Pop Quiz: How Much Do You Know About Classroom Censorship?
This year, the country has seen a staggering number of policies censoring classroom discussions around topics like race, sex, and gender identity. Coupled with these efforts are bans on books that also center around these subjects — bans which hinder students’ ability to learn and talk about these critical topics that impact their daily lives.
In order to protect our right to learn, we must recognize that these policies hinder people’s understanding of their country’s history, the world and communities around them, and themselves. We must also celebrate the literary works that take on these topics. Test your knowledge below about the current wave of classroom censorship measures, as well as some of the books being challenged.
New Report Illustrates How Right to Counsel Prevents Evictions and their Discriminatory Impacts on Communities
Our country is facing a historic eviction crisis. Amid a nationwide housing shortage, rents are surging to unprecedented levels, and many renters cannot keep pace. In 2021, rents rose by an average of 14 percent, with cities like Austin, Miami, New York, Portland, and Newark facing increases as high as 40 percent. Simultaneously, protections against eviction instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic have largely expired. These factors have left more and more people and families across the country at risk of losing their housing. Exacerbating the issue further, renters facing eviction are almost always unrepresented in court proceedings. Nationwide, only 3 percent of renters are represented, compared to 81 percent of landlords on average. Our new report, “No Eviction Without Representation: Evictions’ Disproportionate Harms and the Promise of Right to Counsel,” illustrates how providing a right to counsel helps keep people in their homes.
Legal representation for renters facing eviction is a critically important intervention to keep people in their homes and prevent the long-term harms of eviction. Our new report assesses the impacts of eviction and how they contribute to a cycle of poverty that frequently results in homelessness and harms communities. For example, when evictions force families out of their homes, they often simultaneously force children to change schools, disrupting their education and health. Evictions can also result in job loss, lead to long-term damage to the physical and mental health of those who are evicted, and severely constrict housing choice and accessibility in the future. An eviction record often disqualifies tenants from federal housing assistance, and many landlords won’t accept tenants with a previous record of eviction, leading to a cycle that results in homelessness.
The report also explores how these harms are disproportionately experienced by Black and Latinx people, especially women and children. Black individuals account for nearly 33 percent of all eviction filing defendants, despite comprising only roughly 20 percent of all adult renters. The number of women evicted is 16 percent higher than the number of men evicted, and Black women face eviction filings at nearly twice the rate of white women. In addition, having children in the household is as likely to contribute to an eviction judgement as falling four months behind in rent.
Finally, the report examines how providing legal representation to renters can significantly mitigate a mass eviction crisis. It looks at research from pilot projects, representation and cost-benefit studies, and existing right to counsel programs to assess the impact of legal representation for renters in eviction proceedings. The results are clear: Legal representation for renters is a well-demonstrated, cost-effective intervention in the eviction crisis.
In New York City, the right to counsel has meant that 84 percent of represented renters facing eviction have remained in their homes. In Cleveland, the right to counsel program has helped 93 percent of represented renters avoid an eviction judgment or an involuntary move, and 83 percent of the program’s clients whose goal was to secure rental assistance were able to do so. And in various studies estimating the costs and benefits of a right to counsel, cities and states have been projected to see significant net savings from the program by reducing the costs associated with eviction. Just one example is a study on the potential cost savings of enacting a right to counsel in Massachusetts, which found that such a program would result in an overall estimated cost savings of $36.73 million annually, providing a return of approximately $2.40 for every one dollar spent on full legal representation in eviction cases. And in a recent analysis of Cleveland’s right to counsel, the estimated net savings to Cleveland and Cuyahoga County were approximately $1.8 to $1.9 million.
To date, 15 cities and three states have enacted a right to counsel for renters in eviction cases. Many more are actively considering adopting a right to legal representation for those facing eviction. The research shows that the right to counsel for renters is a vital strategy to prevent and mitigate the harms of eviction.
Our report concludes by making the following recommendations for federal, state, and local governments:
The Federal government should:
Fully fund efforts to establish and implement the right to counsel for renters at the state and local level.
Increase awareness among localities and states about the portions of Emergency Rental Assistance Program and Fiscal Recovery Fund dollars available for legal services, and work to make these funding sources permanent.
Local and state governments should:
Enact and implement a right to counsel for renters facing eviction in their jurisdictions.
Support research and evaluation that assesses longer-term outcomes and identify best practices of right to counsel efforts.
Eviction is a gender justice issue. It is a racial justice issue. It is an economic justice issue. It is a children’s rights issue. And it is a civil liberties issue. The research demonstrates that the right to counsel effectively mitigates and prevents the serious harms of eviction and gives families a fighting chance to stay in their homes and communities. Ensuring a right to counsel for renters in eviction proceedings can play a vital role in helping to address systemic inequity and our nation’s inexcusable failure to invest in affordable housing for all.
