the next generation.”

Raised in Paicines, a small town in San Benito County with a population of under 700 people, Rivas says he watched his grandfather as a child stand side by side with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers (UFW) as a leader in the movement that won equal rights and fair contracts for farmworkers.

Rivas attended local public schools in San Juan Bautista and Hollister. During his inaugural speech, he mentioned that along with his mother and brother, he once shared a house of “three beds” with five other family members, including his cousins.

In 1988, Rivas’s grandparents, aunts and uncles pooled together money to purchase a small house for $140,000 in the city of Hollister, a community established by ranchers and farmers in 1872.

“It was a massive investment, but it was doable,” Rivas remembered his family’s ambition to own a home of their own. “It gave us a sense that our future was not so precarious and that there was a place for us in in the greatest state in country in California.”

Rivas graduated with a bachelor’s degree in government from California State University Sacramento and later earned a master’s degree in public administration from San Jose State University.

A lifelong resident of the 29th Assembly district, Rivas served two terms on the San Benito County Board of Supervisors prior to becoming an Assemblymember in 2018.

During his first term in the Fall of 2020, Rivas was appointed as the Chair of the Assembly Agriculture Committee and elected as Vice-Chair of the influential Latino Legislative Caucus.

Rivas’ priorities are directed at tackling California’s housing and homelessness crisis, battling climate change, and enhancing public services and infrastructure.

“I am excited for the future of this body and even more excited for the future of this great state with Robert as our speaker,” said Assemblymember Akilah Weber (D-La Mesa), who is also a member of the CLBC. “So, congratulations to our speaker designate and my good friend Robert Rivas.”

By Joe W. Bowers Jr. and Edward Henderson | California Black Media

In recognition of Father’s Day this year, Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) introduced House Resolution (HR) 36, legislation declaring June “Fatherhood Well-Being Month.

Last week, at Ted Watkins Park in South Los Angeles, Gipson joined residents in his community to highlight the importance of fathers and father figures in collaboration with a South Los Angeles community initiative called Project Fatherhood.

“This elevates the work of Project Fatherhood that is originally from this Watts community; that goes out and provides skill building for fathers, giving them experiences they need to be great fathers in this community,” said Gipson. “It’s a great blessing for me.”

By Lou K Coleman

For I Daniel saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. The first was like a lion and had eagle’s wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.”

“And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh!’

“After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.  I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words…

“I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame.  As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time…

I came near to one of those who stood by and asked him the truth of all this. So, he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things: Those great beasts, which are four, are four kingdoms which arise out of the earth.

“Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.

“Thus, he said: ‘The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it, and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, as well as persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. [Daniel 7:2-8, 11-12, 16-17; 23-25].

I say, and I say again; Wake-up and Pay Attention! End-time events are unfolding right before our eyes. The King of the West who is identify as the Antichrist and who will lead the ‘revised’ Roman Empire [the seventh kingdom/European Union and its western allies] in transition and the King of the South, Egypt and its southern Islamic allies with the King of the North, Russia described as Gog in Ezekiel who will lead the nations of the Black Sea region and Caucasus Central Asis [Ancient Scythia], and Iran [Ancient Parthia] and the King of the East, China and its Asiatic allies HAS ALREADY formed an alliance. Wake up!

It is no coincidence that the Middle East is a powder keg awaiting only the proper spark to explode; it is no coincidence that radical Islam has become a global terror threat; it is no coincidence that Iran is threatening to wipe the nation of Israel off the map; and it is no coincidence that Israel exists as a nation, once again back on some of the very same Biblical land that God deeded to Abraham thousands of years ago. It is all part of a pattern. None of this is coincidence; it is the fulfilling and unfolding of God’s Word. It is setting the stage for the fulfillment of coming events written about in the Book of Revelation. Awake from your slumber!

Note: The identities of the King of the North, South, East, and West are described in the Book of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation.

By Pilar Marrero

Many are vowing to continue the fight to protect diversity in higher education and warn policy makers and educators not to overreach in interpreting the controversial ruling.

Civil rights leaders joined together to denounce last week’s Supreme Court decision ending Affirmative Action. Many are warning of the negative effects the ruling will have on students of color.

“Race is still relevant, racial discrimination is still relevant,” said Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).

Saenz pointed to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, which states that college admission programs can consider how race has affected an applicant’s character specifically, but that race cannot be a general consideration in admissions.

“That is a clear indication that this is not a mandate or even an invitation to ignore race in the context of higher education,” explained Saenz in an interview with Ethnic Media Services.

