Bookmark and Share
Overview:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) is an independent federal agency that addresses civil rights issues and discrimination complaints based on age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex, in the fields of education, employment, housing, and voting rights, and serves as a watchdog over government policies and the administration of justice in respect to denial of equal protection under the law due to discrimination.

 

The history of the USCCR has been plagued by controversy and debate, with criticism raised that it’s been ineptly managed, in financial disarray, and consumed by partisan wrangling, which too frequently prevents crucial work from getting done. The Commission was meant to be bipartisan, with four Republican members and four Democratic members, but in 2007 President George W. Bush managed to shift the balance to six Republicans and only two Democrats by having two Republican members re-register as Independents and then appointing two more Republicans to fill the spaces left by two departing Democrats. Currently, the Commission is made up of one Republican, three Independents, and four Democrats (two of whom were appointed by President Barack Obama).

more
History:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was the first such measure to pass Congress since the adoption of the federal civil rights laws of 1875. Signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 29, 1957, the Act mandated that the Commission investigate allegations that citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reasons of their color, race, religion, or national origin.

 

However, because many of the politicians at the time were not fully behind the pursuits the Act called for, the Commission’s early work, rather than generating a lot of specific changes, instead played a major role in providing the foundation for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the landmark, much more comprehensive, Civil Rights Act of 1964. These acts were followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

 

The Commission’s responsibilities were also re-addressed and re-configured by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Acts of 1983 and 1991, and the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994 (pdf).

more
What it Does:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) collects and studies information, conducts investigations, issues subpoenas, files reports, and makes recommendations to the President, Congress, and appropriate federal, state, or local government agencies or private organizations on civil rights and discrimination complaints based on age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, or allegedly fraudulent practices.

 

It also helps those who believe they have been discriminated against get in contact with the appropriate office to file a complaint.

 

The Commission also issues public service announcements to discourage discrimination, and operates a campaign to end anti-Semitism on college campuses.

 

The USCCR is made up of eight commissioners, no more than four of the same political party, who serve six-year terms. Four are appointed by the President and four by Congress. From among the eight, the President appoints a chairperson and vice chairperson, who must receive the approval of a majority of the Commission’s members. Of the agency’s full-time employees, six are politically appointed special assistants to the commissioners.

 

The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees, one for each state and the District of Columbia, composed of citizens familiar with local and state civil rights issues, who are recommended by the USCCR Regional Director of their area, approved by the Staff Director, and voted upon by the Commission. They assist, without pay, in the Commission’s fact-finding duties during an initial term of two years, and may be reappointed.

 

The Commission additionally maintains a national and regional office staff of civil rights analysts, social scientists, and attorneys.

 

Among the topics of recent USCCR reports:

Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? (pdf)

Tolerance, Civil Rights, and Justice in Wake of the September 11th Tragedies

The 2000 Vote and Election Reform

Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York City

Department of Justice Voting Rights Enforcement for the 2008 U.S. Presidential

         Election (pdf)

Racial Categorization in the 2010 U.S. Census (pdf)

Civil Rights and the Mortgage Crisis (pdf)

Peer-to-Peer Violence and Bullying

 

From the Web Site of the USCCR:

Calendar of Meetings

Civil Rights Enforcement Clearing House

Commission Publications Catalog

Contact Information

Filing a Complaint

National Conference 2010

Press Releases, Advisories, and Public Affairs (1997-2011)

Public Education Campaign to End Campus Anti-Semitism

Publications

Regional Offices

Staff Draft Reports

 

more
Where Does the Money Go:

According to USASpending.gov, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) spent $4,887,127 on 409 contractor transactions this decade. The top five services the agency paid for were housing ($1,535,824), office leasing ($1,271,976), accounting ($415,288), library services ($412,874), and printing/binding ($173,517).

 

The top five contractors providing services to USCCR between 2002 and 2011 were:

1. General Services Administration

$3,034,090

2. U.S. Government

$975,702

3. Booth Management Consulting

$121,679

4. Xerox Corporation

$100,295

5. McKinney & Associates

$95,000

 

 Performance and Accountability Report FY 2011 (pdf)

more
Controversies:

Compliance Standards for Title IX

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) provoked controversy in 2010 when it released a report recommending less stringent compliance standards for Title IX—the program to prevent gender discrimination in sports in schools—due to the negative impact it was having on men’s athletics.

 

The commission cited instances of colleges and universities dropping men’s sports programs (rather than adding women’s athletic programs) in order to reach Title IX compliance on proportionality.

 

Some experts, such as Dr. John Cheslock, a professor and senior research associate at Pennsylvania State University, disagreed with the commission’s findings. Cheslock, who had conducted extensive research on Title IX’s impact, said enforcement of the landmark legislation, which was passed in 1972, had not hurt participation in men’s sports.

 

If anything, an unintended consequence of the federal mandate for equality in college sports was the loss of coaching positions for women. Before Title IX, 90% of head coaches in women’s sports were women. That percentage had fallen considerably in subsequent years, down to 43%.

Title IX Controversy Continues (by Michael Rietmulder, Minnesota Daily)

Title IX Controversy (Wikipedia)

A Move Toward Common Sense on Title IX (by Allison Kasic, Minding the Campus)

Title IX and Athletics: A Case Study of Perverse Incentives and Unintended Consequences (by Allison Kasic, Independent Women’s Forum) (pdf)

Title IX Turning 40 (University of Minnesota)

 

Reverse Racism in the CCR over Question of Voter Harassment by New Black Panthers

The USCCR became the focus of controversy in 2010 when one of its commissioners stormed out of a meeting over the Obama administration’s handling of accusations of voter intimidation when it dropped a lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party following the 2008 election.

 

On Election Day, two New Black Panther Party members were captured on video standing in front of a Philadelphia polling place. One carried a nightstick and the two verbally harassed voters. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush decided not to pursue a criminal case against the men, concluding there was not enough evidence against them. But a federal lawsuit was launched against the party.

 

Subsequently, the Justice Department decided to drop most of the lawsuit. This decision provoked criticism in 2010 from conservative appointees on the commission, who accused the administration of “possible unequal administration of justice,” as well as “pervasive hostility” against discrimination and voter intimidation claims by whites.

 

Seeking to make it into a larger scandal, the conservative commissioners called a USCCR meeting on short notice. With two commissioners missing, Democratic commissioner Michael Yaki walked out so that they could not meet a quorum, thus delaying a vote on the matter. “I do not feel it is my responsibility to make quorum for this kangaroo court, just so they can get their vote done,” Yaki told reporters outside the meeting.

 

By the following year, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded an investigation into the controversy. It found politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case.

 

The OPR reviewed thousands of pages of internal emails and notes and conducted more than 40 interviews with department staff members. It reported that “department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment” and that the voter-intimidation case against the Panthers was dismissed on “a good faith assessment of the law” and “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

Bias Led To 'Gutting' of New Black Panthers Case, Justice Official Says (by Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson, Washington Post)

Do We Need a Commission on Civil Rights? (by Adam Serwer, American Prospect)

Report Clears Justice Department in Black Panther Case (by Krissah Thompson, Washington Post)

New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ (by Jan Crawford, CBS News)

U.S. Civil Rights Commission Sidetracked By Member's Protest (by Paul Courson, CNN)

Dem Prevents Civil Rights Panel Vote On New Black Panther Report (VIDEO) (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

Remember The Black Panther “Voter Intimidation” Case? Yea, It Really Was Small Potatoes (by Doug Mataconis, Outside the Beltway)

 

 

Conservatives Claim Costly Quotas Are Hidden in Dodd-Frank

Conservative members of the USCCR blasted the Wall Street reform bill (dubbed Dodd-Frank) in July 2010 claiming it would impose racial and gender quotas on financial institutions.

