Freedom Rides, 50 years on

Posted on May 16, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Fifty years ago this month, the Freedom Riders put their bodies on the line to test their right to integrated interstate travel and accommodations.

Starting tonight, PBS is running a compelling documentary of the events, featuring interviews with many of the key participants, including heroes and villains.  It’s striking to watch the camera juxtapose interviews of seniors with old stills of their younger selves, changing the world.

We should  all know the  story; it fills a few paragraphs in many public school textbooks.  But seeing the veterans talk about their commitments and their fears produces an appropriately visceral appreciation of their courage.  It reminds us about how much the world has changed–and how much it can still change.

There’s much to think about here.  At the moment I want to raise only the issue of misguided optimism.

The  first Freedom Rides were a controversial tactic within the civil rights  movement, organized by the Congress of Racial Equality, a pacifist group that grew out of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.  The first Freedom Riders thought, mistakenly, that they might be taunted and suffer harassment, but that the most likely outcome was a symbolic demonstration of their right to travel anywhere in the United States.  In interviews, they now say they were unprepared for the extreme beatings, nor did they imagine that Southern whites would set a Greyhound bus on fire while police stood by.

Had the first Freedom Riders known just how dangerous it would be, might they have made another decision?

Nashville leader, Diane Nash

It’s hard not to think of the democracy activists in Tahrir Square, in Tienanmen Square, in the shipyard in Gdansk, and in the prison at Robben Island.  All were unduly optimistic about their prospects of changing the world, and about their personal safety.  Somehow, they continued after they were disabused of this optimism.

Once the first round of Freedom Riders had been badly beaten, taken off the buses, and ultimately sent home, subsequent waves of Freedom Riders followed, the first from Nashville, which had just seen a successful sit-in campaign that desegregated the lunch counters.  The Nashville activists boarded the buses with eyes open, having written their wills the night before.

The civil rights movement united around the Freedom Rides after the tactic had proven much scarier and more dangerous than CORE anticipated–just as other activists had feared.

It’s hard not to wonder how much important history starts with a fundamental miscalculation about personal danger and political efficacy.  Oddly, this courageous optimism can create new possibilities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fractious Politics of Education (III): Local Funding

Posted on May 13, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Tanya McDowell

Today, we start with the story of Tanya McDowell, a homeless woman charged with larceny and conspiracy in defrauding the Norwalk, Connecticut, public schools.  Ms. McDowell, facing conspiracy for possessing marijuana and crack cocaine in another case, allegedly used a false address to enroll her 5 year old in school.   Presently, McDowell faces the possibility of up to 20(!?)! years in prison, as well as being forced to pay $16,000 in restitution for the schooling her child wasn’t entitled to.

Parents trying to defraud public schools, particularly better public schools, isn’t all that unusual; criminal prosecution is.  McDowell is the only one of 27 parents accused of cheating to get their kids in school facing court charges.  Her case has become a cause for education activists.  Change.org has launched a petition campaign against prosecution that, at this moment, has more than 17,000 on-line signatures.

Kelley Williams-Bolar in court

Would a judge actually send a parent trying to look out for her kid to jail?  Yes.  Earlier this year, an Ohio judge sent teacher’s aid Kelley Williams-Bolar to jail for ten days after finding that she had falsified residency records to that her children could attend better schools.  The judge suspended the rest of the five year sentence.

Ms. Bolar-Williams, studying to be a teacher (a prospect that is now up in the air), was well aware of the vast inequality that characterize public schools in Ohio (and the rest of the United States), and wanted the best for her children–better than she could pay for.  She thought the Copley-Fairlawn district provided better and safer schools than those where she lived.

Her case has also become a cause.  Moms Rising organized a campaign for her pardon, and Governor John Kasich asked the Ohio parole board to consider expunging her record.

Could these dramatic cases become the spark that starts a national movement for real school reform?  Sometimes a visible injustice does exactly that.  Think of what the civil rights movement did with Rosa Parks.  But Williams-Bolar and McDowell weren’t looking to change the world, just the prospects for their children.  And the middle-class education-oriented people who often support social justice campaigns are worried about their own children.