New Report Illustrates How Right to Counsel Prevents Evictions and their Discriminatory Impacts on Communities
Our country is facing a historic eviction crisis. Amid a nationwide housing shortage, rents are surging to unprecedented levels, and many renters cannot keep pace. In 2021, rents rose by an average of 14 percent, with cities like Austin, Miami, New York, Portland, and Newark facing increases as high as 40 percent. Simultaneously, protections against eviction instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic have largely expired. These factors have left more and more people and families across the country at risk of losing their housing. Exacerbating the issue further, renters facing eviction are almost always unrepresented in court proceedings. Nationwide, only 3 percent of renters are represented, compared to 81 percent of landlords on average. Our new report, “No Eviction Without Representation: Evictions’ Disproportionate Harms and the Promise of Right to Counsel,” illustrates how providing a right to counsel helps keep people in their homes.
Legal representation for renters facing eviction is a critically important intervention to keep people in their homes and prevent the long-term harms of eviction. Our new report assesses the impacts of eviction and how they contribute to a cycle of poverty that frequently results in homelessness and harms communities. For example, when evictions force families out of their homes, they often simultaneously force children to change schools, disrupting their education and health. Evictions can also result in job loss, lead to long-term damage to the physical and mental health of those who are evicted, and severely constrict housing choice and accessibility in the future. An eviction record often disqualifies tenants from federal housing assistance, and many landlords won’t accept tenants with a previous record of eviction, leading to a cycle that results in homelessness.
The report also explores how these harms are disproportionately experienced by Black and Latinx people, especially women and children. Black individuals account for nearly 33 percent of all eviction filing defendants, despite comprising only roughly 20 percent of all adult renters. The number of women evicted is 16 percent higher than the number of men evicted, and Black women face eviction filings at nearly twice the rate of white women. In addition, having children in the household is as likely to contribute to an eviction judgement as falling four months behind in rent.
Finally, the report examines how providing legal representation to renters can significantly mitigate a mass eviction crisis. It looks at research from pilot projects, representation and cost-benefit studies, and existing right to counsel programs to assess the impact of legal representation for renters in eviction proceedings. The results are clear: Legal representation for renters is a well-demonstrated, cost-effective intervention in the eviction crisis.
In New York City, the right to counsel has meant that 84 percent of represented renters facing eviction have remained in their homes. In Cleveland, the right to counsel program has helped 93 percent of represented renters avoid an eviction judgment or an involuntary move, and 83 percent of the program’s clients whose goal was to secure rental assistance were able to do so. And in various studies estimating the costs and benefits of a right to counsel, cities and states have been projected to see significant net savings from the program by reducing the costs associated with eviction. Just one example is a study on the potential cost savings of enacting a right to counsel in Massachusetts, which found that such a program would result in an overall estimated cost savings of $36.73 million annually, providing a return of approximately $2.40 for every one dollar spent on full legal representation in eviction cases. And in a recent analysis of Cleveland’s right to counsel, the estimated net savings to Cleveland and Cuyahoga County were approximately $1.8 to $1.9 million.
To date, 15 cities and three states have enacted a right to counsel for renters in eviction cases. Many more are actively considering adopting a right to legal representation for those facing eviction. The research shows that the right to counsel for renters is a vital strategy to prevent and mitigate the harms of eviction.
Our report concludes by making the following recommendations for federal, state, and local governments:
The Federal government should:
Fully fund efforts to establish and implement the right to counsel for renters at the state and local level.
Increase awareness among localities and states about the portions of Emergency Rental Assistance Program and Fiscal Recovery Fund dollars available for legal services, and work to make these funding sources permanent.
Local and state governments should:
Enact and implement a right to counsel for renters facing eviction in their jurisdictions.
Support research and evaluation that assesses longer-term outcomes and identify best practices of right to counsel efforts.
Eviction is a gender justice issue. It is a racial justice issue. It is an economic justice issue. It is a children’s rights issue. And it is a civil liberties issue. The research demonstrates that the right to counsel effectively mitigates and prevents the serious harms of eviction and gives families a fighting chance to stay in their homes and communities. Ensuring a right to counsel for renters in eviction proceedings can play a vital role in helping to address systemic inequity and our nation’s inexcusable failure to invest in affordable housing for all.
In today’s world — whether in classrooms or on social media platforms — many people are conflicted and confused by what actually constitutes free speech. That’s why we figured now would be an excellent time to talk about it. We sourced questions over email, our phone line, and social media, and received hundreds of responses from our audience.
After sorting through the questions, we produced a three-part “Ask an Expert” series on our At Liberty podcast channel featuring the ACLU’s Director of Speech, Privacy, and Technology and legal advisor to Edward Snowden, Ben Wizner. Listen below as Ben answers supporter questions about the First Amendment.
Episode 1: What Is Free Speech?
Here, we get back to the basics with Free Speech 101, addressing hate speech, misinformation, government regulation of corporate speech, cancel culture, and why we defend free speech.
