Discrimination

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares99 Views

    Right-Wing Republicans in Congress Attack Mamdani With Islamophobic Comments

    by

    The responses to Zohran Mamdani’s showing in the New York City mayoral primary were the latest examples of how some G.O.P. lawmakers have grown more overt in using bigoted language and tropes.Representative Andy Ogles, a hard-right Tennessee Republican, on Thursday used Islamophobic language on social media to refer to Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, and said he should be deported.Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, implied that Mr. Mamdani was somehow tied to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which occurred when he was 9. That came after Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, reacted on Wednesday to Mr. Mamdani’s apparent victory with an edited image of the Statue of Liberty clothed in a burqa.The responses to Mr. Mamdani’s electoral triumph were the latest examples of how far-right Republicans in Congress have become overt in their use of bigoted language and ethnically offensive tropes, in both casual comments and official statements.Mr. Mamdani, a three-term New York State assemblyman who is all but certain to win the Democratic primary for mayor, was born in Uganda and has lived in New York City since 1998, when he was 7 years old. He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2018 and, if elected, would become the city’s first Muslim mayor.There is no credible evidence to suggest Mr. Mamdani is not, or shouldn’t be, a U.S. citizen. But his shock win put him on the national radar, and some Republicans in Congress are now seeking to undermine him using a strategy similar to the racist one that Donald J. Trump employed against former President Barack Obama by questioning whether he was born in the United States.Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee wrote that Zohran Mamdani needed to be deported.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares105 Views

      in Elections

      As Mamdani Rises, Anti-Muslim Attacks Roll In From the Right

      by

      Republican members of Congress and Trump administration officials have targeted Zohran Mamdani, who would be New York City’s first Muslim mayor.Even before Zohran Mamdani claimed victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, he had become a target of racist attacks from the far right. Those attacks have only intensified in the wake of his commanding performance on Tuesday, with Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures accusing him of promoting Islamic law, supporting terrorism and posing a threat to the safety of New Yorkers, especially Jews.There has been nothing subtle about it: Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, called Mr. Mamdani’s apparent win “the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration.” Representative Andy Ogles, Republican of Tennessee, accused Mr. Mamdani of supporting terrorists and asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to strip him of his citizenship and deport him.Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, shared a photo of Mr. Mamdani preparing for an Eid service while dressed in a kurta, writing, “we sadly have forgotten” the Sept. 11 attacks, which occurred when Mr. Mamdani was 9 years old and living in Manhattan. And Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, a leading group for conservative youth, sought to connect him to those attacks even more directly.“24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11,” he wrote. “Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.”The attacks on Mr. Mamdani, who would be the first Muslim mayor of New York City if elected, deal in well-worn Islamophobic and anti-immigrant tropes. To some, they carry echoes of the “birther” conspiracy theory Donald J. Trump stoked for years before he was elected president, when he falsely claimed that President Barack Obama was Muslim and born in Kenya.Mr. Obama is Christian and was born in Hawaii; Mr. Mamdani is Muslim and was born to Indian parents in Uganda. But like the “birther” attacks, the vitriolic barbs being aimed at Mr. Mamdani seek to paint him as a shadowy, dangerous figure who bears no resemblance to the candidate himself.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares153 Views

      in Elections

      Roll Back Legal Same-Sex Marriage? Republicans Are Getting It Wrong.

