Moran and Carbado 8 (Rachel F. and Devon W., Moran: Dean of UCLA School of Law, and Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor of Law/Carbado: Law Professor at UCLA—expert in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law, Critical Race Theory, and Criminal Adjudication Race Law StoriesNew York, NY : Foundation Press 2008 page 527-528, cayla_)
A competing vision of equal protection views the constitutional harm as systemic rather than atomistic. Instead of focusing on individual victims and perpetrators, this view emphasizes the eradication of inequalities among groups, with respect to such social goods as higher education, access to public contracts, and political power.A systemic approach places a premium on examining how historical practices have served to create material inequalities among racial groups, so as to necessitate group-based remedial action. In the early days of VRA enforcement, neither Congress nor the Court had to choose between these two visions because both counseled in favor of dismantling barriers to African Americans’ participation. After the elimination of blatantly discriminatory practices like the literacy test, however, the systemic perspective counseled in favor of race-conscious redistricting to promote minority representation, while the atomistic perspective suggested a race-blind approach. The Justice Department selected the systemic path, refusing to pre-clear plans without sufficient majority-minority districts, and Congress signaled approval of this vision through the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. In Shaw I, the Court suggested that this path is inconsistent with equal protection because righting individual wrongs is all that matters. The Court’s commitment to the atomistic theory of equal protection is epitomized by a change that Justice O’Connor made to the Shaw v. Reno opinion at the request of Chief Justice Rehnquist. The first two drafts of her opinion observed that: “Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions and carry us further from the goal of a fully integrated society that the Fourteenth Amendment embodies....” An internal memorandum from the Chief Justice objected to this language, stating: “The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination; it does not require integration, and I think it is a mistake to intimate that it does even as a ‘goal.’ ”170 Put another way, government does wrong when it distinguishes between individuals based on race; consequently, government has no affirmative obligation to promote integration or, more broadly, substantive racial equality in politics or any other sphere.
Our alternative is Intergroup, rather than sub-groups – Intergroup allows for focus on sameness, rather than difference and brings multiple communities together
APA 8 (American Psychological Association—leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, Commemorating Brown: the Social Psychology of Racism and Discrimination Washington, DC 2008, page 57-58, cayla_)
Here disciplinary needs and the desire to contribute to a nonracist society converge. Social psychology is the most individually and situationally focused of all the social sciences (C. W. Stephan, Stephan, & Pettigrew, 1991). However, broad social problems such as racism sweep across all levels of analysis from the individual to the macroinstitutional. Future advances in the discipline require closer links with macroinstitutional levels—from the economic to the political and cultural. Insights of the other social sciences can inform social psychology, and in turn, social psychological insights can inform the other social sciences. Moreover, the relevance of social psychology for contributing to the resolution of major social problems of many types requires such links (see chap. 5, this volume). Intergroup contact illustrates the point. I noted earlier that contact reduces prejudice over a broader spectrum of conditions than Allport (1954) had originally envisaged with his theory. To be sure, negative experiences in outgroup contact can heighten prejudice—especially when realistic and symbolic threats are involved (W. G. Stephan et al., 2002; W. G. Stephan & Stephan, 2000). However, the full meta-analysis of contact and prejudice studies involving 250,000 subjects revealed that contact typically diminishes prejudice over an extensive range of situations and target groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Thus, intergroup contact theory has emerged as one of social psychology’s strongest methods for combating intergroup prejudice. Intergroup contact occurs within the context of institutional structures. Thus, this disciplinary insight runs straight into the wall of racial segregation. The review in this chapter has shown the massive degree of residential and educational segregation that remains in America—and to some degree this situation is actually worsening. Social psychology must fashion contact theory to the particular institutional settings—neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces— where Black and White Americans actually meet. This need suggests more field and longitudinal research on intergroup contact with an eye on the policy relevance of the findings. It also suggests that social psychologists must become more involved in the racial realities of the wider society.
LGBT movements have faced similar discrimination—The Patriot Act and stigmatization of immigrants
AFSC et. al 13 (American Friends Service Committee, a Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) founded organization working for peace and social justice in the United States and around the world (Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment, Population and Development Program, Hampshire College) “Militarized Zones: Gender, Race, Immigration, Environment” A Special Issue of Political Environments (PE No.10) November 2013 www.cwpe.org/files/militarized-zones.pdf , cayla_)
Regardless of one’s position on the war, a cloud hangs over us all—a cloud of growing repression, surveillance of domestic civic and religious organizations against whom there is no evidence of wrong doing, and invasive information-gathering programs used by the Pentagon and other government agencies to strengthen the war machine. The USA Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Total Information Awareness program, and other repressive measures trample rights and erode constitutional principles. The Patriot Act, for example, is vague and diffuse enough to paint LGBT people speaking out against the war, or even marching in a gay rights parade, as “terrorists” working to overthrow the government. The LGBT movement in the United States thrives in no small measure because the legal framework of civil rights and constitutional rights, and reasonable government checks and balances, however imperfectly realized, support us in our struggle for justice. Today, however, those checks and balances are weakened, and the legal framework of rights is corroded. LGBT people have never fared well in politically charged climates when governments say that it is necessary to sacrifice rights in order to achieve safety. The question LGBT communities must confront is this: Whose safety will be increased by erosion of rights? Whose safety will be further jeopardized? Finally, war on Iraq and “the War on Terror” will not protect the human rights of LGBT people in war-torn countries. The International Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) says, “The U.S. policies of military aggression have served to render those who deviate from sexual and gender norms and people living with HIV/AIDS especially vulnerable to state-sanctioned violence and discrimination.” As citizens and residents of the United States, we feel a special responsibility to join with many others worldwide to speak out when we feel that this country’s actions are immoral, unjust, and dangerous. We believe we are morally obligated to resist when particular policies lead neither to justice nor peace, but only to a widening spiral of human suffering and ecological catastrophe. We oppose the “War on Terror” today so that tomorrow the United States could use its status as a leading world power to strengthen, rather than undermine, the values of international law, international cooperation, multilateralism, human rights, and economic security for all peoples. Impacts on LGBT Communities Racial Profiling & The War on Immigrant Communities As a direct result of the racial profiling of all immigrants, LGBT immigrants are in jeopardy. Al-Fatiha Foundation (LGBTQI Muslims and friends), South Asian Lesbian and Gay Alliance (SALGA), and many other LGBT organizations serving Arab, Muslim, South and Central Asian, and Latino communities are being deluged by immigration and deportation issues and concerns. Many are reporting increased problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Community based LGBT organizations serving immigrant constituencies generally operate with small budgets, and with the escalation of the “War on Terror,” resources are being stretched beyond capacity. Few immigrant and refugee rights organizations have developed a systemic capacity to help LGBT immigrants. LGBT activists of Arab and South or Central Asian descent face special obstacles and risks in traveling. Some choose not to travel outside the United States, even for religious pilgrimage, for fear of not being permitted back into the country. Some are taking refuge in Canada. The “special registration” program of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is spreading fear and confusion in immigrant communities and heightening war fever throughout the U.S. by stigmatizing immigrants as a threat to national security. By institutionalizing the racist presumption that immigrants are terrorists, it reinforces the drive for war. Mass roundups of immigrants, secret detentions, detention without charges, and denial of legal counsel to detainees, are now “acceptable” practices. Many people have been detained or face deportation orders because of confusion, backlog, and hopelessly complex and poorly understood procedures within the INS itself. Those who fall in the net of immigration authorities may be deported and barred from the United States for life. The policing of the already heavily militarized U.S.-Mexico border has intensified, placing severe strains and hardship on border crossers and border communities. Human rights abuses are commonplace.