The June 29 decision overturned 45 years of precedent by ruling that Affirmative Action policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Saenz and others warned policymakers and higher education leaders not to overreach in their interpretation of the ruling. They also urged students of color not to “adjust their ambitions in any way” because of this decision.

“That is a clear indication that this is not a mandate or even an invitation to ignore race in the context of higher education,” explained Saenz in an interview with Ethnic Media Services.

The June 29 decision overturned 45 years of precedent by ruling that Affirmative Action policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Saenz and others warned policymakers and higher education leaders not to overreach in their interpretation of the ruling. They also urged students of color not to “adjust their ambitions in any way” because of this decision.

“Policymakers cannot use this decision as some excuse to ignore racial disparity or to ignore the imperative to address it,” said Saenz. “This doesn’t change regulations under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), notes that race can still be taken into account for college admissions, as it relates to an applicant’s life experience.

Racial gaslighting

Colleges and universities across the country – particularly those states where, before this decision, race was still used as part of the criteria in college and university admissions – should evaluate their practices for equity, said leaders in the higher education access arena.

“We know that Affirmative Action was one of the best tools to ensure there was a diverse student body,” said Michelle Siqueiros, President of the Campaign for College Opportunity. “SCOTUS should have also banned legacy (admissions), which makes up more than a quarter to a third of the class at some selective institutions, including Harvard.”

She added the practice of granting admission to the sons and daughters of alumni, along with early decision admissions and the extensive use of standardized tests, “do not expand opportunities to low-income Black, Latino and Asian American Students.”

Several groups in Boston filed a complaint with the Education Department on Monday requesting that it review the practice of legacy admissions, arguing it discriminates against students of color by favoring the children of alumni at elite schools, most of whom are white.

Author and education scholar J. Luke Wood described the ruling as “racial gaslighting at its best.” Wood is the incoming president at Sacramento State University.

“If they are concerned about discrimination, they should move away from standardized testing, which is a better indication about a student’s resources” and not his or her capacities. “This will definitely have an impact on access to colleges and universities by students of color,” said Wood.

Sending a message to students of color

Marita Etcubañez, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives with Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), discusses the Asian American response to the ban on affirmative action and notes that Asian Americans did not initiate the lawsuit, nor were there any student plaintiffs in the case.

All of those interviewed said they worried about students getting the wrong message from the ruling and the impact this could have on students of color already in higher education institutions.

“We want to make sure that students of color know that they still belong, that we will be fighting for you, and we encourage you to apply to the school of your choice, don’t be scared off by this opinion,” said Marita Etcubañez, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives with Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC).

Etcubañez, like other Asian American civil rights leaders, also expressed concerns about arguments that Affirmative Action policies unfairly discriminated against Asian students. “This is simply false,” she said.

“The District Court examined all the evidence and found no evidence to support the claim that there was discrimination against Asian Americans,” said Etcubañez. “I also want to make sure people know that Asian Americans were not behind this case.”

In fact, the case was brought forward by a group called Students for Fair Admissions led by conservative activist Ed Blum, who Etcubañez noted “has engaged in a campaign to systematically take down Affirmative Action for years. This was not an organic case to right a wrong.”

Blum is a Republican financier who was also behind the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, which gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, eliminating the requirement that states with a history of racial discrimination targeting voters of color seek federal preclearance for any changes to their election laws.

In a scathing dissent to the majority’s ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “The three Justices of color on this Court graduated from elite universities and law schools with race-conscious admissions programs, and achieved successful legal careers, despite having different educational backgrounds than their peers.”

In her opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor in her dissent, offered a fiery exchange with conservative justice Clarence Thomas, who is also African American and leads the ultra-conservative wing of the court.

‘We will be watching’

Michele Siqueiros, President of The Campaign for College Opportunity, says affirmative action advocates will continue to fight for fair admissions to colleges and to ensure that campuses remain diverse.

“Thomas went to Yale Law School, my alma mater, at a time when almost certainly the law school was using an Affirmative Action system that benefited him,” said Saenz from MALDEF. “This indicates how much of a limitation this could be for our future. Future justices, future leaders, elected leaders, and future professionals will be diminished in their ranks by the court’s wrongheaded decision.”

Michelle Siqueiros, President of the Campaign for College Opportunity, said that her organization and many others would fight to counteract the effects of this ruling as they have done in California and other states where local laws limited the use of race in admissions over the years.

“We won’t accept a return to the 1940s and 1950s when colleges blatantly discriminated against women, African Americans, Jewish Americans, Latinos, and Indigenous folks at their campuses,” said Siqueiros.

