I agree that we cannot change people's thoughts and desires, especially about discrimination against whichever "them" is in their minds.
But you assert "For blatant cases of discrimination, enforce the existing laws. We have a powerful existing legal framework to address bad actors." I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
Even before the Trump Mad!-ministration's vast dismantling of a variety of civil rights enforcement personnel, you ought to be aware of the difficulties of enforcing existing laws.
One [extreme] Colorado example: In a clear instance of poor controls on government actions, Elijah McClain died after an encounter with police and EMTs on Aug. 24, 2019. In June of 2020, a County District Attorney and Aurora's City Manager made statements essentially announcing there would be no legal action. In late June, 2020, Governor Polis appointed a special prosecutor. In September, 2021, that prosecutor took the matter to a grand jury and obtained indictments. It took a court suit by news agencies to get "an amended autopsy report ... released in September 2022." On October 12, 2023, there was the first conviction (and an acquittal). On December 23, 2023, there were reports of the convictions of the EMTs in the case -- and a great deal of concern the convictions would "have a chilling effect on first responders around the country."
One other quick indication -- There are approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, and the Department of Justice under Biden only obtained or maintained "17 agreements with law enforcement agencies, including 13 consent decrees, and one post-judgment order."
DEI doesn't appear to be a clear or powerful force for change, and it triggered backlash. But the Democratic party ought to have a strong, positive statement in favor of civil rights laws and their enforcement. Actions need to be addressed, no matter what the thoughts behind those actions might be. It ought not fall to private individuals to sue seeking redress for violations.
I don't think DEI is the answer to those issues. As you said, the law existed, the problem was resisting prosecuting.
And by all means the Democratic Party should speak out in favor of civil rights and enforcing the laws we have.
What I think the party needs to walk away from are ineffective programs designed to change how people think. Everything else aside, we're a free Democracy (Trump notwithstanding) and that means everyone is free to have any opinions they want.
I agree that we cannot change people's thoughts and desires, especially about discrimination against whichever "them" is in their minds.
But you assert "For blatant cases of discrimination, enforce the existing laws. We have a powerful existing legal framework to address bad actors." I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
Even before the Trump Mad!-ministration's vast dismantling of a variety of civil rights enforcement personnel, you ought to be aware of the difficulties of enforcing existing laws.
One [extreme] Colorado example: In a clear instance of poor controls on government actions, Elijah McClain died after an encounter with police and EMTs on Aug. 24, 2019. In June of 2020, a County District Attorney and Aurora's City Manager made statements essentially announcing there would be no legal action. In late June, 2020, Governor Polis appointed a special prosecutor. In September, 2021, that prosecutor took the matter to a grand jury and obtained indictments. It took a court suit by news agencies to get "an amended autopsy report ... released in September 2022." On October 12, 2023, there was the first conviction (and an acquittal). On December 23, 2023, there were reports of the convictions of the EMTs in the case -- and a great deal of concern the convictions would "have a chilling effect on first responders around the country."
One other quick indication -- There are approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, and the Department of Justice under Biden only obtained or maintained "17 agreements with law enforcement agencies, including 13 consent decrees, and one post-judgment order."
DEI doesn't appear to be a clear or powerful force for change, and it triggered backlash. But the Democratic party ought to have a strong, positive statement in favor of civil rights laws and their enforcement. Actions need to be addressed, no matter what the thoughts behind those actions might be. It ought not fall to private individuals to sue seeking redress for violations.
I don't think DEI is the answer to those issues. As you said, the law existed, the problem was resisting prosecuting.
And by all means the Democratic Party should speak out in favor of civil rights and enforcing the laws we have.
What I think the party needs to walk away from are ineffective programs designed to change how people think. Everything else aside, we're a free Democracy (Trump notwithstanding) and that means everyone is free to have any opinions they want.