Entrada: Slavery, Religion and Reconciliation

Each year, Santa Fe, NM celebrates a Fiesta. One component, the Entrada, celebrate the peaceful re-conquest of the Indigenous people by the Spanish colonizers. Controversy has arisen in recent years as activists challenge the memorialization of a tradition that they feel represents slavery and brutality. Linking their struggle to recent efforts to remove memorials to the Confederacy, they have sought to physically block the re-enactment, leading to arrests, collateral conflict, and the threat of future violence. How do we move forward as a society with the legacy of slavery that built this region and country: This article examines the historical, sociological, legal and religious conflict surrounding the Entrada. It creates a model for addressing a reconciliation not only of that conflict, but also the broader controversies regarding memorials, monuments and re-enactments of our complicated inheritance of slavery and conquest

Toward Domestic Recognition of a Human Right to Language

There is no clearly defined “right to language” in the United States. Yet, there do exist sources of such a right. For example, a constitutionally protected right to express oneself or receive communications in a language other than English is supported by a number of federal court decisions. Further, there may be a first amendment right to receive broadcast programming in languages other than English, and some federal statutes even provide a guarantee of the exercise of language rights in a number of public and civic contexts. In spite of these sources for a right to language, it is an unfortunate reality that many monolingual persons in the United States feel threatened by the use of a language they do not understand, and exhibit hostility toward the concept of legal recognition of the right to use any language other than English. But while no one would seriously challenge the fact that English is the predominant language in this country, it does not follow that the native speaker of a language other than English should be officially stripped of his or her tongue in order to obtain English proficiency and socio-economic success. Instead, it is time to recognize a human right to language in the United States. By analyzing the existing sources of a right to language and the many reasons to be willing to accommodate more than one language, an analytical framework for the recognition of the human right to language can be developed. Only through such a framework can a clearly defined right to language can be established, and a right to language is necessary if the United States is to avoid the disenfranchisement of countless voters and the imposition of second-class status and feelings of inferiority upon countless children

Gender Segregation In The Public Schools; Opportunity, Inequality, Or Both?

Should the public schools be allowed to segregate girls from boys in the classroom? There is a history of single-sex education in this country, but there are concerns about single gender classrooms. In recent decades, researchers have begun to assert that requiring boys and girls to be taught together has a negative impact on the educational progress because of inherent differences in boy/girl learning behavior, or even in the development of their brains. Proponents of gender exclusive classrooms point out the voluntary nature of the programs, and the explicit findings of the Department of Education justifying such programs. Opponents argue that the separate but equal analogy applies and there is inadequate scientific justification of these programs. Under the United States v. Virginia analysis, the policy permitting same gender classrooms would need to be supported by genuine educational justifications to survive a constitutional challenge. These programs raise obvious issues as to whether they are indeed voluntary. After decades of struggle to eliminate gender stereotypes and barriers, we should be very cautious about re-imposing them in the form of segregated classrooms. In the absence of exceedingly persuasive empirical justification, and unless it can be shown that continuing the programs will do no harm, it might now be time to curtail the experiment

The Glass Half-Full: A Rational/Radical Approach to Immigration Reform

The problems the United States faces in redirecting immigration policies cannot be successfully addressed by a quick fix immigration “reform.” The legal, economic, sociological, political, racial, and moral issues are too complex and have been largely unresolved. As a result, it is unrealistic to expect political leaders to develop an easy solution that will satisfy the myriad competing and conflicting concerns. Most of the calls for reform are not issued by individuals completely aware of the extent of immigration regulation and of its impact on American society. Rather, calls come from those with relatively narrow interests from all ranges of the political spectrum. These calls for reform further focus on only a few narrow areas, without fully considering the impact on the rest of the immigration law scheme or the rest of the American constitutional scheme for that matter. However, there is a more rational approach to analyzing the areas where the calls for reform have been heard the loudest, and this analysis leads to what might be considered a radical approach to immigration reform—to first acknowledge what is right about American immigration policies and processes. The only real hope to reconstruct an equitable immigration policy that serves national interests is to honestly and openly discuss, debate, and analyze the underlying and most often unspoken concerns at the heart of the immigration challenge. And Americans must be willing to concede that, more often than not, the American system of immigration, while far from perfect, might actually be working

Respecting the Identity and Dignity of All Indigenous Americans

The United States government attempted to eliminate Native Americans through outright physical extermination and later by the eradication of Indian identity through a boarding school system and other paper genocide mechanisms. One of those mechanisms is the recognition of some Natives but not the majority, including those who ancestors were enslaved. The assistance provided to recognized tribes by the government is inadequate to compensate for the historical and continuing suffering these people endure. And yet the problem is compounded for those unrecognized Natives whose ancestors were enslaved and whose tribal identity was erased. They are subjected to a double-barreled discrimination. That is, they suffer the same discrimination and deprivation of resources as their recognized brothers and sisters yet are unable to qualify for government assistance. The system thus pits recognized Indians against unrecognized Indians in a struggle for inadequate resources. This leaves the majority of American Indians striving to survive as they attempt to maintain their Indian identity and dignity. While they continue to preserve the cultural and religious practices of their ancestors, they often find themselves to be the victims of pretendian attacks. This Article examines an approach to resolving this conflict, respecting the identity and dignity of all Indigenous Americans

Respecting the Identity and Dignity of All Indigenous Americans

The United States government attempted to eliminate Native Americans through outright physical extermination and later by the eradication of Indian identity through a boarding school system and other paper genocide mechanisms. One of those mechanisms is the recognition of some Natives but not the majority, including those who ancestors were enslaved. The assistance provided to recognized tribes by the government is inadequate to compensate for the historical and continuing suffering these people endure. And yet the problem is compounded for those unrecognized Natives whose ancestors were enslaved and whose tribal identity was erased. They are subjected to a double-barreled discrimination. That is, they suffer the same discrimination and deprivation of resources as their recognized brothers and sisters yet are unable to qualify for government assistance. The system thus pits recognized Indians against unrecognized Indians in a struggle for inadequate resources. This leaves the majority of American Indians striving to survive as they attempt to maintain their Indian identity and dignity. While they continue to preserve the cultural and religious practices of their ancestors, they often find themselves to be the victims of pretendian attacks. This Article examines an approach to resolving this conflict, respecting the identity and dignity of all Indigenous Americans

If the Pope Is Infallible, Why Does He Need Lawyers?

One of the most widely misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church involves the doctrine of papal infallibility. As a theological matter, papal infallibility is quite narrow. However, the widespread misconception that all Catholics must believe their Pope cannot make mistakes helped create resentment against Catholics for centuries, which has taken the form of physical attacks, political exclusion, and virulent anti-Catholic propaganda. While the Catholic Church is no longer under direct physical attack, contemporaneous efforts seek to hold the Pope and the Church civilly and criminally liable in various contexts. In some instances, the Pope, acting as the head of the Catholic religion in implementing theological practices, is afforded civil protection. In other cases, the Pope is afforded protection by another legal doctrine involving the “head of state” and related immunity against private civil claims recognized under international law. In these as well as other situations, the Pope requires legal representation. Following examination of the doctrine of papal infallibility, its political equivalent in the “head of state” immunity, and the unique status of the Holy See, an attempt can be made to understand how and why counsel is selected to represent the Holy See

Of Pigeonholes and Prospective Jurors

Serving on a jury is one of the most integral components of participation in our democratic society. Everyday the judicial system places their confidence in the juror’s ability to abandon their emotions and predilections in order to reach an impartial decision. Given the frequency in which the courts entrust such a responsibility to monolingual English speakers, why have they not afforded the same deference to their bilingual counterparts? The Supreme Court’s holding in Hernandez v. New York, essentially created precedent that would prevent bilingual speakers from being selected to perform jury service; the rationale being that bilingual jurors would not be able to submit to the English translation of testimony and evidence after having associated their own notions and images to the original language used. This decision disregards the real judicial objectives of discovering the truth and, given the common connection between an individual’s ability to speak multiple languages and their racial and ethnic background, creates a fine line between favoritism on the basis of language and racial discrimination. Legislatures and courts should avoid sacrificing the integrity of the judicial process and instead adopt the view that bilingual ability facilitates and maintains the strength of the fact-finding process and should be sought after instead of obstructe