 

The commissioners wrote a letter to senior Democratic leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden, calling for lawmakers to remove language buried within the massive bill that contained race- and gender-employment provisions.

 

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who served as chief of staff for former President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, echoed the criticism, saying Dodd-Frank represented a “dramatic change in employment legislation.” Even subcontractors—down to the cleaning crews and office-party caterers—would have to prove that they meet racial and gender quotas.

 

One point of concern was Section 342 of the bill, which called for the establishment of an “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” in 29 federal bureaus and offices. These included 10 offices of the Department of the Treasury, plus the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Housing Finance Agency, each of the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Quotas Hidden in Bank Reform Bill Will Cost Taxpayers Millions (by David Patten, NewsMax)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights Demands Changes To Democrats’ Financial Reform Bill (by Caroline May, Daily Caller)

 

Controversy over September 2010 CCR Meeting Debating Its Own Future

Civil rights leaders largely boycotted a one-day conference hosted in 2010 by the USCCR, calling it a “sham.”

 

One of the conference topics under discussion was “The Future of the Civil Rights Commission.” Conservatives had longed criticized the commission, and with appointees of President George W. Bush still dominating it, the debate was viewed by those on the left as another attempt to discredit the government body.

 

With the conference debating whether the commission “has outlived its usefulness,” civil rights advocates decided to skip the event.

 

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said he would skip the conference because “it’s a sham.” He also said the commission at that time had become “a political arm of the conservative movement in America.” The subject of whether the commission should be disbanded had come up at that time because the era of conservative control over it would be ending under President Barack Obama.

Civil Rights Leader Dismisses The Conservative US Commission on Civil Rights’ Conference As ‘A Sham’ (by Tanya Somanader, Think Progress)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Debate Its Own Existence After Promoting Conservative Values (by Ryan Reilly, TPM)

 

 

Commission Hires Vote Suppressor to Monitor 2008 Election

President George W. Bush’s nomination of anti-voting rights advocate Hans A. von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission provoked such an outcry that his nomination had to be withdrawn. However, von Spakovsky slipped back into the picture when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hired him as a consultant to help monitor the 2008 election. He has since joined the conservative Heritage Foundation as a fellow and political commentator.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Secretly Hires Vote Suppressor von Spakovsky to Oversee ’08 Election (by Brad Friedman, Brad Blog)

Civil Rights Panel Faulted on Hiring Choice (by Darryl Fears, Washington Post)

He’s Baaaack: Civil Rights Commission Hires Spakovsky to Work on Voting Rights (by Kate Klonick, TPM Muckraker)

Justice Department Attorneys Oppose Hans von Spakovsky (pdf) (statement to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration)

 

President Bush Did End Run around Law Requiring Bipartisanship

The rules of the Commission state that, in order to maintain bipartisanship, no more than four members can come from any party. This was generally assumed to mean that there would always be four Republican members and four Democratic members. Thwarted in their attempt to impose a conservative agenda on the Commission, the Bush administration came up with a novel tactic to subvert the intention of the law. When two Democratic commissioners completed their terms, two of the Republican members re-registered as Independents, and President Bush replaced the departing Democrats with two more Republicans. As a result, there was an outcry, which grew with the naming in July 2008 of Hans A. von Spakovsky as a Special Assistant to the Commission, because von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, was known for advocating the approval of a Georgia voter identification law that many claim made it difficult for the poor and elderly to vote. Under the Obama administration, there has been an attempt to return the Commission to proper bipartisanship.

Maneuver gave Bush a conservative rights panel (by Charlie Savage, Boston Globe)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Debate Its Own Existence After Promoting Conservative Values (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

New White House Picks (Almost) Rebalance Civil Rights Commission (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

more
Debate:

Should the USCCR be Changed to U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights?

Following the release of a 2010 United Nations report examining the human rights of African Americans, liberal groups called upon the Obama administration to change the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). In addition to protecting civil rights, advocates wanted the commission’s mission to include human rights.

 

Pro:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was one supporter calling for the establishment of the U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights. The ACLU noted the U.S. government had taken some steps to promote the rights of people of African descent. But it needed to do more to bring the U.S. into compliance with international treaty obligations affecting human rights.

 

The UN report stated that people of African descent in the U.S. were continuing to face unequal access to quality education, electoral disenfranchisement, and discrimination in the justice and legal systems, among other issues.

 

Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said, “In order to lead by example, it is imperative that the U.S. establish monitoring mechanisms to uphold civil and human rights in the U.S. The Obama administration should work with Congress to reform the existing U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to include a mandate to monitor our human rights treaty obligations.”

 

The Leadership Conference, a leading civil rights organization, also advocated for reforming the commission, saying it had “lost its way and had become a political voice, not an independent one.”

U.N. Report Highlights Need For U.S. Civil And Human Rights Commission (American Civil Liberties Union)

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Restoring the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (The Leadership Conference)

 

Con:

Critics responded to the proposal by claiming it was not what it appeared to be and that it might accomplish the opposite of its stated intentions. They argued expanding the commission’s mandate to include human rights would dilute its “core focus on invidious discrimination; that it would overburden an agency already long challenged by budgetary constraints; and that it would serve as a back-door means of advancing economic redistributionism in the name of human rights.”

 

In addition, the commission in its new form would be permitted to use taxpayer funds to lobby for legislation or treaties, critics claimed.

 

Furthermore, the proposal would change the process for appointing commissioners and executive staff. This would mean the Obama administration could replace incumbent holdovers in the positions of staff director and general counsel. Critics charged this would “unfairly enable Democratic officials to terminate holdovers ahead of the expiration of their terms,” which could likely “generate the same kind of partisan politicization it is intended to avert.”

The Proposal to Establish a U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights (by Kenneth Marcus, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies)

more
Former Directors:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerald A. Reynolds

Gerald A. Reynolds took over as chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on December 6, 2004, and served a six-year term. Reynolds received a BA in History from the City University of New York at York College, and a law degree from Boston University School of Law. He practiced law with Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, worked as a legal analyst for the Center for Equal Opportunity, and served as President of the Center for New Black Leadership. He also was on the National Advisory Board of Project 21, and was Senior Regulatory Counsel for the Kansas City Power & Light Company. In March 2002, President Bush appointed Reynolds, who once described affirmative action as a “big lie,” to be Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office for Civil Rights. He went on to become Deputy Associate General in the U.S. Department of Justice, and then returned to Kansas City Power & Light Company, as Assistant General Counsel, a job he still currently holds.

 

Reynolds edited the book, Race and the Criminal Justice System: How Race Affects Jury Trials, and has written for several newspapers and magazines.

 

In 2007 Reynolds was appointed a member of the Justice Advisory Committee for Rudy Giuliani’s Presidential Committee.

