With teeth? Council to consider Human Rights Commission powers
-
City council will consider the scope of the Human Rights Commission at its upcoming meetings.file photo by lisa provence
There's little doubt that Charlottesville is going to have a Human Rights Commission, but does it need enforcement capability to be effective? That's the question facing City Council at its next two meetings, and opinion remains divided.
"A city like Charlottesville should be the leader in protecting the rights of all of its residents," wrote Walt Heinecke in a Sunday, January 13, op-ed in the Daily Progress. Heinecke, a Curry School of Education professor who was active on the city's three-year-old Dialogue on Race initiative, fears City Council might ignore recommendations from the Dialogue on Race and from the Human Rights Task Force, which was formed by Council to further study the need for a commission.
"We've been at this for three years," says Heinecke in a phone interview, pointing out the Virginia Human Rights Act allows localities to create commissions that can enforce human rights violations, but only in narrow areas: employment, housing, public accommodations, private education, and credit.
"State law is fairly regressive," says Heinecke. "I'm really concerned that people on Council don't even want to give us the full extent of state law."
Multiple Virginia communities, including Prince William County and the City of Alexandria, have established such commissions and have reported success in resolving complaints, says Heinecke.
"Because of the threat of a commission investigation" in those localities, Heinecke says, "most cases work it out without the need for enforcement."
That argument hasn't swayed opponents of enforcement, who say they support a Commission that would facilitate resolution of complaints through education and outreach, they're not convinced a local investigative and enforcement body is necessary.
"There hasn't been a lot of evidence that it's needed, that the system we have now is broken," says Councilor Dave Norris, who cites already existing state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as resources to resolve discrimination complaints.
"Some say that the enforcement mechanisms are inaccessible or difficult to navigate," says Norris. "My argument is, let's look at improving them before we create our own enforcement mechanism locally, which is pretty expensive. "
The budget for the Human Rights Commission has been estimated at $300,000 for the first year and $200,000 in subsequent years, which would cover the cost of three full-time employees.
City Councilor Kristin Szakos says that while cost is a consideration, she supports a commission that can investigate and enforce. "It lets the general public and the employer/renter public understand that we're serious about not having discrimination in Charlottesville," says Szakos. She adds that the threat of fines or other civil punishment "comes with leverage to bring people to the table."
The Human Rights Commission will be considered at each of the next two City Council meetings on January 21 and February 4.
30 comments
?
Hey Walt, I have a college degree and still cannot afford a house in the city! However, they are being built for the less fortunate around here...Can I file a complaint?
If you ask the people at the human rights commisions in almost all jurisdictions around DC they will claim success. If on the other hand you ask emlpoyers whether or not they are stuck with a bad employee that they are afraid to fire because they are a protected class they will tell you different. If you ask the people who have to work with these cretins who know they cannot be fired and hate their job because of it, you will hear different and if you ask the unemployed person sitting at home wondering why the jerk he had to deal with at the local business has a job and he doesn't you will hear different.
The real world is that this causes employers to stealthly avoid gays, blacks, and women because if they don't work out they will have a much harder time firing them. It doesn't work.
Here is a scenario, a bad person in an affected class gets fired for cause. They complain discrimination because the employer "allowed" an off color joke or a slur to go unpunished at some point in the distant past. The employer with perhaps a stellar reputation is now accused and threatend with a public lawsuit with his own tax dollars by a do gooder (who else would grab that job) government worker representing a person who has zero to lose and everything to win. So what happens? He pays an outrageous severannce and allows the theif ( or whatever) to collect unemployment and list that he was layed off instead of fired on the resume and the employer vows to never make that mistake again. (hiring a protected class)
There is discrimination in C-ville for sure.. they point to 30 or so complaints... That is 10k per complaint to resolve it if they get involved. They are betting complaints will come out of the woodwork. I am afriad they are right (just not legitamate ones)
The reason Alexandria claims "success" is because the businesses and landlords roll over as soon as they get the letter. What right does the government have to come to a private businessman and demand to know why you chose one person over another? Do they have the right to see YOUR resume and hear what your private answers were in an interview for the job you just got? Maybe the owner just liked you better than the other guy because of his gut instinct. Would you have a case if you got laid off because the boss had to hire his second choice to avoid being in the papers? I would bet that you do, and I would bet the Mr Henieke would not be there to help.