These dramatic and disturbing cases underscore the obstacles education reformers face in America.  Parents looking out for their kids try to move into communities which offer the best public schools they can afford.  (This usually means higher local property taxes and higher real estate costs.  In California, it means extensive private fundraising.)  My parents did, siting off reputation; these days, we have test scores as well.

Parents want to get what they pay for, which generally includes better facilities, more diverse offerings and activities, and smaller class size.  Students from outside the district aren’t paying their share, and their presence, school administrators explain, strains the schools.  Does an additional child or two in a class really make that much of a difference?  How about nine?  How about when class size rockets from 20-31 residents (a result of school budget crises)?

These numbers are from my daughters’ first grade classes in Irvine, California–which has a reputation for very good schools.)  Every year, Irvine families must demonstrate residency for each child; it feels more frequent than that.

As Americans, we have an interest in providing a good education to all children.  Actually, it’s probably even more important for children whose parents are less competent (homelessness and crack cocaine are hardly educational advantages).

As parents, and as residents of local communities, we want to preserve what we can for our children and our neighbors, fighting against a tide of decline sweeping the state or country.

In Beverly Hills, local parents started an emergency fundraiser to prevent 11 layoffs in the district.  They raised more than a half-million dollars in a week, and the effort continues.  In Irvine, as in other affluent communities, a (private) public school foundation raises money to provide programs that the state no longer does.  They don’t criticize, or even mention, local legislators who vote against plans to fund the schools.  After all, opponents of fair taxation might make generous contributions.  And parents who can hire tutors and pay fees for special programs, so that their children don’t face the full consequence of our collective choices.

In effect, a drive to protect the local school works against adequately educating all our children.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Recurrent DREAM (Social movement effects)

Posted on May 12, 2011 by David S. Meyer

For the courageous young people who willingly disclosed their undocumented status last year, Congress’s failure to pass the DREAM Act was a devastating blow.   They had an overly optimistic view, as activists often do, that the justice of their cause, the intensity of their commitments, and the drama and risk of their efforts, would carry the day.  They were wrong, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t matter.

In the lame duck session following the 2010 elections, the Democratically- controlled House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act, but Democrats in the Senate were unable to generate the supermajority necessary to break a filibuster and vote on the bill.  Those who came out were politically disappointed–and personally at risk; they knew they were now visible and vulnerable to deportation.

The prospects for passing a new DREAM ACT, when the Republicans added to their numbers in the Senate and took control of the House of Representatives, are much worse than before.  The grassroots wing of the Tea Party movement has identified stopping any kind of immigration reform, aside from increased border security, as a key priority.  They’ve effectively held their legislators hostage to this position.

But President Obama is now pressing Congress to bring the DREAM back.  When Obama was interested in building a bipartisan coalition for comprehensive reform, he invested heavily in putting money and people on the border with Mexico, and dramatically increased the number of deportations.  He now knows–and even more importantly, says that nothing the administration does will buy Republican support for comprehensive reform.  The Administration’s key enforcement and deportation priorities, he has announced, involve removing convicted criminals without documentation from the United States.  This doesn’t mean that the students are now safe, just that they won’t be explicitly targeted.

Quite obviously, electoral politics are all over this move.  President Obama means to mobilize Latino enthusiasm and voters.  He also means to have the Republicans take full responsibility for catering to the anti-immigrant forces within their ranks.  And he must surely know that his efforts will provoke and mobilize nativist activists in opposition.

The DREAMers, denied a legislative victory, need to realize that none of this would have happened without their efforts.  Their demonstrations, press conferences, civil disobedience actions, and everything else, dramatized their cause and its political support.  President Obama thinks there are electoral advantages to be gained here because the DREAMers showed him their power and support.  And the DREAMers activated a vigorous opposition that has pushed Republican politicians away from a key mainstream Republican constituency: big business.