Civil Rights Commissioner Marches in Different Time (by Darryl Fears, Washington Post)

Shift Toward Skepticism for Civil Rights Panel (by Randal C. Archibold, New York Times)

 

Mary Francis Berry (1993-2004)

 

more

Comments

Loretta F. Ivery 10 months ago
My complaint is against a third party site which takes space on a dating site that i am a member of. The dating site is called TAGGED. It has allowed A company Called Radiumone Engage-Zendesk. It sponsers a game called Free Gold. You can pay for the Gold or you can play for free. this company has an attitude where they do not want you to complain. You are offered ads to read and then you receive the credits: Example: A Healthy heart which is a health ad.Those are the ads I usually read and receive credits/points for. The points range from 15,to 23 which are doubled 15+15=30 or 23+23=46. I have two accounts which are owned and operated by TAGGED, which is HI 5 and TAGGED itself. Since i have been playing this game these people have cheated me out of my point and have not credited me with the point I have earned. Ever since i started complaining they have retaliated by crediting the wrong account, instead of my tagged account they would credit my HI 5 account. When i send in a request which they call it, it should be called a complaint they actually act very arrogant and do not like to be challenged about the errors they have made. All the points you receive/earn you have the option to turn them into luv points, which in turn you are able to give luv points to you friends. The game is set up so that you have to continue to play because the points go down. These people are actually taking more points from my luv points than they are supposed to. I am disabled and I get joy out of playing this game but it has turned into a nightmare. they are discriminating against me and relaliating against me because i have spoken up. I asked them if this is being done because I am a woman of color. Not once have I used foul language but i have been very to the point. They tried to suspend me, they have blacklisted me accusing me of fraudalent activity. they have a whole bag of tricks for example, They will allow you to read a whole ad then tell you "sorry this ad is no longer available" after you have read the whole ad and they should give you the points or credits but they don't. Another dirty trick they use to keep you from getting points is when you try to give LUV points away they will say "try again there has been an error, knowing they have already taken what points you were given away so when you try again they cheat you out of more points. In my case it was 1000 points and when i requested/complained about it they have just ignored me. I have dates and proof to what they are doing to me. They have limited me in playing trying to make me lose the points I have already worked hard to get. On a daily basis they have used tactics to keep me from earning points. Today for instance I clicked on an ad which I have been doing for quite a while. They tried to make it look like something was wrong with my PC by putting this on the page BAD GATEWAY 502. I have seen that before and that is when your computer is not receiving a message . I checked with my security and my PC is fine, they have no right to use fraud as a way to discourage a customer so they will be quiet and not complain. They have also used the tactic where they put the same ad on the page at least 8 to 12 times to you do not have any choices but to play those ads. They purposely will put ads on there they know that do not work. they use ads that are misleading and you have the option of removing that ad because it is misleading or for another reason, they will wait and put the same ad right back on there. They have harassed me, and discriminated against me over and over again and now they are retaliating against me because I told them i was going to report what they are doing. some of the ads they offer are scams, my security system will come on the page and tell to get of of the page because of suspicious activity. They have already taken thousands of points away from me today. if their reviews are read they are awful, most people just let it go. This is why they have been allowed to get away with this. They have even tried to tell me to take my complaints to TAGGED. When i did I was told by TAGGED that they have nothing to do with what they do even though they (TAGGED) offers to help and when they do they give you the run around. You send in your complaint and they will say it was blank or they never received it. This needs to stop. People have been told not to complain. i am being targeted and I need help. They are running ads about government housing which we can get on line for free. Why should we go through them just to get points and they get our personal information. They are scamming people and they do not believe I am considered a disabled person who happens to be a woman of color. This company needs to be exposed. I feel like I am being discriminated against and retaliated against and I need help ...Thank You
Jerry Guevara jr. 1 year ago
I have a complaint ,there's a judge in steans county minnesota who is in charge of our child protection case and he has threatened my freedom if I contact any one in the government about me not being able to complain about our parental rights and the judge let's child protection over rule what my girlfriend or myself say no to . our children are young and as of today the judge put out a warrant for myself to do ten days in jail for me telling him I was going to write to you and let you know what this judge is doing to me . we both had finished all our steps to get our children back and a week later the judge let the county attorney file permanancy on our nine children and they took all nine children for educational neglect and also took our three younger children not in school yet . this county and the judge kundrat who's in the case is getting away with violating our rights due to us being Mexican American and being in a lower finacial bracket and we were on county help ,then one day they took out children even when the paper we have from the investigators from child protection put on paper that our home was in clean and appropriate condition for our children .please the county in very earlie March wants to take our children away forever even when we completed all steps to get all our kids back to our care , we don't have anything criminal on our record and never had any drug charges ever . they made us take urine tests and we both passed then did all classes but a week later after we were totally done the judge let the county attorney file for permanent even though our children have lost teeth ,got bit by a large dog on our three year old the dog never quaratined , my seven yr old son was pushed and broke front tooth put and then as of last week the same son was sexually molested , my very young daughters were told by foster mom where babies were made. Some one please stop this out of control county and discrimitory judge who just put out a warrant for contacting you here plz help save my children here's my cell number 320-407-2401 Jerry Guevara or Nikeia Dunbar we have been together for 15 years. Some plz hear us .help we go to court in March 6 th thank you very much .
brenda core 1 year ago
my civil right been violated for 30 years. the united states department of labore will not accept a medical report from me from a qualified physician for my work claims , instead they have place false diagnoses in my claim s. the dol office has discriminated against me for 30 years for never accepting a report from me of my disabilities. what federal agency adjudicate a claim with no physician on the record for 30 years. the office made an error 30 years ago in my claims and will not fix their error. i am entitled to submit a medical report for my work injuries. i need help. they have kept their secret long enough
ravinesh pratap 1 year ago
When does a judge have right to take away self representation?(916)842-9380 fighting a case in San Mateo ca. Arresting judge and arrangement judge both. Preliminary hearing judge let me .
Zooey 2 years ago
How may I find out if a US Commission on Civil Rights report/publication is freely available?
MuckrakerW 4 years ago
I heard a story that shocked me to the core. Let me tell you this tale. This so-called white landlord, Greg Carnes, who lives at 3946 Millsbrae Avenue, Cincinnati Ohio 45209, according to the storyteller, rented an apartment to a black man, who was a mentally disabled Navy veteran. A week later the veteran gets a call from the landlord. He demands that the Navy veteran get his car off his property because the thing, as he puts it, is leaking. Moreover he does not want his property destroyed, so get it off the property readily. Furthermore he tells the veteran if he does not have the car off the property by the end of the day he will be forced to tow it. The black disabled Navy veteran was flabbergasted he tells me. So much so he immediately moved the car on the city street. A month later the disabled Navy veteran noticed other tenant’s vehicles leaking too, mainly white tenants. One vehicle so bad, leaking oil, the veteran said the spill, was about a good 48 inches long and about two feet wide, running downhill. Six months later the same car guilty of this monolithic spill still parks his car in the same place and the spot is still visible, it looks like someone tried to lay tar overtop concrete. Next, the disabled Navy veteran tells me, other tenants, recent move-ins, began to harass him. He says rather than vouchsafe their sick attack on his right to privacy, he struck back at them in order to find out why they were maliciously harassing him, by first contacting the landlord. This white individual told the black Navy veteran he was paranoid, and offered no practical remedy, which is his legal obligation to consult other tenants who might be involved according to landlord/tenant laws. A month later as the harassment escalated, e.g. being awaken by other tenants making noise out in front of the building right above where he sleeps between two and three a.m. in the morning or noise in the apartment above his apartment. This led the veteran to began confronting these troublemakers. They [the troublemakers] in turn went straight away to the landlord and told all kinds of lies. Immediately the landlord calls the Navy veteran and insulted him on the phone. Then he threatened him that he could be killed if he does not stop bothering other tenants. Furthermore the veteran tells me he [the landlord] said he wanted the man out of the apartment. The latest attack on a Navy veteran had to do with noisy white tenants living above him. The black veteran tells me he asked his fellow tenants to curb the noise over his head and it seemed that they would comply. However the next day the noise returned with a vengeance. The veteran was working on a book, said he yelled up to them from his apartment that if they did not cut the noise he would call police. That evening the landlord called and threatened the man again. But this time he told him he had photos, but never told him what he meant by photos. "Photos of what?" the black veteran asked him but he refused to say. Then he had the audacity to give the Navy veteran an ultimatum. If he moves out by the end of the month he'll refund him his deposit. I laughed. I laughed because he can't keep the deposit anyway if the apartment is not damaged. He is required by law to refund the deposit to any tenant after move out and inspection of the apartment. In addition the tenant can be present when the landlord inspects the apartment to make sure he does not try to keep the money out of spite. Clearly this is a case of discrimination. The white landlord is not living up to his legal obligations to this Navy veteran as his tenant. He told me he planned to file discrimination charges against this guy again who happened to be white and likely from the south because he seems to rent more to southerners than anyone else. How did he know this? It's simple: their license plates. This story smacks of a clear case of racism, discrimination and inequity. I hope he comes out of this with justice being done. This type of sick white racial abuse as to stop in America no matter where it is found. If the country continues, led by this nemesis, it is going to divide and implode into a racial war. If you are facing this same or similar problem with your landlord don't hesitate to contact Legal Aid, the Civil Rights Commission or the Ohio Attorney General, Mike DeWine. © 04/04/2013 MuckrakerW Wesley McCants Jr. This landlord had the tenacity to insult the institution of the U.S. Navy. Think about it folks, the U.S. Navy is the greatest fighting force in the world. In times of war they carry military equipment, fighter jets, tanks, artillery, and marines to the field of battle and provide all bombing offshore against the enemy. And this bastard insults their valor and unity. No man on planet earth should ever be permitted to do such a thing. Without the U.S. Navy where would America be? The nerve of this racist, discriminating white bastard. In truth, Greg Carnes, does not deserve to own any property in this country with his sick attitude. Such people as this white trash should be put on the streets in urban Cincinnati and made to eat out of trash cans. No one insults the U.S. Navy, as he has, and gets away with it or should.
gerardo carrillo 6 years ago
i would like to receive documentation in relation to civil right violation in the judicial system, ( like complaint forms). gerardo carrillo, 9411 richmond ave. houston, texas 77063, thanks