“We will be watching,” she added, noting that at a time when more than 50% of students in K-12 schools are students of color, “we are hopeful that college leaders know and support and value providing opportunity for all Americans.”

By Nekima Levy Armstrong, Esq

(BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION (BET)—On this third anniversary of the Minneapolis police murder of George Floyd, one is left to ponder whether any real progress has been made regarding increased police accountability and improving the lives of Black folks in this country.

By Maxim Elramsisy | California Black Media

Civil Rights and personal Injury attorneys Benjamin Crump and Carl Douglas announced a $100 million lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles last week for the death of Keenan Anderson, a high school English teacher visiting Los Angeles from Washington D.C.

The attorneys are representing Anderson’s son, Syncere Anderson, and Syncere’s mother Gabrielle Hansell.

The complaint alleges civil rights violations, assault and battery, false imprisonment, and negligence on the part of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers in the death of Anderson.

“They are trying to George Floyd me,” Anderson said as he lay face down on the street in Venice, California on January 3. The 30-year-old died later at a hospital after body-camera footage shows him being tased at least six times by LAPD officers.

“[He is] calling out to the public when he’s on the ground being tased and squashed. He’s calling for help. He was anticipating his own injury,” Douglas, said to California Black Media (CBM).

“When you think about Black people, our fear is that every time police stop us, they might do us like George Floyd,” Crump said to CBM.

The LA County Medical Examiner-Coroner reported in early June that Anderson’s cause of death was an enlarged heart and cocaine use and reported manner of death as undetermined.

The attorneys argue the report is irrelevant.

“After they assassinated him, they tried to assassinate his character. That is the strategy, tried and true, in America when the police kill Black people,” Crump said. “Look at that video, your eyes are not deceiving you. What killed [Anderson] was an overdose of lethal force, it’s that simple. If he were not tased, he would be here today.”

They believe the video shows that the use of force by police was inappropriate in this situation.

“It matters not whether there was cocaine in his system, because the actions of the officers were wrong. It matters not why he was in distress, because it’s clear from the body camera footage that he was never a threat. He spoke to the officers politely. He was always compliant; he never balled his fist, he never kicked. He never did anything to give an officer the belief that he was a threat.

Instead, these officers acted like hammers. And when you send a hammer into a garden, they treat all the flowers like their nails,” Douglas said to CBM.

“They did not know that Keenan Anderson was a schoolteacher of high school students. They didn’t know he had a five-year-old boy who loved him and he was engaged in his young son’s life. They didn’t know he was a role model to dozens of other kids across the country.”

“It resonated with me because I was so close to George Floyds family,” said Crump, who represented the family in a lawsuit against the city of Minneapolis.

“The one thing that I think is similar is just the fact that Black people who have mental health crises, man, we get the death sentence,” Crump said. “When White people have mental health crises, everybody is trying to help them.”

This month the U.S. Department of Justice released a report outlining systemic problems in the Minneapolis Police Department. It said police officers used “unjustified deadly force” and other types of force, and that they “unlawfully discriminate” against Black and Native American people, violate the rights of people engaged in protected speech, and discriminate against people with behavioral health issues.

There were similar findings in Los Angeles Police Department after the Rampart Scandal uncovered corruption.

“20 years ago, there was a finding that there were systemic problems in the Los Angeles Police Department and there was a consent decree,” Douglas said. “The problem is there is a warrior mentality that envelops law enforcement: us versus them; military equipment against citizens instead of a guardian mentality to protect and serve, to help.”

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass discussed the incident with CBM in February.

“People have died at the hands of the LAPD. You had those three deaths in one week, which was really horrific from my point of view,” Bass said. “With my medical background, I looked at those tapes unedited, and I saw two people in serious crisis.”

Bass also described assurances she received from Los Angeles Police Chief Michael Moore. She said, “Part of my agreement in supporting him was that we identified a group of objectives of what I want to see done. I am insisting that every officer be trained in mental health to spot crises.”

“The Commitment I made to the chief was to work to increase the funding for mental health, social workers, so that they can go out and be part of these assessments, because I believe if those officers had been accompanied by a mental health professional that it may not have escalated the way it did.”

A June 23 statement from Mayor Bass’ office to CBM stated, “The Mayor’s approved budget has money to continue funding the SMART teams. The primary challenge isn’t lack of funding for these positions but a shortage of licensed clinicians who work alongside the officers to respond to people experiencing mental health crises. The Mayor’s Office is working with our partners at LAPD and LA County Department of Mental Health to pursue strategies to hire additional licensed clinicians.”

The LA City Attorney declined to comment for this article, citing pending litigation.