Businesses always want access to labor, and cheaper labor is better.  In response to President Obama’s recent immigration speech, the normally stalwart Republican US Chamber of Commerce announced enthusiasm and support for the president’s approach to comprehensive reform.  Ambreen Ali (Roll Call) reports:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has long supported immigration reform as a way to help American businesses remain competitive, gave the speech an “A” grade.

“We were quite pleased with the ideas he put forth,” said Randy Johnson, the chamber’s senior vice president of labor, immigration and employment benefits. “Now’s the time to get prepared for an economic recovery. This bill isn’t going to rush through Congress, so let’s get off the dime.”

Johnson said the president’s outline for immigration reform largely reflects the business group’s position.

A renewed campaign for comprehensive immigration reform could mobilize the Democratic base–and fracture the Republican electoral coalition.

The DREAMers made this move smart politics for the president.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Fractious Politics of Education, part II

Posted on May 11, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Hundreds of Huntington Park High School students walked out of class yesterday, and marched 7 miles to the Los Angeles School Board’s headquarters.  The Board of Education was discussing a radical reorganization plan for the school, which would include reassigning half of the teachers to other schools.  [The Board approved the plan yesterday afternoon.]

The student walk-out makes for a dramatic scene.  The students know that massive firings and hirings are going to disrupt their lives, and that the teachers they might like might be among those who leave for other schools.

The school’s performance, however, has been dismal by any measure that anyone could use to evaluate schools.  More than a quarter of the students drop out; less than half of the graduates post a record that makes them eligible to apply for a state university, and the results on increasingly important tests are pretty dismal: 5% rank proficient in math; 24% reach proficiency in English.

The teachers union asserts that the poor results reflect years of underinvestment and neglect, and with sufficient resources, things could turn around.  Teachers doubt that the massive overhaul, absent serious investment, is likely to make much of a difference.

The Board sees a history of failure and is understandably impatient about progress.

But what about the students?  If the overhaul actually turns around the school, it is still likely to create no discernible improvement for the students who are already there.  They’ll face the disruption, but if there are improvements, it will be their little brothers and sisters who see them.

The marchers’ crappy school experience is likely to get crappier.  Their protest makes sense.  The students are trying to stand up for themselves, likely guided by those adults who are closest to them.  Their perception of their interests is quite likely very different from those of adults charged with designing curricula and running schools.  (In my house, the necessity of math in a world with ubiquitous calculators is an ongoing discussion topic.)

So, here’s the problem: Everyone (students, parents, teachers, business) shares an interest in a strong public school system in the United States.  Everyone does not share a definition of what that would look like, how to get there, or who should pay for it.

We live with the results.

Note: This continues a theme from yesterday’s post, which was cross-posted at orgtheory.net, where there’s some interesting discussion in the comments section.  I’m cross-posting there this month.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Fractious Politics of Education

Posted on May 10, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Hundreds of California teachers, declaring a state of emergency, demonstrated in Sacramento yesterday, marched on the Capitol building yesterday.  According to The Boston Globe (!?!), more than 100 rallied in the Capitol rotunda, resulting in 65 arrests.

There’s a lot to talk about here, telling us about protest politics, state budget crises, media, unions, and the troubled state of education in America.

Should we start with the media?  Bizarrely, while the Boston Globe published a good story (from AP) on the first day in a planned week of protests organized by the California Teachers Association, and several local papers picked up on it–and sympathy events across the state (e.g. here and here) , the Los Angeles Times, the biggest paper in California, missed the event altogether, leading its California section with the news of former Governor Schwarzenegger’s separation from his wife, Maria Shriver.

The decline of the LA Times, in terms of budget, circulation, quality, and coverage, has been as dramatic as that of any national paper still operating, surely part of the story here.  But the paper did cover education–and teachers protesting:

The protest story (embedded in a video) focused on Los Angeles teachers protesting against the Times itself; the paper has been publishing “value added” scores rating the effectiveness of all teachers in the city’s system.   The local union sees these scores as an attack.  The other education story covered the district’s plans to overhaul the staff at Huntington Park High School, one of the largest in the district; the district expects to replace at least one-half of the teachers.  The union is, understandably, concerned about this move as well.