If you want to work with people that the boss is afraid to fire, (and they know it) and put up with them and take up the slack when they screw off then support this boondoggle.
It is not good and the unintended consequences are both real and actually hurt those they purport to help. If there is real discrimination goiong on word will get out and people will no longer support the business in question. If their are blatant violations of the law then there are legal remedies and legal aid as well as a federal EEOC to file a complaint with.
The city should simply create a discrimination intake form and allow people to tell their stories for a year so that there are documented examples of what they believe is occurring and what if any action the city could likely do to fix it. They should be redacted and placed on line for all to see. The a discussion can be had. Mr Henicke is just a reperationist drowning in white guilt.
Giving a do gooder a badge to harrass busnesses and landlords without a court order will do nothing but create bad blood between employers and protected classes as it already has in the entire suburban DC area.
http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-law/2010/08/23/qa-session-false-ee...
http://www.peo7.com/newsletter/newsletter9Issue.htm
Definition of metanoia: Kristin Szakos realizes "cost is a consideration."
Krisitn Taxakos is only trying to consider how to tax more people that work so that deadbeats with bad credit or rental history can try and sue or threaten. Heck, if someone rolled up to some apartment I owned with a huge thumping 2K sound system and giant 2K rims on a 1K car I would not even think about giving them a spot because clearly their priorities are so twisted I would have to worry about my property.
10K a complaint...
Um, maybe if landlords/employers were not so worried about this hysterical BS they might not try and slide it by...
Norris said:
"There hasn't been a lot of evidence that it's needed, that the system we have now is broken," says Councilor Dave Norris, who cites already existing state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as resources to resolve discrimination complaints. "Some say that the enforcement mechanisms are inaccessible or difficult to navigate," says Norris. "My argument is, let's look at improving them before we create our own enforcement mechanism locally, which is pretty expensive.?
Evidence 1. hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow, Separate but equal, massive resistance, Vinegar Hill, swabbing African Americans,
Evidence 2. Mr, Norris' own admission that legal discrimination in institutional life is a real and significant problem, how can there be such a problem with legal discrimination in the criminal justice system, public housing, public health, education, etc in our community, and have it not be such a significant problem in individual cases of illegal discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and private education? Are these areas somehow immune from the massive problems with discrimination that Mr. Norris claims to be evident in the institutional arena?
Evidence 3. Every justice organization that was consulted originally told us that the system was overloaded and not working. The human rights commission staff in NOVA told us that the EEOC was overloaded and that they take twice as long to resolve cases. The director of the Richmond EEOC office told us that there was no plans to expand services to Charlottesville. The EEOC stats show a rising number of complaints in Cville related to Race and Gender in employment.
Evidence 4. The participants in the Dialogue on Race Study Circles told us the current system was inadequate and they wanted our own Commission to handle these kinds of complaints. Tinkering with the current system which requires poor people to go to richmond or DC and takes forever to resolve cases is why we the Dialogue on Race and the HUman Rights Task Force recommended to Council that we establish our own Commission with enforcement and Advisement capability.
Evidence 5. The EEOC only handles employment cases on housing, credit, public accommodations, private education, we have no mechanism other than going to court, which is expensive for both the complainant and the alleged discriminator.
Evidence 6. We looked at legal research on employment discrimination and found that for sociocultural reasons, the number of complaints that see the light of day are limited, especially with low income complainants, and don't represent the real number that would manifest if such a trusted commission were in place.
Evidence 7. Talk to any low income people in this town and they will tell you the existing system for dealing with complaints both of legal institutional and illegal individual discrimination in employment, housing, etc. is inadequate an that is exactly why we have spent over two years out of the dialogue on race developing the proposal that now the Councilors are dragging their heals on. It is MLK celebration time. Read the Letter from Birmingham Jail: Justice delayed is justice denied.
UVA should be embarrassed that Walt Heinecke is an educator. Your very first argument discredits anything else you have to say, "hundreds of years of slavery". You act like slavery is something we just lived through. It was horrible, it happened 150 years ago, and it's over. There is no one alive today that has lived through slavery. Move on already. Obviously you did not study history on your way to being a professor. The LAST thing we need is to waste money and resources on a Human Rights Commission that does nothing but assume guilt and will force a business to prove their innocence. Of course my biggest fear is that someone clearly not qualified, YOU, might be on this commission. Even though our City Council is basically a joke, at least I can see a brief moment of intelligence with Dave Norris clearly thinking and looking at this the right way.