Leave a comment

Founded: 1957
Annual Budget: $9.4 million (2013 Request)
Employees: 44 (plus 8 part-time commissioners) (FY 2013 Estimate)
Official Website: http://www.usccr.gov/
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Lhamon, Catherine
Chair

Catherine Lhamon is the chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. President Barack Obama appointed her to a six-year term on December 15, 2016, and the Commission unanimously confirmed her as chair on December 28, 2016. Although the 60-year-old Commission lacks the authority to enforce civil rights laws, it plays an important role in publicizing discrimination of all kinds and pointing out solutions, which will likely be important over the next few years of the regimes of President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. On April 6, 2017, Lhamon characterized the policy shift of the new administration by saying, “The backstop that has been the civil rights enforcement of the federal government is no more.” Four of the Commission’s eight members are appointed by the president and four by Congress.

 

Born August 5, 1971, Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon learned about racism and civil rights early on, as her parents were activists, and she was the product of a mixed-race marriage; the Supreme Court had overturned laws against such marriages only a few years earlier. She earned a B.A. in American Studies at Amherst College in 1993 and a J.D. at Yale Law School in 1996, where she was named Outstanding Woman Law Graduate.

 

After law school, Lhamon served a year as a judicial law clerk for Judge William A. Norris on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and was supervising attorney in the Appellate Litigation Program at Georgetown University Law Center from 1997 to 1999. 

 

Relocating to the West Coast in 1999, Lhamon practiced law for a decade at the ACLU of Southern California, serving as Okrand/Wirin Attorney from 1999 to 2005, racial justice director from 2005 to 2009, and assistant legal director in 2009. She left the ACLU that year to become director of impact litigation at Public Counsel, the nation’s largest pro bono law firm. 

 

Lhamon returned to Washington, DC, in 2013 to serve as the assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education. Nominated by President Obama to the position in June 2013, she was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2013. While there, Lhamon spearheaded efforts to combat sexual assault on college campuses. Her approach of forcing schools to adopt policies and procedures for investigating and adjudicating assault allegations was sharply criticized, not only by conservatives but by liberals as well, for not respecting the rights of accused persons.

 

Lhamon is married to Giev Kashkooli, who is a high-ranking official of the United Farm Workers union. The couple has two daughters, Danielle and Clay.

-Matt Bewig

 

To Learn More

Official Biography

Gruber Distinguished Lecturer in Women’s Rights: Catherine E. Lhamon ’96 (Yale Law School)

Feds’ Civil Rights Steward Faces A “Rocky Road” Under Trump (by Nidhi Subbaraman, BuzzFeed) 

more
Castro, Marty
Previous Chair

In January 2011, President Barack Obama appointed Martin R. Castro as Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), and on March 11 he was approved by the Commission. The USCCR is an independent federal agency that addresses civil rights issues and discrimination complaints based on age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex, in the fields of education, employment, housing, and voting rights, and serves as a watchdog over government policies and the administration of justice in respect to denial of equal protection under the law due to discrimination. The USCCR was created in 1957, but in recent years it has been the focus of partisan bickering. Castro is the eighth chair of the Commission and the first Latino chair in the Commission’s history.

 
Born August 12, 1963, in Chicago, Illinois, Castro is the son and grandson of Mexican immigrants, and was the first in his family to go to college, earning his B.A. in Political Science in 1985 from DePaul University and his J.D. in 1988 from the University of Michigan Law School. He has indicated his pride in being the product of Head Start and affirmative action programs in higher education. He was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1988, and went to work in the Chicago offices of Baker & McKenzie, where his responsibilities included leading the firm’s minority recruiting efforts. He left the law firm in May, 2000, to become Vice-President, Managing Director of Business Development and Acting General Counsel at Juritas.com, a legal-related Internet company, but when the “dot com” bubble burst in 2001, the company went belly-up. 
 
In 2001 Castro formed a private law firm with three other attorneys—Castro, Gomez, Durbin & de Jesus—where his work included corporate law, commercial litigation, diversity consulting and government affairs. Just a year later, however, Castro left that firm to become a partner at Seyfarth Shaw, where he stayed until 2004. He joined the law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal as a partner, leaving in 2007. Castro then joined the corporate world as Regional Vice President of External Affairs at Aetna from 2007 to 2009.
 
Castro founded, and is the President and CEO of, Castro Synergies, LLC, which provides consulting services to corporations, entrepreneurs and non-profit organizations. In the early 2000s, Castro also co-founded New Futuro, which helps Hispanic parents and students on the path to higher education; in 2011, New Futuro was acquired by AP Capital Partners, and Castro became Chairman of New Futuro.
 
In 2002, Castro ran for Congress from Chicago’s Fourth Congressional District, but lost in the Democratic primary to incumbent Luis Gutierrez. In December 2009, Castro was appointed by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to chair the Illinois Human Rights Commission, the state public body that arbitrates complaints of civil rights violations in housing, employment, public accommodations and financial credit.
 
Castro is chair of the board of the National Museum of Mexican Art, the only Latino Museum in the United States accredited by the American Association of Museums, and serves or has served on the boards of the Chicago Community Trust and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and is the former chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association U.S. Supreme Court Committee. Castro also chaired the Judicial Nominations Commission for the Northern District of Illinois, by appointment of U.S. Senator Richard Durbin.
 
A lifelong Democrat, from 1995 to 2008, Castro contributed $35,425 to Democratic candidates and causes, including $500 to Barack Obama’s successful 2004 Senate campaign, and $2,500 to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Castro is married to Amalia Rioja, with whom he has two sons. Rioja most recently served in the Illinois Attorney General’s Office as Chief Deputy Public Access Counselor.
 