      by

      Almost 10 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage would be legal across the country. Today, sensing a political shift toward socially conservative policy, Republican policymakers in states from Michigan to Tennessee have begun proposing bills that would roll back same-sex marriage.These lawmakers may discover to their dismay that they have the politics of the issue quite wrong. Though the cultural winds have shifted on many issues, Republican voters are not clamoring for an unraveling of same-sex marriage rights. Republican voters have objected to socially progressive policies that they believe incur a cost to themselves or others, but the experience over the past decade with legal same-sex marriage has persuaded many in the party that it is nothing to be feared.Polls of American voters generally show support for same-sex marriage rising over the past three decades, both before and after the Obergefell decision. A whopping 68 percent of Americans said they supported legal recognition of same-sex marriages, according to a Gallup poll from last month. Younger voters, a demographic courted by Donald Trump in his recent presidential campaign, are typically the most supportive of gay rights; indeed, some of those who voted for the first time in 2024 may have scarce memory of a time when same-sex marriage was not the law of the land.Among Republicans, the story is admittedly more complicated. There has been a backsliding of support for same-sex marriage among Republicans in recent years, but surveys differ on whether this is a blip or a full-fledged reversal. While Gallup shows a 14-point decline in support among Republicans for same-sex marriage since 2022, my surveys have shown Republican support for legal same-sex marriage bouncing back above its pre-2022 levels, from 40 percent in 2022 to 43 percent in 2023 to 48 percent in 2024. (Notably, even in Gallup’s grimmer data, Republican support for gay marriage remains significantly higher today than it was on the day the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell.)There are two main lines of argument that seem to resonate most strongly with Republicans on preserving same-sex marriage: Live and let live, and leave well enough alone.Republicans remain very open to the idea that the government should not be in the business of meddling with or punishing people because they are gay or lesbian. In polling I conducted with a coalition of Republican pollsters on behalf of Centerline Liberties and Project Right Side, published Friday morning, roughly 78 percent of Republicans surveyed said that “what two consenting adults do in their personal lives is none of my business — and it shouldn’t be the government’s either.” Government is already “too big and intrusive” was a convincing argument in support of legal same-sex marriage, according to the survey. (My polling firm Echelon Insights was compensated for our work on the poll.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares195 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination Case

      by

      Disability rights groups had followed the case closely, warning that arguments by the school district could threaten broader protections for people with disabilities.The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a teenage girl with epilepsy and her parents who had sued a Minnesota school district, claiming that her school had failed to provide reasonable accommodations, which made it difficult for her to receive instruction.The case hinged on what standard of proof was required to show discrimination by public schools in education-related disability lawsuits.In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court held that the student and her family needed to show only that the school system had acted with “deliberate indifference” to her educational needs when they sued.That is the same standard that applies when people sue other institutions for discrimination based on disability.The school district argued that a higher standard — a stringent requirement that the institution had acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” — should apply. Had the district prevailed, the new standard might have applied broadly to all kinds disability rights claims filed under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.That argument had unnerved some disability rights groups, which had cautioned that a ruling for the school could make it much harder for Americans with disabilities to successfully bring court challenges.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Jackson Just Helped Reset the D.E.I. Debate

      by

      At the heart of the debate over diversity, equity and inclusion is a question: How much should the law treat a person as an individual rather than as a member of a group?For a very long time, American law and American institutions answered that question unequivocally. People were defined primarily by the group they belonged to, and if they happened to be Black or Native American or a woman, they were going to enjoy fewer rights, fewer privileges and fewer opportunities than the people who belonged to the categories white and male.That was — and remains — a grievous injustice. At a minimum, justice demands that a nation and its institutions cease and desist from malicious discrimination. But doesn’t justice demand more? Doesn’t it also require that a nation and its institutions actually try to provide assistance to targeted groups to help increase diversity in employment and education and help targeted groups overcome the systemic effects of centuries of discrimination?On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously decided a case that was directly relevant to the latter question, and while the outcome wasn’t surprising, the court’s unanimity — and the identity of the author of the court’s opinion — certainly was.The facts of the case, Ames v. Ohio, are simple. In 2004, the Ohio Department of Youth Services hired a heterosexual woman named Marlean Ames to work as an executive secretary. By 2019, she’d worked her way up to program administrator and set her sights higher — applying for a management position in the agency’s Office of Quality and Improvement.The department interviewed Ames for the job but decided to hire someone else, a lesbian. The department then demoted Ames and replaced her with a gay man. Believing she’d been discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation, she filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for Straight Woman in Workplace Discrimination Suit

      by

      The justices rejected an appeals court’s requirement that members of majority groups meet a heightened standard to win employment discrimination cases.The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group.The decision came two years after the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education and amid the Trump administration’s fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity and could make it easier for white people, men and other members of majority groups to pursue claims of employment discrimination.The standards for proving workplace discrimination under a federal civil rights law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”The case was brought by Marlean A. Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state’s juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion.Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills. They eventually gave the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ms. Ames, lacked a college degree.Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      A Stephen Miller Staffer and Tough Talk: Inside Trump’s Latest Attack on Harvard