Mr. Heinecke did not cite one instance in his evidentiary presentation alluding to the opinions of business, landlords and others who have been dragged through the mud (financially and emotionally) by bogus claims of discrimination. He seems to live in that make-believe world that the cure to all ills is a committee; the frightening thing about his wish is that the committe would have enforcement powers.
Using his logic, I could get many "justice organizations" to tell me that the system is broken and in need of repair. Does this mean I should try to have the city form a commission to more rapidly process criminal cases in lieu of the present, slow, overworked and illogical system of justice?
The point is that many of the "downtrodden" and poor have nothing to lose by complaining about the system. Businesspersons and landlords have lots to lose by discriminating against folks in violation of federal and state law.
Since Walt is a professor (I assume a PhD), maybe we should run some data:
How many times has a business owner or landlord discriminated against a person versus how many times people have frivolously complained or filed a formal action against. I betcha there are far more bogus complaints versus actual cases of discrimination.
Marshall is right in his post above: We all know how this will unfold. Businesses and others being accused will either spend lots of money defending claims OR will covertly avoid hiring certain groups based on history.
Now, if we have a loser-pays system, then we might be on to something. You file a complaint against a business, it is found to be false, you pay all costs of the defendant.
The elitism is borne out in the quote: "A city like Charlottesville should be the leader in protecting all of its residents." What does that mean? We have some divine trust placed in us (versus other cities) to be intellectually and emotionally perfect...to have non-elected committees to judge and penalize citizens and confiscate their assets...ultimately, at the point of a gun?
R.I.P.: Foster Brooks
Hey Walt, I notice that you have NEVER EVER addressed the very real issues I talked about even though they have been brought up many many times in response to your editorials in the Progress. Why is that? I think it is because you are an active proponent for both reperations and affirmative action.
Lets examine your "evidence" shall we?
1) The emancipation proclamation was put in place 150 years and 17 days ago. Meanwhile the number of blacks killed by blacks in the US in a single year exceeds the total number of lynchings ever committed by whites during the entire jim crow era. As far as Vinegar Hill goes the city emminent domained land from white slumlords and built poor blacks an enitre air conditioned high rise to live in, (most for free) a few blocks away. I think its time for blacks to forgive the whites for giving them indoor plumbing (thats right in the 1960s Vinegar hill STILL had outhouses) air conditioning, a bus stop at their front door and a secure safe place to live, (and the civil rights act of 1964.)
2) Everyone acknowledges that discrimination exists, the difference is that some of us are willing to look at the numbers and see that we have more black millionaires, interracial marriages and offspring, minoirty ownership of busineses, new car purchases, housing purchases and blacks have also joined the ranks of law firms medical practicies, and even the Presididency. That coupled with the Strom Thurmonds of the world dying at the rate of a thousand a day gives some of us hope for a natural evolution without destrying innocent people who were not around in 1863 or even 1963 at vinegar hill.
3) Perhaps the reason they are overloaded is because they made it too easy to make false allegations and the local governments cut back funding because the dogooders went beserk looking to save the world. ( a very real scenario that could also happen here)
4) Poor people do not need to go to richmond or DC to file a complaint. They can file it by mail ,phone, in person or online, here is the link. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/howtofil.html
You give testimony to the Council on this. If you didn't know this basic fact then how can you claim to be such an expert? If you did know this did you lie to the Council or just make a"misstatement like Susan Rice or Bill Clinton?
5) The EEOC also handles age, gender ,pay and Americans with disabilities act violations. They Pay.for prosecutions (see link above)
6) I agree, if we pass these laws you want we will have every person that gets fired (other than white males of course) file false complaints so they can get their firing turned into a layoff and get severance, unemployment and a neutral reference. Maybe if they are lucky the guy that fired them actually used the "n" word in the 8th grade and they can walk away with cash. (of course many good honest people will be hurt in the process)
7) I think if we talk to a lot of low income people in this town they will tell you that they do not want to work side by side with someone who has more protections than them because they are a protected class. I think they will tell you that they will resent working next to someone who gets promoted ahead of them despite the obvious skill level difference because the employer is afraid of being accused of discrimination. I thnk that they will also tell you that they talked to their grandfather or uncle who told them to shut up and deal with life, that it is way better than ever and improving every day with an old white racist dying and an interacial baby being born to take their place. Charlottesville is not Birmingham Atlanta or southeast DC, Charlottesville is not even Charlottesville circa 1995.
