Since
1969, a number of reports have been issued dealing with specific issue
areas, with a particular focus on police brutality and the racial impacts
of the death penalty.But the only
other attempt to produce a general observations of continuing manifestations
of racial and ethnic bias took place in the context of President Clinton’s
“Initiative on Race” that produced a set of public hearings and some general
recommendations two years ago.While
well intentioned, that effort did not produce the type of effective, detailed
analysis of racial discrimination that was needed.The
President planned to release acomprehensive
report based on the results of his Initiative on Race, but it never was
issued.Only one aspect of the report
saw the light of day -- the idea of issuing an Executive Order dealing
with the problem of racial profiling practices by law enforcement agencies.
In
view of the importance of the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination
to this country, and the urgency of problems associated with the racial
divisions that we face, there is an extreme need for comprehensive, well
documented analyses of the various subject areas where racism manifests
itself.We need to have the facts
before us, so that a more rational dialogue can take place, and more effective
efforts can be made to remedy existing deficiencies.
Second,
this report, and the joint effort by a number of domestic civil rights
and social justice groups that produced it, represent an important new
initiative in this country to relate international human rights standards
to domestic issues.For many years,
the U.S. has taken a leadership role in bringing international attention
to major human rights abuses taking place all around the world.On
September 6th, pursuant to a Congressional mandate, the U.S.
Department of State issued its second annual report on religious persecution
worldwide.Each year, the State Department
issues its Country Reports on Human Rights, assessing human rights
compliance by every government.But
there have been increasing demands, especially by developing countries,
that while the U.S. must continue to focus attention on human rights violations
abroad, we need to do more to recognize and address situations of human
rights non-compliance in our own country.This
report takes one important step in this direction.It
also indicates that civil rights and social justice groups in this country
are beginning to recognize the importance of using international human
rights standards and mechanisms to address, and focus international attention
upon, domestic compliance needs.Attention
from the United Nations and Organization of American States human rights
monitoring agencies, by itself, will not solve our domestic problems.But
it can provide one more pressure point, along with other domestic initiatives,
to bring attention to the problems that need to be addressed.
Third,
this compliance report under CERD is part of a larger international effort
that is taking place this year and next to focus attention on the issue
of racism, and problems associated with minority rights, as part of the
United Nations’ World Conference on Racism, to be held at the end of August,
2001 in South Africa.A number of
preparatory meetings will be taking place throughout the rest of this year
and early next where plans for the World Conference on Racism will be discussed.This
report on U.S. compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, and the issues of racism in the U.S. that it raises, deserve
to play a major part in the World Conference and its preparatory meetings.Many
nations attending the World Conference will be giving scrutiny to U.S.
racial and ethnic discrimination issues, as well as focusing attention
on broader problems and needs associated with minority rights on a world-wide
basis.Hopefully, this report will
help produce the type of national dialogue that will help to generate some
useful responses to the concerns regarding racism in the U.S. that undoubtedly
will be raised in the World Conference forum.
Key Findings
A
few of the key findings from the individual subject area sections of the
report deserve to be highlighted, in anticipation of the treatment they
are likely to receive in the U.S. Government’s CERD submission.Although
the government has not given the NGO community access to the content of
its report prior to its September 11 release date, we have had a number
of meetings with government officials to discuss the report, and have been
given a general idea of the way that some critical issues will be addressed.While
a more complete and responsive analysis of the Government’s report can
not take place until it is officially released, some essential points need
to be raised:
1.Responsibility
of the U.S. Government for State and Local Policies and Practices. In
past reports to United Nations human rights monitoring agencies the U.S.
government often has invoked the situation of federalism, and the jurisdictional
authority of state and local governments over particular subjects, as a
reason why they have not acted more forcefully to prevent violations.CERD
makes very clear that even in situations where local governments have primary
jurisdiction, the federal government has the overall responsibility for
assuring that the standard of nondiscrimination is properly observed on
a national basis.Federalism can
not be invoked as a reason for federal government inaction.
2.The
Death Penalty.Strong and uncontested
statistical evidence, including a report by Congress’ own General Accounting
Office, indicates that race and ethnicity unfortunately continue to play
a major role in the imposition of the death penalty.Even
more confounding, U.S. policy, affirmed by the Supreme Court, permits the
execution of juvenile offenders who are 16 to 18 year of age, in direct
violation of the prohibition against execution of juvenile offenders in
several international human rights instruments, including the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.The
disparate racial impacts of the death penalty tie these problems to the
requirements of CERD.Conrad Harper,
the former Legal Advisor of the State Department, appearing before the
Human Rights Committee of the U.N. in 1995, tried to justify U.S. continuation
of the juvenile death penalty as an expression of “democratic governance.”The
popular desire to “get tough on crime,” and the passage of increasingly
harsh and more extensive death penalty laws by state governments and by
the U.S. Congress, can not be used as a basis for excusing violations of
the prohibition against the juvenile death penalty in human rights treaties.
4.Juvenile
Justice.Youth of color are heavily
over-represented in terms of arrests, being charged with serious crimes,
being referred to the adult courts and kept in adult prisons, and length
of sentences, even when compared to other juveniles committing comparable
offenses, and in every offense category.These
disproportionate impacts are being accentuated by increasing use of“get
tough” enforcement policies that force more juveniles of color into the
adult courts and prisons.
4.Criminal
Justice.Racial profiling targets
people of color for harassment and arrest, and is part of a larger pattern
and practice in law enforcement that results in minorities being subjected
to arrest, prosecution and incarceration on a disproportionate basis as
a result of their race and ethnicity, especially as regards treatment of
drug offenders.
5.Infant
Mortality.African American and
Native American communities continue to have the highest infant mortality
rates, with the disparities in mortality rates increasing
as a result of discrimination in the provision of a wide range of services,
including medical care, housing, education and employment opportunities.
6.Affirmative
Action.CERD mandates that “positive
steps” be taken to overcome the consequences of past discrimination and
assure equal enjoyment of fundamental rights.Despite
this requirement, particularly at the state level, the U.S. has been taking
the reverse course, reducing or ending previous commitments to end the
effects of past discrimination through affirmative action efforts, especially
in the areas of education and employment.
7.Environmental
Racism.Increasing attention
is being given to the discriminatory impacts of policies that result in
the disproportionate location of waste treatment and other industrial facilities
in communities of color, with adverse effects on the health and well-being
of their residents, particularly infants and pregnant women.
8.Hate
Crimes.Crimes tied to discriminatory
motivations are increasing substantially, but the U.S. government has not
taken sufficient action to prevent and prosecute these violations, including
the failure to fulfill the Congressional mandate to collect and publish
data on hate crime offenses on a regular basis.
9.Native
American Rights.Special mention
must be made of the role that Native American rights need to play in the
consideration of racial and ethnic discrimination issues in this country
in the context of CERD.Discussions
about racism in the U.S. too often overlook the fact that our treatment
of Native American people and nations needs to be considered an essential
part of how we deal with racial and ethnic discrimination concerns.As
indicated in our report (see Native American section), indigenous rights
are covered by CERD’s requirements, and there are a number of manifestations
of discrimination in the way that the federal government has been dealing
with native peoples that deserve attention and improvement, many of them
tied to the long-standing legal principle that the federal government has
“plenary jurisdiction” over all aspects of Native American affairs.