Marty Castro Is First Latino to Lead Civil Rights Commission (by Michel Martin, National Public Radio)
 
more
Bookmark and Share
Overview:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) is an independent federal agency that addresses civil rights issues and discrimination complaints based on age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex, in the fields of education, employment, housing, and voting rights, and serves as a watchdog over government policies and the administration of justice in respect to denial of equal protection under the law due to discrimination.

 

The history of the USCCR has been plagued by controversy and debate, with criticism raised that it’s been ineptly managed, in financial disarray, and consumed by partisan wrangling, which too frequently prevents crucial work from getting done. The Commission was meant to be bipartisan, with four Republican members and four Democratic members, but in 2007 President George W. Bush managed to shift the balance to six Republicans and only two Democrats by having two Republican members re-register as Independents and then appointing two more Republicans to fill the spaces left by two departing Democrats. Currently, the Commission is made up of one Republican, three Independents, and four Democrats (two of whom were appointed by President Barack Obama).

more
History:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was the first such measure to pass Congress since the adoption of the federal civil rights laws of 1875. Signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 29, 1957, the Act mandated that the Commission investigate allegations that citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reasons of their color, race, religion, or national origin.

 

However, because many of the politicians at the time were not fully behind the pursuits the Act called for, the Commission’s early work, rather than generating a lot of specific changes, instead played a major role in providing the foundation for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the landmark, much more comprehensive, Civil Rights Act of 1964. These acts were followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

 

The Commission’s responsibilities were also re-addressed and re-configured by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Acts of 1983 and 1991, and the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994 (pdf).

more
What it Does:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) collects and studies information, conducts investigations, issues subpoenas, files reports, and makes recommendations to the President, Congress, and appropriate federal, state, or local government agencies or private organizations on civil rights and discrimination complaints based on age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, or allegedly fraudulent practices.

 

It also helps those who believe they have been discriminated against get in contact with the appropriate office to file a complaint.

 

The Commission also issues public service announcements to discourage discrimination, and operates a campaign to end anti-Semitism on college campuses.

 

The USCCR is made up of eight commissioners, no more than four of the same political party, who serve six-year terms. Four are appointed by the President and four by Congress. From among the eight, the President appoints a chairperson and vice chairperson, who must receive the approval of a majority of the Commission’s members. Of the agency’s full-time employees, six are politically appointed special assistants to the commissioners.

 

The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees, one for each state and the District of Columbia, composed of citizens familiar with local and state civil rights issues, who are recommended by the USCCR Regional Director of their area, approved by the Staff Director, and voted upon by the Commission. They assist, without pay, in the Commission’s fact-finding duties during an initial term of two years, and may be reappointed.

 

The Commission additionally maintains a national and regional office staff of civil rights analysts, social scientists, and attorneys.

 

Among the topics of recent USCCR reports:

Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? (pdf)

Tolerance, Civil Rights, and Justice in Wake of the September 11th Tragedies

The 2000 Vote and Election Reform

Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York City

Department of Justice Voting Rights Enforcement for the 2008 U.S. Presidential

         Election (pdf)

Racial Categorization in the 2010 U.S. Census (pdf)

Civil Rights and the Mortgage Crisis (pdf)

Peer-to-Peer Violence and Bullying

 

From the Web Site of the USCCR:

Calendar of Meetings

Civil Rights Enforcement Clearing House

Commission Publications Catalog

Contact Information

Filing a Complaint

National Conference 2010

Press Releases, Advisories, and Public Affairs (1997-2011)

Public Education Campaign to End Campus Anti-Semitism

Publications

Regional Offices

Staff Draft Reports

 

more
Where Does the Money Go:

According to USASpending.gov, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) spent $4,887,127 on 409 contractor transactions this decade. The top five services the agency paid for were housing ($1,535,824), office leasing ($1,271,976), accounting ($415,288), library services ($412,874), and printing/binding ($173,517).

 

The top five contractors providing services to USCCR between 2002 and 2011 were:

1. General Services Administration

$3,034,090

2. U.S. Government

$975,702

3. Booth Management Consulting

$121,679

4. Xerox Corporation

$100,295

5. McKinney & Associates

$95,000

 

 Performance and Accountability Report FY 2011 (pdf)

more
Controversies:

Compliance Standards for Title IX

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) provoked controversy in 2010 when it released a report recommending less stringent compliance standards for Title IX—the program to prevent gender discrimination in sports in schools—due to the negative impact it was having on men’s athletics.

 

The commission cited instances of colleges and universities dropping men’s sports programs (rather than adding women’s athletic programs) in order to reach Title IX compliance on proportionality.

 

Some experts, such as Dr. John Cheslock, a professor and senior research associate at Pennsylvania State University, disagreed with the commission’s findings. Cheslock, who had conducted extensive research on Title IX’s impact, said enforcement of the landmark legislation, which was passed in 1972, had not hurt participation in men’s sports.

 

If anything, an unintended consequence of the federal mandate for equality in college sports was the loss of coaching positions for women. Before Title IX, 90% of head coaches in women’s sports were women. That percentage had fallen considerably in subsequent years, down to 43%.

Title IX Controversy Continues (by Michael Rietmulder, Minnesota Daily)

Title IX Controversy (Wikipedia)

A Move Toward Common Sense on Title IX (by Allison Kasic, Minding the Campus)

Title IX and Athletics: A Case Study of Perverse Incentives and Unintended Consequences (by Allison Kasic, Independent Women’s Forum) (pdf)

Title IX Turning 40 (University of Minnesota)

 

Reverse Racism in the CCR over Question of Voter Harassment by New Black Panthers

The USCCR became the focus of controversy in 2010 when one of its commissioners stormed out of a meeting over the Obama administration’s handling of accusations of voter intimidation when it dropped a lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party following the 2008 election.

 

On Election Day, two New Black Panther Party members were captured on video standing in front of a Philadelphia polling place. One carried a nightstick and the two verbally harassed voters. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush decided not to pursue a criminal case against the men, concluding there was not enough evidence against them. But a federal lawsuit was launched against the party.

 

Subsequently, the Justice Department decided to drop most of the lawsuit. This decision provoked criticism in 2010 from conservative appointees on the commission, who accused the administration of “possible unequal administration of justice,” as well as “pervasive hostility” against discrimination and voter intimidation claims by whites.

 

Seeking to make it into a larger scandal, the conservative commissioners called a USCCR meeting on short notice. With two commissioners missing, Democratic commissioner Michael Yaki walked out so that they could not meet a quorum, thus delaying a vote on the matter. “I do not feel it is my responsibility to make quorum for this kangaroo court, just so they can get their vote done,” Yaki told reporters outside the meeting.

 

By the following year, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded an investigation into the controversy. It found politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case.

 

The OPR reviewed thousands of pages of internal emails and notes and conducted more than 40 interviews with department staff members. It reported that “department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment” and that the voter-intimidation case against the Panthers was dismissed on “a good faith assessment of the law” and “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

Bias Led To 'Gutting' of New Black Panthers Case, Justice Official Says (by Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson, Washington Post)

Do We Need a Commission on Civil Rights? (by Adam Serwer, American Prospect)

Report Clears Justice Department in Black Panther Case (by Krissah Thompson, Washington Post)

New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ (by Jan Crawford, CBS News)

U.S. Civil Rights Commission Sidetracked By Member's Protest (by Paul Courson, CNN)

Dem Prevents Civil Rights Panel Vote On New Black Panther Report (VIDEO) (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

Remember The Black Panther “Voter Intimidation” Case? Yea, It Really Was Small Potatoes (by Doug Mataconis, Outside the Beltway)

 

 

Conservatives Claim Costly Quotas Are Hidden in Dodd-Frank

Conservative members of the USCCR blasted the Wall Street reform bill (dubbed Dodd-Frank) in July 2010 claiming it would impose racial and gender quotas on financial institutions.