But the bigger story is about massive budget cuts facing all public school districts in California.  Governor Jerry Brown’s budget plan was to retire the state’s $25+ billion dollar state deficit through roughly 1/2 cuts and 1/2 taxes.  (The tax part would come through a referendum to postpone planned tax cuts.)  If the voters failed to approve the tax extensions, Brown will cut, severely, spending on prisons and public schools.

It seemed like a clever plan.  Voters generally like the ideas of educating children and keeping felons in jail; additionally, Governor Brown would be able to count on two powerful unions, prison guards and teachers, to spend on the referendum campaign, and mobilize their members.  What Brown could not count on, however, was the votes of two Republican state assemblymen and two Republican state senators, which he needed to reach the 2/3 vote to put the question on the ballot.  (Insert your favorite rant here; the ones that come to my mind are about supermajorities, term limits, California politics, and Republicans.)

The Census Bureau reports on per pupil spending across the American states.  For 2007-08, the most recent data available, it lists a national average of about $10,000 per pupil.  New York and New Jersey spend the most, up to $17,000 per pupil.  Individual districts in affluent areas may spend as much as twice that amount.  (You can look up your district and its spending here.)  California is listed at about $9,800.  Since 2007-08, California has cut per pupil spending by more than $2,000.  California now spends less than most states, has larger class sizes than all of them, and lower test scores than almost every other state.  Governor Brown estimates that without the tax extensions, the new budget cuts will amount to something over $800 per pupil.

Local school districts will find their own ways to respond, and more affluent areas will try to raise independent funds–but they already do.  On the agenda in most districts are layoffs, program cuts, increases in class sizes, and reductions in the school year–already shorter than the academic year in any other rich country.  None of this is likely to improve public education in California.  Money isn’t the only thing that matters, of course, but it’s silly to pretend that money doesn’t matter.

The teachers’ union cares about this, of course, and the fact that jobs are part of the story, intensifies those concerns and makes them mobilizeable. Their answer, based on polling data: raise taxes on the rich.  Staging a week of protests is a way to try to draw public attention to the problem, and demonstrate their seriousness.  Given the 2/3 rule and the composition of that state legislature and the electorate, the demonstrations themselves are unlikely to matter all that much.  It’s not that the protest strategy is particularly likely to be effective so much as that everything else the teachers can do is even more unlikely to work–particularly without protest.

Maybe, however, at least in areas served by papers other than the LA Times, it can clue other Californians into the magnitude of the unfolding crisis.

To the extent that parents are tuned into what’s happening, they’re concerned and angry, and like most Californians, oppose the cuts.  Most Californians, however, also oppose any new taxes–except on the rich.

I suspect most parents are also trying to figure out solutions that spare them from engaging in the California budget process.  They can help raise independent funds for their district–or school, contract private services to help their own kids with music, art, and math, or leave the public schools altogether.  If they can’t afford any of these alternatives, they can fume privately, whine publicly, or urge their children to make the best of a bad situation.

But the fact that most families will try to avoid dealing with a collective problem as a collective problem makes the political work of the teachers union–and the professional work of the teachers–all that much harder.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Professionalizing the Tea Party

Posted on May 6, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Can you keep the grass(roots) growing when you take it inside?

Judson Phillips, founder of the for-profit Tea Party Nation, has announced that he intends to take a salary out of the organization.  Tea Party Nation has produced a couple of national convention events (and some failed efforts) and some pithy quotes from Phillips in the media–but not so much else in the way of activism.  But the trend toward professionalism (paid activists!) is well underway in the Tea Party movement–and in American social movements more generally.

Establishing a group of people who can live off (rather than just for) a movement (this is Max Weber’s formulation) can be an immense asset for a movement.  The professionals worry about organizational survival, funding, and exploiting the opportunities of the moment.  They produce better materials, updated more frequently, are available to media for comments, and think about not only the campaign of the minute, but also the long term goals of a movement.  They are generally able to develop more expertise in at least some of these things than amateurs engaged in a movement for love of cause.