What are the rights of social media platforms to control speech online? How are platforms different from a newspaper or a public square? What are my individual rights to post online?
Can schools ban books or remove them from their library without warning or review? What are my rights as a student to fight for my right to learn? The Supreme Court addressed student speech online — remind me what happened?
The ACLU remains committed to defending our fundamental right to free speech. Most recently, the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology team has been working to fight against classroom censorship bills and book bans taking hold in classrooms and libraries nationwide, to defend our right to freedom of expression online, and to support our First Amendment right at the Supreme Court, among other work.
For more from our Ask an Expert series and weekly episodes on today’s most pressing civil rights and civil liberties issues, subscribe to At Liberty wherever you get your podcasts.
In today’s world — whether in classrooms or on social media platforms — many people are conflicted and confused by what actually constitutes free speech. That’s why we figured now would be an excellent time to talk about it. We sourced questions over email, our phone line, and social media, and received hundreds of responses from our audience.
After sorting through the questions, we produced a three-part “Ask an Expert” series on our At Liberty podcast channel featuring the ACLU’s Director of Speech, Privacy, and Technology and legal advisor to Edward Snowden, Ben Wizner. Listen below as Ben answers supporter questions about the First Amendment.
Episode 1: What Is Free Speech?
Here, we get back to the basics with Free Speech 101, addressing hate speech, misinformation, government regulation of corporate speech, cancel culture, and why we defend free speech.
What are the rights of social media platforms to control speech online? How are platforms different from a newspaper or a public square? What are my individual rights to post online?
Can schools ban books or remove them from their library without warning or review? What are my rights as a student to fight for my right to learn? The Supreme Court addressed student speech online — remind me what happened?
The ACLU remains committed to defending our fundamental right to free speech. Most recently, the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology team has been working to fight against classroom censorship bills and book bans taking hold in classrooms and libraries nationwide, to defend our right to freedom of expression online, and to support our First Amendment right at the Supreme Court, among other work.
For more from our Ask an Expert series and weekly episodes on today’s most pressing civil rights and civil liberties issues, subscribe to At Liberty wherever you get your podcasts.
A Promising Appointment Brings Hope for Federal Clemency Applicants
In late April, President Biden announced that he would commute the sentences of 75 people, and pardon three others. It was his first act of clemency as president, and a welcome development for those of us in the criminal justice reform world who have been waiting for him to leverage this executive power. The use of that power — which has broad public support — was a good first step. At the ACLU, where we are advocating for the release of 50,000 people from federal and state prisons through our Redemption Campaign, we were heartened to see him take this step. But if the president is to fulfill his commitment to justice and equity, there is a lot more work to be done.
We have reason to hope this administration will continue to take steps in the right direction. Earlier this month, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a former public defender to oversee the office that reviews federal clemency applications. The perspective of Elizabeth Oyer, who represented criminal defendants in Maryland for nearly a decade, is a welcome addition. It’s an encouraging development that a person who has represented people charged with crimes and understands the imbalance of power in federal criminal prosecutions would be the arbiter of relief from that system.
Criminal defense lawyers, and public defenders in particular, understand the power of prosecutors to use their broad discretion to charge people with crimes that drive extreme sentences. This power and how it has been wielded is the reason 98 percent of people charged with a crime opt not to go to trial. The stakes are too high, and the opportunity for relief is minimal outside of the clemency power of the president.
Further, criminal defense lawyers are likely to understand that the elderly and those who were sentenced more harshly than they would be under today’s laws deserve to reap the benefits of changes in sentencing laws. A criminal defense lawyer like Oyer will understand that those charged with violent crimes, especially those who committed the crime before the age of 25, should be given a second chance. The data shows that people age out of crime — including those who commit violent crimes — and that older people who are released are unlikely to reoffend.
Oyer likely also understands that those who do opt to go to trial are severely penalized for exercising that right. After a conviction at trial, defendants face longer sentences than those who plead guilty. Often referred to as the “trial penalty,” the sentence after exercising their constitutional right to trial is exponentially greater.
The Office of Pardon Attorney is one of the only ways for those convicted of a federal crime to obtain relief after appeals have been exhausted. This office determines which cases get reviewed by the deputy attorney general, White House counsel, and ultimately the president. If this gatekeeper brings the perspective and experience that comes with being a public defender, redemption is possible. Oyer has worked in close proximity to the people and families who are most impacted by the criminal legal system, and the actors within that system.
If the new pardon attorney has a willingness to listen to criminal justice advocates, to introduce transparency into the review process, and to dislodge the backlog of applications, there is a chance that clemency is moving in the right direction. Next, we need the deputy attorney general, White House counsel, and President Biden to listen and heed the guidance of someone who understands the criminal legal system from the perspective of those it harms. The appointment of a former public defender is a promising start.
What you can do:
Tell Governors: Embrace Clemency As A Pathway To Redemption
Grenada: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Grenada
Published May 10, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