 

The commissioners wrote a letter to senior Democratic leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden, calling for lawmakers to remove language buried within the massive bill that contained race- and gender-employment provisions.

 

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who served as chief of staff for former President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, echoed the criticism, saying Dodd-Frank represented a “dramatic change in employment legislation.” Even subcontractors—down to the cleaning crews and office-party caterers—would have to prove that they meet racial and gender quotas.

 

One point of concern was Section 342 of the bill, which called for the establishment of an “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion” in 29 federal bureaus and offices. These included 10 offices of the Department of the Treasury, plus the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Housing Finance Agency, each of the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Quotas Hidden in Bank Reform Bill Will Cost Taxpayers Millions (by David Patten, NewsMax)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights Demands Changes To Democrats’ Financial Reform Bill (by Caroline May, Daily Caller)

 

Controversy over September 2010 CCR Meeting Debating Its Own Future

Civil rights leaders largely boycotted a one-day conference hosted in 2010 by the USCCR, calling it a “sham.”

 

One of the conference topics under discussion was “The Future of the Civil Rights Commission.” Conservatives had longed criticized the commission, and with appointees of President George W. Bush still dominating it, the debate was viewed by those on the left as another attempt to discredit the government body.

 

With the conference debating whether the commission “has outlived its usefulness,” civil rights advocates decided to skip the event.

 

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said he would skip the conference because “it’s a sham.” He also said the commission at that time had become “a political arm of the conservative movement in America.” The subject of whether the commission should be disbanded had come up at that time because the era of conservative control over it would be ending under President Barack Obama.

Civil Rights Leader Dismisses The Conservative US Commission on Civil Rights’ Conference As ‘A Sham’ (by Tanya Somanader, Think Progress)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Debate Its Own Existence After Promoting Conservative Values (by Ryan Reilly, TPM)

 

 

Commission Hires Vote Suppressor to Monitor 2008 Election

President George W. Bush’s nomination of anti-voting rights advocate Hans A. von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission provoked such an outcry that his nomination had to be withdrawn. However, von Spakovsky slipped back into the picture when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hired him as a consultant to help monitor the 2008 election. He has since joined the conservative Heritage Foundation as a fellow and political commentator.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Secretly Hires Vote Suppressor von Spakovsky to Oversee ’08 Election (by Brad Friedman, Brad Blog)

Civil Rights Panel Faulted on Hiring Choice (by Darryl Fears, Washington Post)

He’s Baaaack: Civil Rights Commission Hires Spakovsky to Work on Voting Rights (by Kate Klonick, TPM Muckraker)

Justice Department Attorneys Oppose Hans von Spakovsky (pdf) (statement to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration)

 

President Bush Did End Run around Law Requiring Bipartisanship

The rules of the Commission state that, in order to maintain bipartisanship, no more than four members can come from any party. This was generally assumed to mean that there would always be four Republican members and four Democratic members. Thwarted in their attempt to impose a conservative agenda on the Commission, the Bush administration came up with a novel tactic to subvert the intention of the law. When two Democratic commissioners completed their terms, two of the Republican members re-registered as Independents, and President Bush replaced the departing Democrats with two more Republicans. As a result, there was an outcry, which grew with the naming in July 2008 of Hans A. von Spakovsky as a Special Assistant to the Commission, because von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, was known for advocating the approval of a Georgia voter identification law that many claim made it difficult for the poor and elderly to vote. Under the Obama administration, there has been an attempt to return the Commission to proper bipartisanship.

Maneuver gave Bush a conservative rights panel (by Charlie Savage, Boston Globe)

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Debate Its Own Existence After Promoting Conservative Values (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

New White House Picks (Almost) Rebalance Civil Rights Commission (by Ryan J. Reilly, TPM)

more
Debate:

Should the USCCR be Changed to U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights?

Following the release of a 2010 United Nations report examining the human rights of African Americans, liberal groups called upon the Obama administration to change the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). In addition to protecting civil rights, advocates wanted the commission’s mission to include human rights.

 

Pro:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was one supporter calling for the establishment of the U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights. The ACLU noted the U.S. government had taken some steps to promote the rights of people of African descent. But it needed to do more to bring the U.S. into compliance with international treaty obligations affecting human rights.

 

The UN report stated that people of African descent in the U.S. were continuing to face unequal access to quality education, electoral disenfranchisement, and discrimination in the justice and legal systems, among other issues.

 

Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said, “In order to lead by example, it is imperative that the U.S. establish monitoring mechanisms to uphold civil and human rights in the U.S. The Obama administration should work with Congress to reform the existing U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to include a mandate to monitor our human rights treaty obligations.”

 

The Leadership Conference, a leading civil rights organization, also advocated for reforming the commission, saying it had “lost its way and had become a political voice, not an independent one.”

U.N. Report Highlights Need For U.S. Civil And Human Rights Commission (American Civil Liberties Union)

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Restoring the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (The Leadership Conference)

 

Con:

Critics responded to the proposal by claiming it was not what it appeared to be and that it might accomplish the opposite of its stated intentions. They argued expanding the commission’s mandate to include human rights would dilute its “core focus on invidious discrimination; that it would overburden an agency already long challenged by budgetary constraints; and that it would serve as a back-door means of advancing economic redistributionism in the name of human rights.”

 

In addition, the commission in its new form would be permitted to use taxpayer funds to lobby for legislation or treaties, critics claimed.

 

Furthermore, the proposal would change the process for appointing commissioners and executive staff. This would mean the Obama administration could replace incumbent holdovers in the positions of staff director and general counsel. Critics charged this would “unfairly enable Democratic officials to terminate holdovers ahead of the expiration of their terms,” which could likely “generate the same kind of partisan politicization it is intended to avert.”

The Proposal to Establish a U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights (by Kenneth Marcus, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies)

more
Former Directors:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerald A. Reynolds

Gerald A. Reynolds took over as chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on December 6, 2004, and served a six-year term. Reynolds received a BA in History from the City University of New York at York College, and a law degree from Boston University School of Law. He practiced law with Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, worked as a legal analyst for the Center for Equal Opportunity, and served as President of the Center for New Black Leadership. He also was on the National Advisory Board of Project 21, and was Senior Regulatory Counsel for the Kansas City Power & Light Company. In March 2002, President Bush appointed Reynolds, who once described affirmative action as a “big lie,” to be Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office for Civil Rights. He went on to become Deputy Associate General in the U.S. Department of Justice, and then returned to Kansas City Power & Light Company, as Assistant General Counsel, a job he still currently holds.

 

Reynolds edited the book, Race and the Criminal Justice System: How Race Affects Jury Trials, and has written for several newspapers and magazines.

 

In 2007 Reynolds was appointed a member of the Justice Advisory Committee for Rudy Giuliani’s Presidential Committee.