You have an obvious agenda to right some wrong, but local business owners and landlords should not have to defend themslves against false accusations by disgruntled employees because you suffer from some white guilt complex. . And they most certainly should not have to pay increased taxes to have their own throat slit.
Can people work with Legal Aid Society to discuss whether they have a claim and then use mail, fax, or Internet to file? Quite often, from what I understand (though I am neither a professor nor a lawyer), what someone thinks is an EEOC or ADA issue is not--or at least won't be until the person begins within the organization by raising a complaint with the organization he or she works for. Has anybody else heard this? What I am thinking is that the correct process is to first see if the organization will address the issue, discipline the employee, etc.
Actually, I bet there would be some power there, especially in the private sector. I recall when someone was fired from a job after an allegation, the boss then fired the man, saying the company had already had trouble before, and didn't even want to bother looking into the allegation. Easier just to fire the accused than to investigate what the accuser was claiming.
I have no answers. And my questions are largely unformed. I will say that I am pleased there is serious debate on the matter. This should not be a knee-jerk "People's Republic of Charlottesville" decision.
Can people work with Legal Aid Society to discuss whether they have a claim and then use mail, fax, or Internet to file? Quite often, from what I understand (though I am neither a professor nor a lawyer), what someone thinks is an EEOC or ADA issue is not--or at least won't be until the person begins within the organization by raising a complaint with the organization he or she works for. Has anybody else heard this? What I am thinking is that the correct process is to first see if the organization will address the issue, discipline the employee, etc.
Actually, I bet there would be some power there, especially in the private sector. I recall when someone was fired from a job after an allegation, the boss then fired the man, saying the company had already had trouble before, and didn't even want to bother looking into the allegation. Easier just to fire the accused than to investigate what the accuser was claiming.
I have no answers. And my questions are largely unformed. I will say that I am pleased there is serious debate on the matter. This should not be a knee-jerk "People's Republic of Charlottesville" decision.
Sorry. Paragraph 3 of my response makes even less sense than the rest of what I wrote; just skip that part--which had to do with the idea that many scenarios were possible but not investigated; for example, the non-fired employee might have been a slandering troublemaker instead of correct...or the fired person might have been guilty.
I guess what's on my mind aligns with the thoughts of the people who have been talking about how it is a right to work state. From what I understand: People can fire you for no reason at all, and they do not have to tell you why. We all enter into that default agreement when we take a job, unless somebody promises otherwise.
A friend advised me long ago never to confuse malice with stupidity. What I'd add to that is that some malice is illegal. Some is not. Some stupidity is illegal. Some is not. It'd be good if people with potential complaints could get some perspective objectively before filing. Even that is tricky, though, because of probable backlog even if we had a new commission.
So if a person appllies for an apartment and is turned down and thinks it is because she is a handicapped blind gay female african american, and they give the apartment to a strait handicapped blind african american female and make a complaint and find out that the gay handicapped blind gay female african american actually had better credit or references what do we do? Do we add up the total number of protected classes and offset them with credit scores and references? Supose the striat one is ALSO part asian or over 60? Is there going to be a conversion chart? Will the landlord have to evict the strait handicapped blind african american female? Suppose one of them has a companion pet and a doctors note to prove it? Will the commission have legal access to peoples private applications who got the apartment in question to compare their qualifications? Will landlords be protected from prosecutions when someone steals a persons info and buys stuff with it?
Or what happens when an employer refuses to fire a gay , handicapped, african american female over 60 when the business slows down and instead lays off the gay african american female UNDER 60? Does THAT person have a case since they are both protected or de we need to do some more math?
What about the white male who wants to file a complaint for a hostile work envrionment because the boss is afraid to fire a protected class even though that "protected class" person is the one creating the hostile work envrionment? will the commission come to the rescue or say "nothing to see here" and just move on?
And finally, what will the city do when they f-up (and they WILL) and slander/libel the wrong person and ruin somebodies business or life? Will the taxpayers be on the hook for the multi million dollar payout?
