Women's Rights Employment Law Blog

Former lawyer gets city cash

Minorities report bias in second-home areas

Town denies police discrimination claims

Studying whites can help race relations

Divisive 'Survivor' exploits ethnic clichés

Police Shoot Man During Domestic Violence Call

Cement City man arrested on assault, domestic violence charges

In what appears to be grotesquely insufficient punitive action, a man has been sentenced to only 90 days in jail on a misdemeanor charge, with credit for 72 days served.

The crime? He is a serial domestic abuser, and this time his victim’s stomach was burnt with hot skillet, cut with a knife, and abused on a regular basis. “He got a slap on the wrist”, said Regina Hawkins, the domestic violence surviver.

What defies logic is that even as this abuser Dusty Bowman, 33, had been previously convicted of domestic violence charge, and this time he fled the Tri-State to evade arrests, the sentence has still been this inconsequential.

More researches suggest that the conviction cases in domestic abuses are pathetically low, whereas the amount of abuses is astronomically high. One can possibly find reasons within the very sexist framework of judiciary system that’s hugely dominated by men. Two, there have not been enough serious efforts to sensitize the lawmakers about the uniqueness of the domestic abuse cases.

Most often, the judges cite lack of enough evidence for the absence of appropriate conviction. But the reality is such an argument is fallacious simply because not all cases will be able to produce desired evidence. For one, the victim of domestic abuse already lives in a highly vulnerable condition. The vulnerability extends to the workplace which is male-centric and hostile. And usually, the victim has other responsibilities, such as children. Within the existing domains, to expect that the survivor “promptly” reports abuse by just normally walking out of the door is a highly improbable proposition.

As a rule, the law and order administrators and executors are dominantly male, and uncritically judgmental. And the domestic survivors face the dual oppression of the abuser, and the larger sexist system that perpetuates the abuse. The sooner we realize the need for radical reforms to the existing laws to uniquely accommodate domestic abuse cases with some exceptions, the better it will be.

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has ignited a controversy by criticizing the Missouri State University for its anti-discrimination policy. Terming it as “unnecessary”, and “disappointing”, the state Governor said the policy of including “sexual orientation” in the school’s anti-discrimination policy was actually a “bad” decision based on “political correctness”.

Yes, this is the state of the nation today where even the highest of political representatives are vocally advocating homophobia. Responding to such a disturbing reaction of the governor, the state university president Dr Michael Nietzel has in fact gone defensive. He said the policy was just a clarification of an criterion, not an addition on its own. He even has said he appreciates the governor’s support throughout for the latter’s contribution to public higher education.

The classic dilemma in this situation is quite apparent, with on the one hand, the academia makes a progress on a desirable direction, and on the other, the direction’s facilitation largely lies with the conservative politicians who finally release the grants. No wonder, with inclusion of this anti-discrimination policy, MSU may face the funding music sometimes soon. Because for now, the board of governors who passed the resolution are yet to get over the Governor’s tunes, which rang thus:

“I do not believe today's vote was necessary and am disappointed with those who pressed for it while more pressing matters command the administration and the board's full attention. Today's decision bows to the forces of political correctness. It was unnecessary and bad."

From the desk of Womensrightsblog, MSU gets kudos for displaying courage of conviction. For the records, the current policy of the university is the following:

"Missouri State University is a community of people with respect for diversity. The University emphasizes the dignity and equality common to all persons and adheres to a strict nondiscrimination policy regarding the treatment of individual faculty, staff, and students. In accord with federal law and applicable Missouri statutes, the University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, or veteran status in employment or in any program or activity offered or sponsored by the University. In addition, the University does not discriminate on any basis not related to the applicable educational requirements for students or the applicable job requirements for employees."

But now, after revision, the last sentence would now read:

“In addition, the University does not discriminate on any basis (including, but not limited to, political affiliation and sexual orientation) not related to the applicable educational requirements for students or the applicable job requirements for employees.”

Sexual Orientation and Political Beliefs! More power to the university for acknowledging the attacks on gays and peaceniks. That’s looking beyond the Ivory Tower. When will the politicians emerge decent enough to look beyond the White House?