At the same time, the professionals have to think about all of their efforts professionally, not getting carried away by the exigencies and rivalries of the moment.  They don’t want to burn bridges with funders or politicians who are giving them trouble at the moment; they may be able to go back to them later.  And they have to think about the consequences of the issues and strategies they employ.  As a result, they tend to be more attracted to easily repeatable tactics (lobbying, rather than demonstrations; negotiations rather than confrontations, etc.).

Professionalized organizations can survive at the expense of the movements that created them, but then, once established, can provide the organizational core and and institutional expertise that animates a movement when circumstances are more favorable.

Now, what about this Tea Party?

The broad Tea Party movement was based in longer-standing organizations (especially FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity), run by political professionals and supported by well-heeled funders, including the Koch Brothers.  This meant that when there was the potential to mobilize a populist conservative movement, conservatives had already assembled the ideas, expertise, and infrastructure needed to do so.

It also means, however, that the funders and professionals may prioritize their concerns at the expense of those mobilized at the grassroots.  The proto-Tea Party groups aren’t vigorously anti-immigrant or willing to prioritize social conservative issues at the expense of their economic and regulatory goals.  That’s not the case at the grassroots.

The grassroots has to support and trust their professionals, but not blindly, aware of all the attendant risks.

What do you think of Keli Carender’s career?  An underemployed teacher and improv comic, she started the Redistributing Knowledge blog just after President Obama took office.  Adopting the persona, “Liberty Belle” (on the right), Carender blogged against Obama, government in general, and health care reform in particular.  She also organized, theatrically and effectively, in the Pacific Northwest.

Spotted by the talent scouts in FreedomWorks, she was flown from Seattle, Washington (grassroots) to Washington, DC, for activist training.  The training took, and she is now a professional, employed as a staffer at Tea Party Patriots.

Keli Carender

As near as I can tell, Carender’s wit and vigor are in no way compromised by the development of her professional career, and she can now devote herself to the cause full-time, without worrying about another job for money.  But she is no longer a part-time math teacher drawn to the political arena by the extraordinary threat Barack Obama represented to her.  She is now a professional managing a career as a well as a movement, and those goals may not always line up.  The question is whether her judgments about the most critical issues and how to pursue them will diverge from the grassroots she grew out of.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Osama, Obama, O.J., and Hasselhoff

Posted on May 5, 2011 by David S. Meyer

When US forces killed Osama Bin Laden, they dramatically shook up domestic politics in the United States, but, really, nothing has changed.

For the Tea Party, having President Obama announce Bin Laden’s death is an extraordinary stroke of bad luck.   The Tea Partiers hadn’t devoted much attention to the incredibly divisive politics of national security–for obvious reasons.  Libertarian Tea Partiers distrust the extending reach of the Federal government altogether, and chafe at the sorts of surveillance authorized by the Patriot Act.  True deficit hawks (and there are few of them in Congress) can’t really look away from the hundreds of billions spent annually on the military, and can hear the meter running on the costs of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya.  But the Tea Party also includes what used to be mainstream Republicans, who support the military and a global leadership role for the United States.  (Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget left defense spending untouched.)

Killing Osama Bin Laden does nothing, really, about any core issues for the Tea Party:  jobs in the United States, taxation, the deficit, regulation, abortion, immigration, same sex marriage, and on and on.  It does, however, suck up the political and media space available for talking about those issues.

And it makes the Tea Partiers’ top target, President Obama, instantly appear more competent, successful, confident, and powerful.  Republican allies in Congress recognize this, even if everyone at the grassroots doesn’t, and this will influence how hard they bargain on, say, raising the debt ceiling.  (Democrats expect the president to be tougher than he’s been in the past as well.)

Antiwar activists are trying to use the killing to reinvigorate their case against the war/s.  In today’s LA Times, for example, Tom Hayden argues that this victory shows that special forces are more effective than conventional military engagement in dealing with terror, and that this achievement gives the president the “opportunity” to get out of all the current wars which, he believes, are wasteful, destructive, and counterproductive.  But, aside from the tribute to the special forces, Hayden has been making exactly the same argument for years.  Bin Laden’s death is just another news peg to tie it to.