      by

      The Justice Department opened an investigation into the student-run Harvard Law Review. The startling accusations show how the Trump administration is wielding power in pursuit of its political agenda.The Justice Department quietly approached Harvard University last month with startling claims, even by the extraordinary standards of the Trump administration’s monthslong assault on the elite college.The department signaled that it was reviewing claims of discrimination against white men at The Harvard Law Review, and accused the renowned publication of destroying evidence in an open investigation. The administration demanded that Harvard “cease and desist” from interfering.In a series of letters that have not been previously reported, the government also disclosed that it had a “cooperating witness” inside the student-run journal. That witness now works in the White House under Stephen Miller, the architect of the administration’s domestic policy agenda, Trump officials confirmed.The Law Review is independent of Harvard University. The allegations nonetheless deepened fears among Harvard officials that the administration appeared eager to escalate one of its civil investigations into a criminal inquiry, underscoring how the university’s problems with President Trump extend far beyond the loss of billions in federal funding.But the aggressive language in the letters from the Justice Department’s two top civil rights lawyers appeared to have overstated the allegations in pursuit of an additional way to punish Harvard. In that way, the episode fits a broader trend in how the administration is wielding federal investigatory powers to impose its political agenda.From reshaping the economy to ramping up deportations to punishing the nation’s elite law firms and universities, Mr. Trump’s government has repeatedly prized speed and shock value over the kind of methodical steps typically taken to build a legal case.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Future of Black History Lives on Donald Trump’s Front Lawn

      by

      I don’t know why I was surprised when President Trump went after the Smithsonian Institution, in particular the National Museum of African American History and Culture — or as it’s more informally known, the Black Smithsonian. If anything, I should have been surprised he held off for two months. On March 27, he issued “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” an executive order that accused the Smithsonian Institution of having “come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.” He called out the Black Smithsonian in particular for being subject “to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.” The federal government, he declared, will no longer support historical projects that “degrade shared American values” or “divide Americans based on race.”I think Mr. Trump’s presidency is a national tragedy. But a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I have some sympathy for the concerns he raised about the agenda of much historical thinking these days. Too often it indulges in sloppy and even childish stereotypes, depicting America’s past as one extended hit job.The boldness of the American experiment, the emergence of the Constitution, the evolution of public schooling, the expansion of the right to vote, the rise of the conservationism and the flourishing of our diverse cultural life — reducing all of this to the machinations of a sinister white cabal is, like the 1980s power ballad, seductive but vapid. That white lady at the supermarket with her 6-year-old daughter has organized her life around defending her privilege? I’m not seeing it.President Trump visited the National Museum of African American History in 2017.Doug Mills/The New York TimesI shudder at suggestions that — as a graphic on the Black Smithsonian’s own website put it a few years ago — “objective, rational, linear thinking,” “quantitative emphasis” and “decision-making” are the purview of white culture. I despise equally the idea that Black people are communal, oral, “I’ll get to that tomorrow” sorts who like to circle around the answer rather than actually arrive at it.And I am especially dismayed at how this version of history implies that the most interesting thing about the experience of Black Americans has been their encounter with whiteness. I figured that the president was being typically hyperbolic when he said that institutions like the museum deepen “societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame, disregarding the progress America has made and the ideals that continue to inspire millions around the globe” — I mean, even something as stupid as that guide to whiteness might just be an outlying mistake. But I was wary that a national museum might squander its chance to illuminate complex topics and expand people’s curiosity, instead trying to corral everyone into caricatures and oversimplifications. As I read the executive order, however, it occurred to me that after all these years, I had yet to actually visit the museum. So, on a sunny Friday afternoon, I decided to zip over to the National Mall to take a look. I will not soon forget what I saw.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Major Supreme Court Decisions in 2025

      by

      <!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> –><!–> –>Police Use of Excessive Force<!–> –><!–> [!–> Barnes v. Felix <!–> –> <!–> –> <!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [!–> 9-0 ruling on May 15 <!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett […] More