Lawrence Journal-World has an analysis this week on the difficulties faced in prosecuting domestic violence cases. It showcases some specific domestic violence incidents to demonstrate how charges in these cases are frequently dropped. The report discusses how recent crimes in the area, including a beating that led to the death of a repeat victim, have raised questions about how well the criminal justice system deals with domestic violence.

Eric Weslander writes:

“Partly because of the unique nature of the crime, prosecutors acknowledge charges are dropped much more frequently in domestic cases than in other crimes. Factors driving that include the back-and-forth nature of relationships, the potential for intimidation of the victim and a law that requires police to make arrests whether the case is ultimately strong enough to prosecute or not.”

A federal law 1994 Violence Against Women Act brought about changes to the ways domestic battery cases were handled by the courts. It enabled formation of protection-from-abuse orders that could be enforced across state lines, released more money for police training and support for prosecutors’ offices in handling domestic-violence cases.

But even as the law requires police to make an arrest if they find evidence of domestic violence upon their arrival, the result of the cases vary depending on the what follows in the courtrooms which have been described as not very adept at handling such cases.

There is largely a vague understanding among attorneys and judges who still view domestic battery as an interpersonal problem instead of a crime, thus leading the cases to nowhere.

ABC News has a news story following the murder of a Lawrence-area woman by her boyfriend. (Please click the link to watch the video)

Even as cases of domestic violence are hogging headlines, federal grants in the direction to contain and sensitize the issue are reportedly on the decline.

At least seven domestic-violence shelters and three legal-aid agencies that are funded by the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education will be unable to help potentially hundreds of victims of domestic violence in Arizona.

The Arizona Republic reports that shelters may be forced to close down in want of grants as low as $17,000. In fact, domestic-violence shelters are making up their losses through donations from affiliated thrift stores!

Not that it surprises us, considering that when the hawks wage a masculine war by not keeping the balances well, they can only leave the victimized women behind in unkept shelters.

Cases of domestic violence incidents involving pets are on the rise. The Bay City News Wire
reports a Vacaville resident John Vincent is facing a felony charge of cruelty to animals in addition to charges of felony attempted homicide, felony kidnapping, felony criminal threats and felony spousal battery following a violent argument he allegedly had Friday with an unidentified female victim.

The suspect had thrown the pet cat against a wall and dropped a bed onto it during an argument with the female victim.

"You work in the factory all of your life
Try to provide for your kids & your wife
When you get too old to produce anymore
They hand you your hat & they show you the door

Too old to work, too old to work
When you’re too old to work & you’re too young to die
Who will take care of you, how’ll you get by
When you’re too old to work & you’re too young to die?

You don’t ask for favors when your life is thru
You’ve got a right to what’s coming to you
Your boss gets a pension when he is too old
You helped him retire—you’re out in the cold

There’s no easy answer, there’s no easy cure
Dreaming wont change it, that’s one thing for sure
But fighting together we’ll get there some day
And when we have won we will no longer say:

Too old to work, too old to work
When you’re too old to work & you’re too young to die"

(Joe Glazer, 1950)

After six decades of relentlessly using his union songs as radical weapon against industrial exploitation of American working class, legendary Joe Glazer was forever “too young to die”. And yet, although his songs will continue to inspire the labor movements worldwide, he is no more among us.

New York Times paying a glowing tribute today says, “First an employee of the textile workers union, then the rubber workers union, Mr. Glazer, a burly, affable man, marshaled his booming baritone and thumping guitar to rally union loyalists and sympathizers in almost every state and 60 countries.”

A walkathon is being organized in Stockton, California to raise awareness about domestic violence.

The event “Break the Silence on Family Violence” is a walkathon of three miles. Proceeds will benefit the Women's Center of San Joaquin County in assisting survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in south San Joaquin County.

The Record says that pledge and registration forms are available at Starbucks locations and at the Women's Center's satellite office inside Healthy Connections, 35 E. 10th St., Tracy. Forms are also available at the Women's Center's main office, 620 N. San Joaquin St., Stockton.

Registration begins at 8 a.m. at Starbucks, 1857 W. 11th St. The walkathon starts at 9 a.m. For more information or route details, call the Women's Center of San Joaquin County at (209) 941-2611.

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence has outlined some extremely critical safety tips:

Domestic violence: Safety tips for you and your family
IF YOU ARE IN DANGER, CALL 911

or your local police emergency number

Or call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at (800) 799-SAFE or for hearing impaired (TTY), call (800) 787-3224.