And Hayden isn’t alone here.  Congressional opponents of the wars, mostly Democrats, but including Republican Rep. Ron Paul, are strategizing about how to take advantage of the moment, while Moveon.org is circulating an online petition to end the war.

Activists have to respond to the events that fortune throws at them, and luck sometimes matters more than skill.  But events can be an excuse as well:

In 1993, syndicated television hero David Hasselhoff scheduled a pay-per-view cable television concert to establish himself as a music superstar.  Alas, some potential viewers tuned into the mesmerizing slow motion police chase of O.J. Simpson driving a white SUV on California highways.  Maybe, with nothing so interesting available for free on tv, they would have paid up to watch Hasselhoff sing instead.

We’ll never know, but nearly eighteen years later David Hasselhoff still isn’t a singing star in the US.

And maybe the successful strike against Osama Bin Laden will get the credit for landing a body blow against a Tea Party that was already floundering.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Authenticity at the Town Hall Meetings?

Posted on April 28, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Republican members of Congress who supported Paul Ryan’s budget plan (almost all of them) are having to defend their votes against hostile crowds at town meetings.  (Note that there is a lot to get angry about in this budget plan.  See James Fallows’ succinct take at The Atlantic.)

There have been protests all over, with particular efforts made in the districts of freshmen Republicans (there are plenty of them) in swing districts, but Paul Ryan himself has received a lot of attention as well.

The meeting unrest thus far is a smaller version of the confrontations with Democratic representatives considering support for health care reform.

But who are these people?  We tend to think of the people who agree with us as authentic grassroots activists, citizens pulled into sporadic political engagement by the urgency of the issue.  And the people who yell on the other side are provoked, mobilized, and scripted by nefarious interests.  In real life in the United States, movements are comprised of both focused organizations and the people they are able to reach: No mass mobilization without organization, coordination, and resources; no mass mobilization without real concerned people.

Marin Cogan and Jonathan Allen have a nice piece at Politico, examining the new town hall campaigns.  Quoting organizers and analysts on the left and right, they see continued struggle on budget issues–and more–over the next few years:

“This is the start of it,” said Lauren Weiner, deputy communications director for labor-backed Americans United for Change. “We know that the more people know about this budget, the angrier they’re going to get. We’re seeing two weeks in what the anger looks like … We hope and think it will grow.”

Adam Brandon, vice president of communications at FreedomWorks, put it this way: “The Ryan budget debate will last for the next several years—so we will also be very active in engaging our members. Town halls will become more of a staple on the American political scene… [our members] plant to stay engaged in this process.”

Expect it to continue at least through the next presidential campaign.

It’s completely appropriate for citizens to hold their representatives accountable.  I’ll be happier, however, if these demonstrators allow their reps. to answer questions, rather than shouting them down, and if no placards depict political leaders with Hitler’s moustache.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Honoring Bill Gamson

Posted on April 27, 2011 by David S. Meyer

I’m off to the University of Notre Dame this long weekend.  Their Center for the Study of Social Movements will be honoring William A. Gamson with the John D. McCarthy Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Scholarship of Social Movements.  The award, won previously by Verta Taylor, Mayer Zald, and Doug McAdam, recognizes mentoring as well as scholarship, and Bill is completely deserving.

Bill, a sociology professor at Boston College, is a prolific author, former president of the American Sociological Association, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  He’s the designer of many educational games and exercises, and the inventor of the first version of fantasy baseball.

I’d add that one of the many admirable things about Bill’s work is his ongoing concern with linking studies of social movements to the work of activists.  He is the founder and a central figure in the Movement/Media Research Action Project.

I’m indebted to Bill’s scholarship and to his mentoring, and very excited to be part of the event.

Very much in the spirit of John McCarthy and those who have been honored, Notre Dame sponsors a Young Scholars in Social Movements conference coinciding with the celebration.  They’ve selected a dozen young scholars within a year or two of the doctoral degree (either way), and are bringing them out to present their work.  I feel very fortunate to be able to participate.