The entire Dialogue on Race and Human Rights Task Force is a financial debacle of epic proportions. Somebody really should FOIA City Hall for the finance/accounting records for the Dialogue on Race over the past 3+ years. Invoices, credit card receipts, the entire shebang. The average Cville resident has no idea how much money the city has spent on the DOR, and the same goes for the HRTF. Regular employee, consultant and intern salaries for those who work for either the DOR or the HRTF, all the unnecessary free food provided for participants at monthly meetings, extensive radio/media advertising, venue rental fees, on down to the smaller office supply charges and the like. It's nuts. We're talking to the tune of several HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars. Can you imagine what that money could have been used for instead? Especially when the City is trying to "balance its budget" and deal with any "budget shortfalls"??
FOIA, people. FOIA. It's your friend.
Lee–Jackson Day today so all of our oh-so-progressive civil "servants" will be taking the day off, presumably to reflect on how we should always "remember to keep hate alive."
It apparently was thrown around to pay the top person $100,000 to start long before any powers of the Commission was decided on. ($50-60K for investigator and 25K or so for 1 support staff) then supplies get you $200K a year. If the top person has a law degree, and will do all the legal work without using Brown, the City attorney, Okay that is worth $100K. but will the top person have a law degree?
I'm a Liberal and that has not always been very easy in the Old Dom over my 45 years of adulthood. But this commission is yet another Chancellorsville well intended boondoggle, a few empowered do-gooders will lord it over the rest of us Star Chamber style and muck up ambiguous cases. Would anyone have confidence in the fair working of such a panel?
I'm a Liberal and that has not always been very easy in the Old Dom over my 45 years of adulthood. But this commission is yet another Chancellorsville well intended boondoggle, a few empowered do-gooders will lord it over the rest of us Star Chamber style and muck up ambiguous cases. Would anyone have confidence in the fair working of such a panel?
@ Amy Lemley...you can NOT fire an employee for no reason if you don't want to support them through unemployment benefits. As an employer, I can tell you that there is a claim process and you have to have a good documented reason for firing someone. I fired an employee for being intoxicated on the job, and after the review process with the employment commission, he got benefits anyway because it was not documented to their satisfaction. Now he sits on his bottom at home drinking every day at my expense. This commission will be that scenario on steroids.
Some more resources for investigating the merits of a Human Rights Commission:
http://www.hrccj.org/pdfs/history_of_hrc.pdf
http://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/hrc/Pages/Human-Rights-Commission-...
http://www.ci.waterloo.ia.us/humanrights
www.charlottesvillehumanrightscommission.org
You can also check out the NOVA locations Alexandria, Fairfax, Arlington, Washington DC, the sky has not fallen because of their HRCs. In fact Graelyn Bashir of the Cville Weekly reported last month that the Prince William County Chamber had no problem with their HRC.
I'll see your government workers preserving their own jobs and raise you some inconvienient truths:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/main-event-calls-gay-couples-discrimination-c...
http://forum.freeadvice.com/job-discrimination-harassment-30/employee-ma...
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=724
http://ppspublishers.com/articles/supreme_court_discrimination_cases.htm
If this commission passes every person who gets fired will make a claim so they can "compromise" and get unemployment and a clean reference.
The Heinecke witch hunt is transparent and should be fought against vigorously.
Being alert to violations of civil or human rights sounds like a possibly good idea. But putting the enforcement into the hands of a commission sounds like a bad one. The commission structure might make sense where the dispute involves a building permit or some similar matter where facts are material in nature, and the regulatory structure is (more or less) clear, or at least capable of being discerned.
But when it comes to discrimination based on human traits, the situation is more difficult. It may be a fact that someone was denied a rental home, or dismissed from a job, but is it a fact that the denial or dismissal was based on race (or other) trait?
Yes, in truth, race is ALWAYS a factor in a country where race has historically played such an enormous part in our thinking, behavior, and law. Had Lincoln's proclamation resolved everything, there would have been no Jim Crowe; had Martin Luther King's social action resolved everything, then we have have no need of a commission. The truth of the matter is that race sensitivity and selectivity (call it, "bias") in very much embedded in our cultural and our thinking; again, were it not so, would we be discussing a commission? Likewise sexual or gender preference, or any other distinctly human quality of high volatility yet low practical significance.
Perhaps the key question to ask whenever any claim is presented to a commission is this: if we could say with confidence that race, gender, creed, etc was NOT a factor, would the prospective renter been denied; would the employee have been fired, anyway? If so, then no claim exists. If not, then the claim has merit.