Whether or not you feel able to leave an abuser, there are things you can do to make yourself and your family safer.

IN AN EMERGENCY

If you are at home and you are being threatened or attacked:

• Stay away from the kitchen (the abuser can find weapons, like knives, there).

• Stay away from bathrooms, closets or small spaces where the abuser can trap you.

• Get to a room with a door or window to escape.

• Get to a room with a phone to call for help; lock the abuser outside if you can.

• Call 911 (or your local emergency number) right away for help; get the dispatcher's name.

• Think about a neighbor or friend you can run to for help.

• If a police officer comes, tell him/her what happened; get his/her name and badge number.

• Get medical help if you are hurt.

• Take pictures of bruises or injuries.

• Call a domestic violence program or shelter (some are listed here); ask them to help you make a safety plan.

HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF AT HOME

• Learn where to get help; memorize emergency phone numbers.

• Keep a phone in a room you can lock from the inside; if you can, get a cellular phone that you keep with you at all times.

• If the abuser has moved out, change the locks on your door; get locks on the windows.

• Plan an escape route out of your home; teach it to your children.

• Think about where you would go if you need to escape.

• Ask your neighbors to call the police if they see the abuser at your house; make a signal for them to call the police, for example, if the phone rings twice, a shade is pulled down or a light is on.

• Pack a bag with important things you'd need if you had to leave quickly; put it in a safe place, or give it to a friend or relative you trust.

• Include cash, car keys and important information such as: court papers, passport or birth certificates, medical records and medicines, immigration papers.

• Get an unlisted phone number.

• Block caller ID.

• Use an answering machine; screen the calls.

• Take a good self-defense course.

HOW TO MAKE YOUR CHILDREN SAFER

• Teach them not to get in the middle of a fight, even if they want to help.

• Teach them how to get to safety, to call 911, to give your address and phone number to the police.

• Teach them who to call for help.

• Tell them to stay out of the kitchen.

• Give the principal at school or the daycare center a copy of your court order; tell them not to release your children to anyone without talking to you first; use a password so they can be sure it is you on the phone; give them a photo of the abuser.

• Make sure the children know who to tell at school if they see the abuser.

• Make sure that the school knows not to give your address or phone number to ANYONE.

HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF OUTSIDE THE HOME

• Change your regular travel habits.

• Try to get rides with different people.

• Shop and bank in a different place.

• Cancel any bank accounts or credit cards you shared; open new accounts at a different bank.

• Keep your court order and emergency numbers with you at all times.

• Keep a cell phone and program it to 911 (or other emergency number).

HOW TO MAKE YOURSELF SAFER AT WORK

• Keep a copy of your court order at work.

• Give a picture of the abuser to security and friends at work.

• Tell your supervisors - see if they can make it harder for the abuser to find you.

• Don't go to lunch alone.

• Ask a security guard to walk you to your car or to the bus.

• If the abuser calls you at work, save voice mail and save e-mail.

• Your employer may be able to help you find community resources.

USING THE LAW TO HELP YOU

Protection or Restraining Orders

• Ask your local domestic violence program who can help you get a civil protection order and who can help you with criminal prosecution.

• Ask for help in finding a lawyer.

In most places, the judge can:

• Order the abuser to stay away from you or your children.

• Order the abuser to leave your home.

• Give you temporary custody of your children and order the abuser to pay you temporary child support.

• Order the police to come to your home while the abuser picks up personal belongings.

• Give you possession of the car, furniture and other belongings.

• Order the abuser to go to a batterers intervention program.

• Order the abuser not to call you at work.

• Order the abuser to give guns to the police.

If you are worried about any of the following, make sure you:

• Show the judge any pictures of your injuries.

• Tell the judge that you do not feel safe if the abuser comes to your home to pick up the children to visit with them.

• Ask the judge to order the abuser to pick up and return the children at the police station or some other safe place.

• Ask that any visits the abuser is permitted are at very specific times so the police will know by reading the court order if the abuser is there at the wrong time.

• Tell the judge if the abuser has harmed or threatened the children; ask that visits be supervised; think about who could do that for you.

• Get a certified copy of the court order.