Civil Rights Commissioner Marches in Different Time (by Darryl Fears, Washington Post)

Shift Toward Skepticism for Civil Rights Panel (by Randal C. Archibold, New York Times)

 

Mary Francis Berry (1993-2004)

 

more

Comments

Loretta F. Ivery 10 months ago
My complaint is against a third party site which takes space on a dating site that i am a member of. The dating site is called TAGGED. It has allowed A company Called Radiumone Engage-Zendesk. It sponsers a game called Free Gold. You can pay for the Gold or you can play for free. this company has an attitude where they do not want you to complain. You are offered ads to read and then you receive the credits: Example: A Healthy heart which is a health ad.Those are the ads I usually read and receive credits/points for. The points range from 15,to 23 which are doubled 15+15=30 or 23+23=46. I have two accounts which are owned and operated by TAGGED, which is HI 5 and TAGGED itself. Since i have been playing this game these people have cheated me out of my point and have not credited me with the point I have earned. Ever since i started complaining they have retaliated by crediting the wrong account, instead of my tagged account they would credit my HI 5 account. When i send in a request which they call it, it should be called a complaint they actually act very arrogant and do not like to be challenged about the errors they have made. All the points you receive/earn you have the option to turn them into luv points, which in turn you are able to give luv points to you friends. The game is set up so that you have to continue to play because the points go down. These people are actually taking more points from my luv points than they are supposed to. I am disabled and I get joy out of playing this game but it has turned into a nightmare. they are discriminating against me and relaliating against me because i have spoken up. I asked them if this is being done because I am a woman of color. Not once have I used foul language but i have been very to the point. They tried to suspend me, they have blacklisted me accusing me of fraudalent activity. they have a whole bag of tricks for example, They will allow you to read a whole ad then tell you "sorry this ad is no longer available" after you have read the whole ad and they should give you the points or credits but they don't. Another dirty trick they use to keep you from getting points is when you try to give LUV points away they will say "try again there has been an error, knowing they have already taken what points you were given away so when you try again they cheat you out of more points. In my case it was 1000 points and when i requested/complained about it they have just ignored me. I have dates and proof to what they are doing to me. They have limited me in playing trying to make me lose the points I have already worked hard to get. On a daily basis they have used tactics to keep me from earning points. Today for instance I clicked on an ad which I have been doing for quite a while. They tried to make it look like something was wrong with my PC by putting this on the page BAD GATEWAY 502. I have seen that before and that is when your computer is not receiving a message . I checked with my security and my PC is fine, they have no right to use fraud as a way to discourage a customer so they will be quiet and not complain. They have also used the tactic where they put the same ad on the page at least 8 to 12 times to you do not have any choices but to play those ads. They purposely will put ads on there they know that do not work. they use ads that are misleading and you have the option of removing that ad because it is misleading or for another reason, they will wait and put the same ad right back on there. They have harassed me, and discriminated against me over and over again and now they are retaliating against me because I told them i was going to report what they are doing. some of the ads they offer are scams, my security system will come on the page and tell to get of of the page because of suspicious activity. They have already taken thousands of points away from me today. if their reviews are read they are awful, most people just let it go. This is why they have been allowed to get away with this. They have even tried to tell me to take my complaints to TAGGED. When i did I was told by TAGGED that they have nothing to do with what they do even though they (TAGGED) offers to help and when they do they give you the run around. You send in your complaint and they will say it was blank or they never received it. This needs to stop. People have been told not to complain. i am being targeted and I need help. They are running ads about government housing which we can get on line for free. Why should we go through them just to get points and they get our personal information. They are scamming people and they do not believe I am considered a disabled person who happens to be a woman of color. This company needs to be exposed. I feel like I am being discriminated against and retaliated against and I need help ...Thank You
Jerry Guevara jr. 1 year ago
I have a complaint ,there's a judge in steans county minnesota who is in charge of our child protection case and he has threatened my freedom if I contact any one in the government about me not being able to complain about our parental rights and the judge let's child protection over rule what my girlfriend or myself say no to . our children are young and as of today the judge put out a warrant for myself to do ten days in jail for me telling him I was going to write to you and let you know what this judge is doing to me . we both had finished all our steps to get our children back and a week later the judge let the county attorney file permanancy on our nine children and they took all nine children for educational neglect and also took our three younger children not in school yet . this county and the judge kundrat who's in the case is getting away with violating our rights due to us being Mexican American and being in a lower finacial bracket and we were on county help ,then one day they took out children even when the paper we have from the investigators from child protection put on paper that our home was in clean and appropriate condition for our children .please the county in very earlie March wants to take our children away forever even when we completed all steps to get all our kids back to our care , we don't have anything criminal on our record and never had any drug charges ever . they made us take urine tests and we both passed then did all classes but a week later after we were totally done the judge let the county attorney file for permanent even though our children have lost teeth ,got bit by a large dog on our three year old the dog never quaratined , my seven yr old son was pushed and broke front tooth put and then as of last week the same son was sexually molested , my very young daughters were told by foster mom where babies were made. Some one please stop this out of control county and discrimitory judge who just put out a warrant for contacting you here plz help save my children here's my cell number 320-407-2401 Jerry Guevara or Nikeia Dunbar we have been together for 15 years. Some plz hear us .help we go to court in March 6 th thank you very much .
brenda core 1 year ago
my civil right been violated for 30 years. the united states department of labore will not accept a medical report from me from a qualified physician for my work claims , instead they have place false diagnoses in my claim s. the dol office has discriminated against me for 30 years for never accepting a report from me of my disabilities. what federal agency adjudicate a claim with no physician on the record for 30 years. the office made an error 30 years ago in my claims and will not fix their error. i am entitled to submit a medical report for my work injuries. i need help. they have kept their secret long enough
ravinesh pratap 1 year ago
When does a judge have right to take away self representation?(916)842-9380 fighting a case in San Mateo ca. Arresting judge and arrangement judge both. Preliminary hearing judge let me .
Zooey 2 years ago
How may I find out if a US Commission on Civil Rights report/publication is freely available?
MuckrakerW 4 years ago
I heard a story that shocked me to the core. Let me tell you this tale. This so-called white landlord, Greg Carnes, who lives at 3946 Millsbrae Avenue, Cincinnati Ohio 45209, according to the storyteller, rented an apartment to a black man, who was a mentally disabled Navy veteran. A week later the veteran gets a call from the landlord. He demands that the Navy veteran get his car off his property because the thing, as he puts it, is leaking. Moreover he does not want his property destroyed, so get it off the property readily. Furthermore he tells the veteran if he does not have the car off the property by the end of the day he will be forced to tow it. The black disabled Navy veteran was flabbergasted he tells me. So much so he immediately moved the car on the city street. A month later the disabled Navy veteran noticed other tenant’s vehicles leaking too, mainly white tenants. One vehicle so bad, leaking oil, the veteran said the spill, was about a good 48 inches long and about two feet wide, running downhill. Six months later the same car guilty of this monolithic spill still parks his car in the same place and the spot is still visible, it looks like someone tried to lay tar overtop concrete. Next, the disabled Navy veteran tells me, other tenants, recent move-ins, began to harass him. He says rather than vouchsafe their sick attack on his right to privacy, he struck back at them in order to find out why they were maliciously harassing him, by first contacting the landlord. This white individual told the black Navy veteran he was paranoid, and offered no practical remedy, which is his legal obligation to consult other tenants who might be involved according to landlord/tenant laws. A month later as the harassment escalated, e.g. being awaken by other tenants making noise out in front of the building right above where he sleeps between two and three a.m. in the morning or noise in the apartment above his apartment. This led the veteran to began confronting these troublemakers. They [the troublemakers] in turn went straight away to the landlord and told all kinds of lies. Immediately the landlord calls the Navy veteran and insulted him on the phone. Then he threatened him that he could be killed if he does not stop bothering other tenants. Furthermore the veteran tells me he [the landlord] said he wanted the man out of the apartment. The latest attack on a Navy veteran had to do with noisy white tenants living above him. The black veteran tells me he asked his fellow tenants to curb the noise over his head and it seemed that they would comply. However the next day the noise returned with a vengeance. The veteran was working on a book, said he yelled up to them from his apartment that if they did not cut the noise he would call police. That evening the landlord called and threatened the man again. But this time he told him he had photos, but never told him what he meant by photos. "Photos of what?" the black veteran asked him but he refused to say. Then he had the audacity to give the Navy veteran an ultimatum. If he moves out by the end of the month he'll refund him his deposit. I laughed. I laughed because he can't keep the deposit anyway if the apartment is not damaged. He is required by law to refund the deposit to any tenant after move out and inspection of the apartment. In addition the tenant can be present when the landlord inspects the apartment to make sure he does not try to keep the money out of spite. Clearly this is a case of discrimination. The white landlord is not living up to his legal obligations to this Navy veteran as his tenant. He told me he planned to file discrimination charges against this guy again who happened to be white and likely from the south because he seems to rent more to southerners than anyone else. How did he know this? It's simple: their license plates. This story smacks of a clear case of racism, discrimination and inequity. I hope he comes out of this with justice being done. This type of sick white racial abuse as to stop in America no matter where it is found. If the country continues, led by this nemesis, it is going to divide and implode into a racial war. If you are facing this same or similar problem with your landlord don't hesitate to contact Legal Aid, the Civil Rights Commission or the Ohio Attorney General, Mike DeWine. © 04/04/2013 MuckrakerW Wesley McCants Jr. This landlord had the tenacity to insult the institution of the U.S. Navy. Think about it folks, the U.S. Navy is the greatest fighting force in the world. In times of war they carry military equipment, fighter jets, tanks, artillery, and marines to the field of battle and provide all bombing offshore against the enemy. And this bastard insults their valor and unity. No man on planet earth should ever be permitted to do such a thing. Without the U.S. Navy where would America be? The nerve of this racist, discriminating white bastard. In truth, Greg Carnes, does not deserve to own any property in this country with his sick attitude. Such people as this white trash should be put on the streets in urban Cincinnati and made to eat out of trash cans. No one insults the U.S. Navy, as he has, and gets away with it or should.
gerardo carrillo 6 years ago
i would like to receive documentation in relation to civil right violation in the judicial system, ( like complaint forms). gerardo carrillo, 9411 richmond ave. houston, texas 77063, thanks

Leave a comment

Founded: 1957
Annual Budget: $9.4 million (2013 Request)
Employees: 44 (plus 8 part-time commissioners) (FY 2013 Estimate)
Official Website: http://www.usccr.gov/
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Lhamon, Catherine
Chair

Catherine Lhamon is the chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. President Barack Obama appointed her to a six-year term on December 15, 2016, and the Commission unanimously confirmed her as chair on December 28, 2016. Although the 60-year-old Commission lacks the authority to enforce civil rights laws, it plays an important role in publicizing discrimination of all kinds and pointing out solutions, which will likely be important over the next few years of the regimes of President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. On April 6, 2017, Lhamon characterized the policy shift of the new administration by saying, “The backstop that has been the civil rights enforcement of the federal government is no more.” Four of the Commission’s eight members are appointed by the president and four by Congress.

 

Born August 5, 1971, Catherine Elizabeth Lhamon learned about racism and civil rights early on, as her parents were activists, and she was the product of a mixed-race marriage; the Supreme Court had overturned laws against such marriages only a few years earlier. She earned a B.A. in American Studies at Amherst College in 1993 and a J.D. at Yale Law School in 1996, where she was named Outstanding Woman Law Graduate.

 

After law school, Lhamon served a year as a judicial law clerk for Judge William A. Norris on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and was supervising attorney in the Appellate Litigation Program at Georgetown University Law Center from 1997 to 1999. 

 

Relocating to the West Coast in 1999, Lhamon practiced law for a decade at the ACLU of Southern California, serving as Okrand/Wirin Attorney from 1999 to 2005, racial justice director from 2005 to 2009, and assistant legal director in 2009. She left the ACLU that year to become director of impact litigation at Public Counsel, the nation’s largest pro bono law firm. 

 

Lhamon returned to Washington, DC, in 2013 to serve as the assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education. Nominated by President Obama to the position in June 2013, she was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2013. While there, Lhamon spearheaded efforts to combat sexual assault on college campuses. Her approach of forcing schools to adopt policies and procedures for investigating and adjudicating assault allegations was sharply criticized, not only by conservatives but by liberals as well, for not respecting the rights of accused persons.

 

Lhamon is married to Giev Kashkooli, who is a high-ranking official of the United Farm Workers union. The couple has two daughters, Danielle and Clay.

-Matt Bewig

 

To Learn More

Official Biography

Gruber Distinguished Lecturer in Women’s Rights: Catherine E. Lhamon ’96 (Yale Law School)

Feds’ Civil Rights Steward Faces A “Rocky Road” Under Trump (by Nidhi Subbaraman, BuzzFeed) 

more
Castro, Marty
Previous Chair

In January 2011, President Barack Obama appointed Martin R. Castro as Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), and on March 11 he was approved by the Commission. The USCCR is an independent federal agency that addresses civil rights issues and discrimination complaints based on age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex, in the fields of education, employment, housing, and voting rights, and serves as a watchdog over government policies and the administration of justice in respect to denial of equal protection under the law due to discrimination. The USCCR was created in 1957, but in recent years it has been the focus of partisan bickering. Castro is the eighth chair of the Commission and the first Latino chair in the Commission’s history.

 
Born August 12, 1963, in Chicago, Illinois, Castro is the son and grandson of Mexican immigrants, and was the first in his family to go to college, earning his B.A. in Political Science in 1985 from DePaul University and his J.D. in 1988 from the University of Michigan Law School. He has indicated his pride in being the product of Head Start and affirmative action programs in higher education. He was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1988, and went to work in the Chicago offices of Baker & McKenzie, where his responsibilities included leading the firm’s minority recruiting efforts. He left the law firm in May, 2000, to become Vice-President, Managing Director of Business Development and Acting General Counsel at Juritas.com, a legal-related Internet company, but when the “dot com” bubble burst in 2001, the company went belly-up. 
 
In 2001 Castro formed a private law firm with three other attorneys—Castro, Gomez, Durbin & de Jesus—where his work included corporate law, commercial litigation, diversity consulting and government affairs. Just a year later, however, Castro left that firm to become a partner at Seyfarth Shaw, where he stayed until 2004. He joined the law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal as a partner, leaving in 2007. Castro then joined the corporate world as Regional Vice President of External Affairs at Aetna from 2007 to 2009.
 
Castro founded, and is the President and CEO of, Castro Synergies, LLC, which provides consulting services to corporations, entrepreneurs and non-profit organizations. In the early 2000s, Castro also co-founded New Futuro, which helps Hispanic parents and students on the path to higher education; in 2011, New Futuro was acquired by AP Capital Partners, and Castro became Chairman of New Futuro.
 
In 2002, Castro ran for Congress from Chicago’s Fourth Congressional District, but lost in the Democratic primary to incumbent Luis Gutierrez. In December 2009, Castro was appointed by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to chair the Illinois Human Rights Commission, the state public body that arbitrates complaints of civil rights violations in housing, employment, public accommodations and financial credit.
 
Castro is chair of the board of the National Museum of Mexican Art, the only Latino Museum in the United States accredited by the American Association of Museums, and serves or has served on the boards of the Chicago Community Trust and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and is the former chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association U.S. Supreme Court Committee. Castro also chaired the Judicial Nominations Commission for the Northern District of Illinois, by appointment of U.S. Senator Richard Durbin.
 
A lifelong Democrat, from 1995 to 2008, Castro contributed $35,425 to Democratic candidates and causes, including $500 to Barack Obama’s successful 2004 Senate campaign, and $2,500 to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Castro is married to Amalia Rioja, with whom he has two sons. Rioja most recently served in the Illinois Attorney General’s Office as Chief Deputy Public Access Counselor.
 
Marty Castro Is First Latino to Lead Civil Rights Commission (by Michel Martin, National Public Radio)
 
more