The Emergence of the Term "African American" at Two Prestigious Institutions: The New York Times and the Supreme Court

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 51-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Powell

When the Supreme Court held that the executive branch has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereigns in the Jerusalem passport case, Zivotofsky v. Kerry (Zivotofsky II), Jack Goldsmith hailed the decision as a “vindication” of presidential signing statements and executive power. Indeed, in the context of the debate over the treatment of the terror suspects, the New York Times had called such signing statements the “constitutionally ludicrous” work of an overreaching, “imperial presidency.”


1995 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-23
Author(s):  
Immanuel Wallerstein

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, the study of Africa in the United States was a very rare and obscure practice, engaged in almost exclusively by African-American (then called Negro) intellectuals. They published scholarly articles primarily in quite specialized journals, notably Phylon, and their books were never reviewed in the New York Times. As a matter of fact, at this time (that is, before 1945) there weren't even very many books written about African-Americans in the U.S., although the library acquisitions were not quite as rare as those for books about Africa.


Author(s):  
Andrew Needham

This chapter addresses how The New York Times challenged the long-held claims of Arizona officials that their state was entitled to a portion of the Colorado River by rights, a claim recently upheld by the Supreme Court. The paper also argued that Arizona's attempt to realize those claims endangered the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon itself. Transforming the flowing energy of water into flowing electricity, the Times suggested, was not in the national interest. Such critiques of Arizona's growth emerged in the wake of the Interior Department's development of the Pacific Southwest Water Plan, a plan designed in 1963 to realize Arizona's Colorado River claims. The critiques emerged from several different conservationist groups, but most powerfully from the Sierra Club, which was gradually changing the description of its politics from “conservation” to “environmentalism” and assuming a far more public voice in disputes over the proper use of public lands.


2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Ernst

Readers of theNew York Timeswere not accustomed to encountering in its pages a Cabinet official picking a fight with the Supreme Court, but that is what they did on May 8, 1938. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, had recently ruled that Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace had used the wrong procedures to set the rates that “commission men” charged farmers for marketing cattle, pigs, and sheep at Kansas City's stockyards. It was the second time the case had come before the Court. On the previous occasion, the justices had sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether the secretary had personally studied the factual record before issuing the rates. In fact, Wallace had given the matter “more personal attention than any previous Secretary of Agriculture had ever given to any case under the Packers and Stockyards Act or for that matter any half dozen cases,” so when the case returned to the Court, the justices had to shift their ground. Now they objected that the Department of Agriculture had not revealed its case to the commission men, leaving them with no way of addressing the government's arguments. Wallace fumed that Hughes had implied that “the present Administration” was to blame for the procedures he followed, when in fact earlier, Republican administrations had established them. Besides, the procedures had already been revised in light of the Supreme Court's first decision in the case.


1992 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome O'Callaghan ◽  
James O. Dukes

Citizens hold the Supreme Court in high regard, and this esteem necessarily, for most, must be based on mass media news coverage. Content analysis of Supreme Court coverage by three networks, three news magazines and three major newspapers finds the press is selective in type of cases covered. The best coverage fit to actual types of cases decided was in the New York Times. All sampled news media gave more coverage to civil rights cases than the number of these cases would justify. First Amendment issues also received close news media attention, but economic and other issues did not. High public esteem of the Supreme Court is based on an incomplete look at the court's workload.


Author(s):  
Stacey Marlise Gahagan ◽  
Alfred L. Brophy

"Reading Professor Obama" mines Barack Obama’s syllabus on “Current Issues in Racism and the Law” for evidence of his beliefs about race, law, and jurisprudence. The syllabus forhis 1994 seminar at the University of Chicago, which provides the reading assignments and structure for the course, has been available on the New York Times website since July 2008. Other than a few responses solicited by the New York Times when it published the syllabus, however, there has been little attention to the material Obama assigned or to what it suggests about Obama’s approach to the law and race.The class began with four weeks of foundational readings, followed by four weeks of student-led class discussions. The readings started by discussing the malleability of racial categories and progressed to cases from the nineteenth century on Native Americans and on slavery. The second day’s readings shifted to the Reconstruction era and changes in the Constitution and statutory law, as well as the rise of the “Jim Crow” system of segregation and the response of African American intellectuals. The third class covered the Civil Rights revolution and retrenchment. It included reading from such diverse figures as Robert Bork, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X. The fourth class, “Where Do We Go From Here?,” addressed some of the enduring issues of inequality facing our nation, the fragility of the African American middle class, continuing racism against African Americans, and a plea for more understanding. After the initial four class meetings, student groups selected additional readings and led class discussions on a variety of race-related topics. The syllabus has suggested topics for the presentations and brief discussion of those topics.The media has called attention to President Obama’s public relationship with Derrick Bell; notwithstanding the option to read Bell’s summaries of cases in lieu of the actual opinions, the readings have no overt endorsement of Derrick Bell, Critical Race Theory (“CRT”), or Bell’s Interest-Convergence theory. Obama included many critics of CRT and offered readings that seemingly demonstrate his hope for substantially more dialog and perhaps, ultimately, economic uplift of those labeled by some of his readings “the truly disadvantaged.” Obama’s use of the Martin Luther King, Jr.’s essay Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? as the title of the last group of readings suggests that Obama did not share Bell’s vision of the unalterable nature of racism.The readings, while instructive, are just the starting point of our analysis. Obama’s suggested topics encourage students to wrestle with the modern consequences of racism and to question its malleability. Thus, we suggest that the readings and group presentation topics reveal Obama, the teacher, as interested in, but not necessarily aligned with, many of the key questions of CRT. The syllabus fits with the story that Obama focuses on issues that unite Americans while he seeks equal treatment. This may reflect the future of constitutional doctrine related to race.


2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 833-854
Author(s):  
Edward G. Hudon

Pendant presque deux cents ans aux États-Unis, le droit du libelle a relevé exclusivement de la common law d'origine anglaise dont les États-Unis ont hérité au moment de la révolution américaine. Quiconque publiait, publiait à ses risques et périls. Selon le système constitutionnel américain à cette époque, toute expression diffamatoire, écrite ou verbale, même sans l'intention de diffamer autrui, était hors de la protection accordée par la constitution à la liberté de parole et de presse. Mais tout cela a changé avec le jugement de la Cour suprême des États-Unis dans New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, décidé en 1964. En effet, ce jugement a déclaré que le droit du libelle selon la common law était, en bonne partie, incompatible avec la protection accordée à la liberté de parole et de presse par le premier amendement à la constitution des États-Unis. Dans le présent article, l'auteur analyse les changements qui ont résulté de New York Times Co. v. Sullivan depuis que ce jugement a été rendu. Il montre comment la Cour suprême elle-même a, de temps à autre, changé son interprétation de ce jugement, explique que ce changement résulte du changement de personnel du tribunal lui-même et prédit qu'il y aura encore plus de changements dans le proche avenir.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document