• Keep the court order with you at all times.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

• Show the prosecutor your court orders.

• Show the prosecutor medical records about your injuries or pictures if you have them.

• Tell the prosecutor the name of anyone who is helping you (a victim advocate or a lawyer).

• Tell the prosecutor about any witnesses to injuries or abuse.

• Ask the prosecutor to notify you ahead of time if the abuser is getting out of jail.

BE SAFE AT THE COURTHOUSE

• Sit as far away from the abuser as you can; you don't have to look at or talk to the abuser; you don't have to talk to the abuser's family or friends if they are there.

• Bring a friend or relative with you to wait until your case is heard.

• Tell a bailiff or sheriff that you are afraid of the abuser and ask him or her to look out for you.

• Make sure you have your court order before you leave.

• Ask the judge or the sheriff to keep the abuser there for a while when court is over; leave quickly.

• If you think the abuser is following you when you leave, call the police immediately.

• If you have to travel to another State for work or to get away from the abuser, take your protection order with you; it is valid everywhere.

Abby Bar-Lev of The Minnesota Daily has contributed a valuable addition to the Plan B discourse. She makes three major points:

With Plan B available behind the counter, more control is left in the hands of pharmacists. Hence, the decision to limit its availability to those older than 18 is discrimination based on subjective morality and political compromise, not scientific fact.

The women who are most in need of emergency contraception are being denied their rights: Women younger than 18 are the most vulnerable and should receive equal access to Plan B as those older than 18. Those being left behind in that equation are the youngest women, the women most unprepared to bear children and those with the most at stake by being denied emergency contraception.

We must not be placated with a decision that only veils itself in justice and science while denying equal access to the most vulnerable segment of our population. Equal access to emergency contraception for all is another battle to fight, and it is a battle that can and will be won.

Well said. We are in solidarity with you.

News update:
Chile has more progressive lawmakers in this regard.

Domestic violence suspect arrested

Pregnant women victims of housing bias

Warren County Settles Sexual Harassment Cases

State liable for sexual harassment by inmates

Police Officer Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Clerk files new sexual harassment complaint

County settles sexual harassment cases

Federal agency sues Las Vegas company for sexual harassment

Principal resigns amid sexual harassment charges

Light-duty work not to be treated lightly

Sexual harassment suit heads to federal court

Restaurant Ordered To Pay For Pregnancy Discrimination

Food distributor to settle sexual harassment suit

Police official quits after sexual harassment investigation

University EEOC office to offer sexual harassment training, learning

Race and gender based affirmative action is back into news since Michigan has become a battle place for debate. The dubious claims of Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) were decidedly refuted by the progressive circles in the state, although with elections approaching, more populist policies are raising heads back again.

But the most interesting corollary to the debate is the almost identical California Civil Rights Initiative, known as Proposition 209. In its tallest claim to make the state a colorblind model, 209 is shrouded with controversies. Dawson Bell of Detroit Free Press has offered an elaborate critique of comparative statistics and draws insightful inferences. With the number of black and Hispanic students enrolled at Berkeley falling sharply after 209 passed -- from 7.2% of all freshmen in 1995 to 3.2% three years later, it is worth the debate.

And with due compliment to Dubois, the problem of the 21st century still continues to be determined by the color line.

An Illinois state police officer has won a sexual harassment suit filed against the state agency. A federal jury has awarded investigator Belinda Storey $146,000 in damages after concluding that the state agency retaliated against her when she complained of being sexually harassed by a now-retired supervisory officer.

According to the decision, state police had unjustifiably given her inferior assignments and lower job-performance marks after she complained about the harassment.

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that retaliation against an employee filing a discrimination claim constitutes discrimination itself.

Simpson University president Larry McKinney seeks exception to the anti-discrimination bill in California. Currently, the bill bars discrimination in hiring or services on the basis of sexual orientation by any businesses or nonprofit organizations that receive state funding. The law will apply to those administering government programs filling a variety of needs, including veterans services, legal services and home-loan assistance.

Christian colleges had urged Schwarzenegger to veto the bill for fear it would deprive them of students who rely on state funding to students for higher education, since the colleges' hiring policies bar homosexuals.

“The majority of our students are California residents who receive that grant,” Simpson President McKinney said. “What I don't know ... is whether there would be any kind of exceptions made for religious organizations” whose beliefs oppose homosexuality, he said.