Posted in academic | Leave a comment

Are Lawyers Different?: Does the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Deserve a Defense?

Posted on April 27, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Several large gay rights organizations (e.g.) celebrated the decision of King & Spalding, a large law firm, to forgo work for the House of Representatives.  When the Obama administration declined to defend the

Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) defends an unpopular client

constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the House leadership enlisted the firm to provide a defense instead.

DOMA explicitly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and relieved states and the federal government of the obligation to recognize other marriage formulations that states might decide to allow.  (Anyone who’s ever taken an American government class would wonder if this wasn’t an obvious violation of the “full faith and credit clause.)  Congress passed the law with large majorities in each house, and President Clinton signed the Act, triangulating the culture wars on the eve of his reelection campaign.

King & Spalding reconsidered taking the case amid a great deal of political pressure and the suggestion that this case might be costly in terms of its reputation and future work.  The Human Rights Campaign had contacted many of the firm’s clients, drawing attention to this other legal work, and suggesting that clients might exercise their leverage on the firm.  At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent reports:

…Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, shared new details about it. He confirmed to me that his group did indeed contact King and Spalding clients to let them know that the group viewed the firm’s defense of DOMA as unacceptable.

Former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, the partner who was to take the lead on the case, criticized the decision, resigned from the firm, and announced that he would handle the case with another firm.   According to the Washington Post:

In a resignation letter released to the media, Clement said he felt compelled to resign — not because of his views on the legislation, which he did not disclose, but “out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters.”

He continued: “Much has been said about being on the right side of history. But being on the right or wrong side of history on the merits is a question for the clients. When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.”

Attorneys make a commitment to an adversary system of justice, in which both sides benefit from strong and honest advocacy, with a judge or jury making decisions about the merits of a case.  And there is something heroic and difficult about lawyers taking on unpopular causes.  You’ll note the fictional Atticus Finch above, who faced social opprobrium to defend an unpopular client.

Novelists can load the dice, however, and make that client worthy–and innocent.  In real life, however, sometimes unpopular clients are unpopular for good reasons.  The ACLU took a great deal of flack for defending the right of Nazis to march in a neighborhood filled with survivors of German concentration camps.  And today lawyers endure serious hardships to represent people who might well be terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay.  As I understand it, this is what lawyers do.

But Evan Wolfson, at Freedom to Marry, says that while clients deserve representation, all causes do not:

In America, every person deserves a defense, but not every position does.  King & Spaulding has recognized what President Obama, the Department of Justice, and many members of Congress have joined Freedom to Marry in concluding: federal marriage discrimination and the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ are indefensible.
Freedom to Marry commends the many voices within the firm and outside, including the Human Rights Campaign, who spoke up against the firm’s hasty and wrong-headed decision to take on the defense of discrimination.  DOMA is an odious, oppressive law passed to exclude loving and committed couples from equal respect for their marriages; it cannot be defended without reliance on stereotypes and fears that do not stand up under the Constitution.  The House leaders pushing this abuse of taxpayer money to find a hired gun to defend DOMA should follow King & Spaulding’s lead and reconsider whether they really want to be on the side of unfairness and the wrong side of history.

But Attorney General Eric Holder, who made the decision not to defend DOMA, has praised Clement, explaining, “I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best.”

At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick laments the movement strategy of pressuring lawyers off particular cases, even as she excoriates DOMA:

What’s the difference between Liz Cheney’s attack on the Gitmo lawyers and the gay rights groups’ pressure on King & Spalding? One argument, advanced at the Baltimore Sun, is that this is the difference between criminal and civil proceedings; the Constitution guarantees a right to counsel in criminal trials. But no firm has to take a civil case. As a descriptive matter that’s true. DOMA has no “right” to be defended. But as a normative matter it sidesteps the real question: What is the end game here? When groups pressure a firm into dropping representation for an unpopular client, is the ultimate goal to have only bad lawyers defend an unpopular law, or no lawyers at all? And what kind of legal victory would either of those ends represent?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment