Board of Directors
- Professor Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Chair, EJS Board of Directors, Harvard Law School Jesse Climenko Professor of Law
- John Bonifaz, Founder, National Voting Rights Institute
- James J. Brosnahan, Esq., Senior Partner, Morrison & Foerster LLP
- Kate Kendell, Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
- Eva Paterson, Esq., President and Ex-Officio Member, Board of Directors
- Professor Margaret M. Russell, Santa Clara University School of Law
- Anthony Solana, Jr., Esq., Associate, Morrison & Foerster LLP
- Professor Tobias Wolff, University of California at Davis School of Law
- Professor Eric Yamamoto, University of Hawai`i School of Law
About Us
We are a national advocacy organization strategically advancing social and racial justice through law and public policy, communications and the arts, and alliance building.
Serving as guiding principles for its programmatic goals, we contend that a) the United States has not achieved racial equity; and b) government and other institutions must actively intervene in order to advance racial justice. Our program initiatives are orchestrated through strategic alliances with an interest in forming and moving a civil rights agenda, utilizing a cross-disciplinary convening approach to facilitate strategic analysis and implementation. Our constituency is comprised of diverse individuals such as civil rights litigators, legal scholars, policy analysts, social scientists, media experts, activists, and students.
In addition to our role as a strategic convener, we have developed two programmatic “niches” that have evolved into a Legal Team and Communications Team. The Legal Team crafts legal strategies within the context of the contemporary political climate to advance racial justice. The Communications Team supports our legal and policy advocacy work through messaging strategies in order to influence the public discourse on race.
Our History
In the Fall of 2000, several individuals from the progressive legal community began meeting to discuss their mounting concerns about the rightward tilt of the courts and of legal doctrine in such fields as civil rights, environmental protection, voting rights, criminal law, immigration law, and federalism. Like many progressives around the country, we were tired of despairing separately about the rollback of decades of achievements in case precedent, social justice lawyering, and organizing.
Drawing upon the strength of existing progressive legal organizations and forging new alliances with think tanks and research institutes, the EJS core group concluded that the time is ripe for a new coalition of practitioners, academics, think tanks and students to develop and implement innovative legal theories and strategies. With a founding board and staff grounded in anti-discrimination law, one of EJS’ first long-term goals is to dismantle the Intent Doctrine. In working to dismantle the Intent Doctrine, EJS has learned that public discourse on race has become either manipulated or ostracized by political forces – even progressive strategists have called race a “non-starter”. In order to dismantle the Intent Doctrine, EJS has broadened its mantra to “putting race back on the table” which requires the following elements in program planning:
- Advocating that “race” is an integral part of advancing a progressive movement;
- Utilizing the groundbreaking work of unconscious bias to create new legal strategies to support current and future anti-discrimination cases;
- Organizing a strategic communications plan that includes disseminating critical information among stakeholders (such as litigators and judges) as well as implementing a public education strategy.
EJS was formed to counter the dominance of the federal courts by the far Right’s reactionary transformation of jurisprudence. This was the result of a brilliantly conceived strategic plan executed by a national network of neoconservative lawyers, law students, scholars, and foundations. The last nail in the legal coffin of the progressive legal movement seems to have been the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. One key lesson learned for the Left is that key jurisprudential battles exist today that must be fought both now and tomorrow. Winning these battles requires the right people, placed in the right situations, armed with the right standards.
Program Overview
Coordinating a strategy to dismantle the Intent Doctrine
Under existing equal protection law, the constricted “Intent Doctrine” ignores much of what is known about the dynamics of modern day discrimination and therefore deprives many of access to courts and redress for discrimination. The Intent Doctrine requires plaintiffs to prove an almost impossible burden: a decision-maker’s intent to discriminate. Plaintiffs must show that the defendant “selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” If a plaintiff cannot overcome these challenging hurdles, the law will not recognize the discrimination experienced.
Addressing Unconscious Bias among educators
Unconscious Bias pertains to the scientifically proven fact that human beings use cognitive shortcuts to process the overload of incoming information, including racial stereotyping. Thus, in spite of a person’s goodwill on a conscious level, these shortcuts distort perceptions on an unconscious level leading to bias toward particular groups.
The unconscious bias approach allows for a discussion on race driven by awareness rather than blame. Research shows that unconscious bias may be reversed once it is brought to someone’s attention. Applying this to the legal realm, unconscious bias justifies the need to redefine antidiscrimination law by understanding the psychological and sociological factors involved in how discrimination actually operates, challenging the current notion that discrimination solely occurs when it is consciously “intended."
EJS is demonstrating how the Intent Doctrine impairs progress in further eliminating structural racism through its Unconscious Bias in Schools Project in Davis, Calif. Research indicates that teachers often maintain a perception that poor African American and Latino students are not able to achieve academically as well as their White and Asian American counterparts. This perception occurs beyond the decision-maker’s awareness, and without the specific intent to favor members of a particular group.
Since unconscious bias is unintentional, current civil rights protections at the federal level are inadequate to provide for education equity. EJS will coordinate the examination of cognitive biases within relational, classroom environments, then correlate this research with student achievement gaps. Not only will these studies inform the development of a curriculum to eliminate unconscious bias among teachers, but it will also provide evidence to support the legal impediments brought about by the Intent Doctrine.
Assessing the impact of Supreme Court nominees on civil rights
Facilitating the Californians for Fair & Independent Judges coalition, EJS continues to gather and disseminate each Supreme Court nominee’s judicial record on key issues affecting communities of color, women, lesbians and gays, immigrants, and the working poor.
Upholding the government’s responsibility to protect all regardless of race or class
The events following the 2005 Gulf hurricanes comprise one of the great racial justice tragedies in recent times. Prior to the hurricanes as well as in the aftermath, the federal government has systematically withdrawn resources from public services to the detriment of poor people and people of color. EJS has brought administrative and equal protection challenges against FEMA, charging that the agency has failed to fulfill mandatory obligations under the Disaster Relief Act. Furthermore, EJS has filed administrative petitions with President Bush, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Congress and the United Nations. Having engaged the United Nations, EJS is currently building its capacity to utilize international law as an additional strategy to promote racial justice in the United States. The Gulf hurricanes have further emboldened EJS’ belief that government interventions are necessary to not only protect civil rights, but basic human rights such as protection from disaster.
Demonstrating the need for equal opportunity policies
EJS coordinates a California coalition of advocates, organizations, academics, scholars and students to compile research on the statewide educational and economic harms resulting from the elimination of affirmative action in California 1996, as well as assess public perceptions on equal opportunity programs and structural racism.
Our Guiding Principles
We believe that the regressive right-wing bias of our federal judicial system is a threat to constitutional democracy, due process, and equality. We believe in a representative, impartial, and independent judiciary. We believe in the role of courts to provide full access to the legal system and to promote equal justice for all.
Guided by these principles, the Equal Justice Society aims to unify and organize those who are interested in generating, developing, and supporting innovative legal theories and strategies to eliminate the conservative bias of our legal system. Specifically, the Equal Justice Society seeks to: develop and disseminate new legal theories to help ensure fairness and democracy; sponsor forums, presentations and debates on the legal issues of our day; mentor progressive advocates to go forth and fight for social justice; and forge concrete connections between law students and those who are out on the front lines practicing law, working for justice, developing jurisprudence, and serving on the bench.