By Jack Tuckner, Esq.

The frustration that we progressives feel living in American today is embodied within the frame of one Sidney Bender, a man possessed of 8 decades of high living, high educational achievement, high native intelligence and presumably, high significant resources. None of these gifts seems to have rendered Mr. Bender very wise in my eyes, as he had this to say about his patriotism, such as it is, when questioned by a reporter during the memorial services at Ground Zero on Sunday:

Near ground zero, where hundreds of people lined the streets to await the president, Sidney Bender, a 79-year-old lawyer from Searington on Long Island and a lifelong Democrat, said that he felt it was his patriotic duty to greet him.

“The trouble is the country has forgotten about 9/11,” Mr. Bender said. “Most of the people have gone about their business, which is all right, but you can’t forget about it. You’ve got to make sure we’re constantly vigilant because we’re at war.” He added, “Five years later, I’m even more supportive of the president.”

The fact that our President's lies (and the lies of his factotums), deceits, dog-wagging-the-tale spin on all things political as they relate to the business of producing and keeping to oneself (or at least within the control of "the haves and the have mores") the vast reserves of money that he and his cadre control, the duplicity, hypocrisy, mean-spiritedness, craven adherence to only one principle--the principle of maintaining perfect control over the distortions you disseminate and your own party's (and friend's) ability to continue to profit from the death, pain and destruction of other peoples and other lands (including our own people and lands), is still utterly lost on the likes of Sidney Bender, a man charged with the ability to critically think, a man with access to power, information and money, a man who could afford to be kind and compassionate in the twilight of his years if he so chose.

The fact that Sidney Bender no doubt believes that George Bush is a good man--a man with his heart in the right place--a man simply out there gunnin' for the bad guy while the good guys flourish and prosper, is anathema even to an 8-year old with a working brain and heart before she's polluted by the all-evil-all-the-time Corporate American Media. If Sidney Bender still supports this President, in the face of a 6 year deluge of data evincing an amoral vacuous hole in the West Wing as large as the 16 acre gash in the earth at Ground Zero, sucking everything good into its vortex, what's an average, middle American, Fox-television watching, Murdoch-tabloid reading Joe going to do for truth, justice and the American way. Pray? Hey--pray for us all. As our Prez says, the jury's still out on evolution--so I say, pass the pot and turn on American Idol.

So, on this, the 11th day of September, 2006, 5 years into what should have been the permanent end of our consumer-poisoned, frivolous innocence, let's celebrate our resilience, our resistance, our ability to pick up the pieces and move on, stronger, wiser and nobler than before--and to that end, let's commit to behaving in a manner that the rest of the civilized world does not perceive with utter contempt, given our torturous, anything-for-a-buck-lying American ways. Let's find the resolve to be proud of ourselves again. Let's try thinking again--and doing what's actually right--and questioning authority--and pushing back--just a little and just for a change--before we die under the weight of own hubris. Peace out.

Please read Frank Rich's compelling thought on the state of our Union 5 years later......

Whatever Happened to the America of 9/12?


By FRANK RICH
Published: September 10, 2006

“THE most famous picture nobody’s ever seen” is how the Associated Press photographer Richard Drew has referred to his photo of an unidentified World Trade Center victim hurtling to his death on 9/11. It appeared in some newspapers, including this one, on 9/12 but was soon shelved. “In the most photographed and videotaped day in the history of the world,” Tom Junod later wrote in Esquire, “the images of people jumping were the only images that became, by consensus, taboo.”

Five years later, Mr. Drew’s “falling man” remains a horrific artifact of the day that was supposed to change everything and did not. But there’s another taboo 9/11 photo, about life rather than death, that is equally shocking in its way, so much so that Thomas Hoepker of Magnum Photos kept it under wraps for four years. Mr. Hoepker’s picture can now be found in David Friend’s compelling new 9/11 book, “Watching the World Change,” or on the book’s Web site, watchingtheworldchange.com. It shows five young friends on the waterfront in Brooklyn, taking what seems to be a lunch or bike-riding break, enjoying the radiant late-summer sun and chatting away as cascades of smoke engulf Lower Manhattan in the background.

Mr. Hoepker found his subjects troubling. “They were totally relaxed like any normal afternoon,” he told Mr. Friend. “It’s possible they lost people and cared, but they were not stirred by it.” The photographer withheld the picture from publication because “we didn’t need to see that, then.” He feared “it would stir the wrong emotions.” But “over time, with perspective,” he discovered, “it grew in importance.”

Seen from the perspective of 9/11’s fifth anniversary, Mr. Hoepker’s photo is prescient as well as important — a snapshot of history soon to come. What he caught was this: Traumatic as the attack on America was, 9/11 would recede quickly for many. This is a country that likes to move on, and fast. The young people in Mr. Hoepker’s photo aren’t necessarily callous. They’re just American. In the five years since the attacks, the ability of Americans to dust themselves off and keep going explains both what’s gone right and what’s gone wrong on our path to the divided and dispirited state the nation finds itself in today.

At the National Cathedral prayer service on Sept. 14, 2001, President Bush found just the apt phrase to describe this phenomenon: “Today we feel what Franklin Roosevelt called ‘the warm courage of national unity.’ This is the unity of every faith and every background. It has joined together political parties in both houses of Congress.” What’s more, he added, “this unity against terror is now extending across the world.”The destruction of that unity, both in this nation and in the world, is as much a cause for mourning on the fifth anniversary as the attack itself. As we can’t forget the dead of 9/11, we can’t forget how the only good thing that came out of that horror, that unity, was smothered in its cradle.

When F.D.R. used the phrase “the warm courage of national unity,” it was at his first inaugural, in 1933, as the country reeled from the Great Depression. It is deeply moving to read that speech today. In its most famous line, Roosevelt asserted his “firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” Another passage is worth recalling, too: “We now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we cannot merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective.

”What followed under Roosevelt’s leadership is one of history’s most salutary stories. Americans responded to his twin entreaties — to renounce fear and to sacrifice for the common good — with a force that turned back economic calamity and ultimately an axis of brutal enemies abroad. What followed Mr. Bush’s speech at the National Cathedral, we know all too well, is another story.

On the very next day after that convocation, Mr. Bush was asked at a press conference “how much of a sacrifice” ordinary Americans would “be expected to make in their daily lives, in their daily routines.” His answer: “Our hope, of course, is that they make no sacrifice whatsoever.” He, too, wanted to move on — to “see life return to normal in America,” as he put it — but toward partisan goals stealthily tailored to his political allies rather than the nearly 90 percent of the country that, according to polls, was rallying around him.

This selfish agenda was there from the very start. As we now know from many firsthand accounts, a cadre from Mr. Bush’s war cabinet was already busily hyping nonexistent links between Iraq and the Qaeda attacks. The presidential press secretary, Ari Fleischer, condemned Bill Maher’s irreverent comic response to 9/11 by reminding “all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Fear itself — the fear that “paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance,” as F.D.R. had it — was already being wielded as a weapon against Americans by their own government.

Less than a month after 9/11, the president was making good on his promise of “no sacrifice whatsoever.” Speaking in Washington about how it was “the time to be wise” and “the time to act,” he declared, “We need for there to be more tax cuts.” Before long the G.O.P. would be selling 9/11 photos of the president on Air Force One to campaign donors and the White House would be featuring flag-draped remains of the 9/11 dead in political ads.And so here we are five years later. Fearmongering remains unceasing. So do tax cuts. So does the war against a country that did not attack us on 9/11. We have moved on, but no one can argue that we have moved ahead.

Dignity For All Students Act "authorizes the commissioner of education to establish policies and procedures affording all students in public schools an environment free of harassment and discrimination based on actual or perceived race, national origin, ethnic group, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex."

Such texts by no means sound anti-democratic. Quite the contrary, they sound just as healthy for students—the future citizens—as anything ever can be. Anti-discriminatory legislations in the 21st century should not spring surprises for the oldest democracy in the world.

And yet, someone sees red at this. Mayor Bloomberg has an issue with the proposal, and that’s the reason why despite having been passed in the Assembly for over three years now, it stands rejected as a force (the Mayor had in fact gone ahead to exercise his veto power in order to stall it). On the other hand, the Empire State Pride Agenda has called for people’s active participation in favoring the proposed law.

What’s at stake?