WOODBRIDGE, Va. — Hispanic families accounted for the largest single decline in wealth of any ethnic and racial group in the country during the recession, according to a study published Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

The study, which used data collected by the Census Bureau, found that the median wealth of Hispanic households fell by 66 percent from 2005 to 2009. By contrast, the median wealth of whites fell by just 16 percent over the same period. African Americans saw their wealth drop by 53 percent. Asians also saw a big decline, with household wealth dropping 54 percent.

The Joint Action Plan to Promote Racial Equality in Brazil and the U.S. (JAPER) Will Distribute Rosetta Stone Scholarships to Scholars, Researchers and Activists Working on Racial Equality and Brazil

JAPER, a bilateral agreement between the United States and Brazil, will distribute 300 language training scholarships to scholars, researchers and activists in the U.S.. The scholarships will facilitate Portuguese learning in the U.S.. They will be managed by Rosetta Stone, a world leader in online language courses and they will cover a one-year period.

Civil society participants in JAPER are preferred, along with individuals and organizations that work in the area of racial justice and have an articulable interest in comparative or collaborative work with counterparts in Brazil.

From ColorLines.com

by Akiba Solomon, Stokely Baksh

Friday, June 17 2011, 11:40 AM ES

On June 17, 1971, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one in the United States.” To eradicate this enemy, he called for “a new, all-out offensive.” But 40 years of get-tough policies haven’t ended substance abuse. Instead, as “The New Jim Crow” author Michelle Alexander recently told a crowd of 1,000 at Harlem’s Riverside Church, “The enemy in this war has been racially defined. The drug war, not by accident, has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color.”

At the estimated cost of $1 trillion, the War on Drugs has triggered the mass incarceration, mostly of black and brown people through harsh penalties for non-violent drug violations like simple possession. It hasencouraged racial profiling in the name of enforcement. In addition, people with drug convictions (and their families) have been evicted from public housing, deemed ineligible for food stamps and college financial aid, and denied employment. This failed war has destroyed mothers, fathers, children, grandparents—whole communities. 

One thing it hasn’t done: End the use and sale of drugs. 

From theGrio.com

By Lawrence C. Ross

07/05/2011

Last week, affirmative action advocates won a victory when the U.S Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit declared the Michigan's 2006 ban on affirmative action, the referendum titled Proposal 2 or the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, unconstitutional. The 2-1 ruling by the court reverses an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge David Lawson, who upheld the constitutionality of Proposal 2.

In its reversal, the Court of Appeals stated that Proposal 2 "unconstitutionally alters Michigan's political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities," or in essence, the fact that white Michiganders voted to impose a law that affected minorities primarily, was unfair.

While this ruling will probably be ruled up by the full 6th Circuit, and if need be, by the United States Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is expected to uphold the precedent banning affirmative action, the reasoning for the overturning is what is probably the most interesting aspect of ruling. Are African-Americans, Latinos and other racial minorities unduly hurt by the referendum process, when the public policy is focused on them?

The referendum process allows for citizens to petition to place legislation on the ballot to overturn laws already passed by the legislature. Some of the most famous referendums which targeted minorities originated in California, with the 1994 ballot initiative Proposition 187, which sought to prevent illegal immigrants from using state social services like health care and public schools; and the 1996 anti-affirmative action Proposition 209, lead by anti-affirmative action advocate, and former University of California regent, Ward Connerly.

Connerly, a conservative black Republican, began his crusade against affirmative action by targeting its use in the admissions to the University of California system. His argument was that Asians were underrepresented, while African-Americans and Latinos were overrepresented due to affirmative action, which he considered to be racist.

From the Economist 

Aug 5th 2010 | SÃO PAULO | from the print edition

BRAZIL’S Supreme Court is wrestling with one of the toughest dilemmas in politics: which is preferable, absolute equality before the law or discrimination in favour of disadvantaged races? This is a surprise, for until recently Brazil liked to see itself as a true melting pot.

Like America, it has significant minorities of blacks, indigenous peoples and European immigrants; it even has the world’s biggest populations of Japanese outside Japan and Lebanese anywhere. Unlike Americans, Brazilians rarely classify themselves by race. One survey listed 136 sample skin colours. At the last census, 38% simply said they were mixed.

Although Brazil’s races are not separate, they are not equal, either. Blacks earn about half as much as whites, and have five years of education, compared with whites’ eight. In June Congress passed a “statute of racial equality”; but it steered clear of positive discrimination.

The trouble is that such policies conflict with Brazil’s tradition of legal race-blindness. Since the country abolished slavery in 1888 its laws have been racially neutral. It has had no Jim Crow laws. But nor does it have a legal basis for positive discrimination. Three cases involving such action are before the highest court.

One concerns Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), the first big public institution to use racial quotas. In 2002 it began reserving half its places for state-school graduates, and 40% of those were for blacks and Indians. The second involves ProUni, a federal programme set up in 2004 to give poor children scholarships to private universities. The aid is tied to the share of blacks and others, making it the first federal programme with a racial component.

The third case, dealing with federal universities, is probably the most important. About 70 universities have introduced schemes to broaden their student intake, from simple quotas to points-based systems that count race as one factor. The court is hearing a case against the University of Brasília, one of the most prestigious, as a test for the others. This, says Oscar Vilhena Vieira, a lawyer arguing for the quotas, has the widest application and most directly examines whether positive discrimination is constitutional.

The problem facing those in favour of quotas is not only Brazil’s preference for racially blind laws, but also the practicalities. In a melting pot, who is black? The problems facing their opponents are that blacks are clearly disadvantaged; that the programmes seem to work (black enrolment shot up at UERJ after quotas came in) and that the constitution does permit positive discrimination for some, like the disabled. Why not blacks? That is for the court to answer.