The problem comes up when this discernment is put in the hands of 3 or 4 or 5 "commissioners." If the office is elected, then it will be subject to the same politics which have created the problem in the first place; if appointed, then subject to internal favoritism or other possible abuses, or claims thereof. The commissioners, no matter how well intended and qualified, will simply become the arena in which the issues of discrimination are played out.
The only solution I see is a jury whose composition is diverse, and whose backgrounds, associations and activities are unremarkable with respect to matters of human rights: "just plain folks," as it were.
And that brings us back to matters of cost and other practical considerations. Is the problem so vast, and so ubiquitous, as to warrant such an organization? For the moment, it appears to me that the existing legal process may be sufficient. The commission, or other concerned groups, may best function as an advocate, to provide resources and legal assistance to anyone who believes, and has credible evidence to support, any denial or sanction which plausibly is the principal or exclusive result of racism or other trait-based discrimination.
I think that all we need to do is compare the current inaugaral activities to those of JFK ot FDR amd it will be quite appareant how far we have come as a nation.
That does not mean we don't continue to progress, but I do think its time to stop focusing our attention on racist white men over 70 and start focusing it on the racist white and black men and women who are making the problem worse by their willingness to allow people to be falsely accused for the sake of diversity.
The people that would seek employment on this comissiion would obviously be those who believe that the problem is as terrible as Walter says it is. Do we really need Barny Fife running the sherrifs office?
Once again, who pays when the commission is sued for slander/libel and the city loses with prejiduce? (hint: not Walter)
lots of effort by mr. heinecke....lots
wonder if you got this idea going ; whether
you would take it to other places ; you know show
the locals how to do it ; for a small fee of course.
it could be ..well ....a business; someone should run the numbers
and see if there's money to be made as a consultant.
i can help here
@ peter...I was thinking the same thing...he could franchise it...
Walt Heinecke presumes to speak for low-income African-Americans but knows little of their circumstances. I was at the public hearing at First Baptist when many low-income African-Americans spoke about their experiences in Charlottesville. Not a one voiced support for Heinecke's proposal. His proposal doesn't create a single new legal protection for any Charlottesville resident. It just duplicates existing protections that have been in place for 50 years. Any racist employers or landlords in Charlottesville have had 50 years to figure out how to get away with illegally discriminating and that's not going to change one bit with Heinecke's commission. It sounds good in rhetoric but it wouldn't do a damned thing to change the underlying dynamics of race and class in this city. Typical bandaid approach. Which is why you've seen hardly any African-Americans or low-income people speaking up for it. It's all Walt Heinecke all the time, ever more strident, ever more alienating, ever more removed from the realities of race and class in Charlottesville.
So this lousy boondoggle, previously proposed ,lives on and I thought maybe it had withered on the vine?
I'm accused of being a "liberal" all the time and usually vote that way too, but I think spending $300K per year to hire a a staff of senior lunch eaters (and God knows you wouldn't think of hiring anything other than "minorities" to fill those lunch eater jobs) is an affront to the taxpayers of the city. Few people other than members of an inner circle of self-congratulators actually want this to happen.
If I as a businessman want to fire or discipline an employee because he/she is gay,black,latino, or martian, why did I hire them in the first place?
I hope that sanity prevails and this horrible proposal ends up with a stake driven through its heart. In these times of straitened finances the last thing we need is another make-work, feel-good, commission run on the public nickel.
I suppose you could combine this with the proposed runoff fee (tax) and run small businesses out of town with one group instead of two.
Renters beware. Prices are about to skyrocket and credit scores will become the new primary renting criteria.
There is no strong evidence, within the neither oppression nor community change literature, that indicates that the enforcement model being stressed by Walt brings about systemic nor community culture change. It is my understanding that the entire Dialogue on Race Committee did not fully endorse this model. There was no consensus on the Task Force as well.
Also my understanding that there have been efforts to get feedback from various individuals within targeted communities but there has been absolutely no revision to this model given the feedback. And there is most definitely a lack of consensus with the varied leaders of targeted communities suggested within this model. It seems ironic for a economically privileged, straight white man to determine what the best approach should be for people being oppressed…looks somewhat paternal to me. But wait...that is how we roll in central VA. In a diverse world, the term teeth most likely takes on many different forms. So lets please stop referring to this model as the only one with teeth. And BTW...with all the resources that are represented by those making bold statements about what this model will do...where has your teeth been all these years!!! And how have you taken a real bite out of oppression!!!