Human Rights in the News: Civil Rights Panel Has Gone Wrong, Critics Say

Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126194822
When discussing human rights in the United States people often think of what is commonly referred to as the Civil Rights era; however, many do not know about the United States Commission on Civil Rights which was created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1950. Their task is to, essentially, investigate and make recommendations on issues regarding civil rights that affect U.S. citizens. As this article points out, they previously supported legislation against racial violence and discrimination.
I think this article is interesting for a couple of reasons: (First) With the U.S. living in a post-Civil Rights era can we afford to just stop trying to progress, (Secondly) given Nebraska’s recent repeal of affirmative action (Or other states' laws, such as the recent law from Arizona that is gaining national media attention) is the U.S. moving toward a more xenophobic view of the U.S.?
I pose the first question because if we do believe we are living in a post-Civil Rights era that no longer requires such broad social or legislative movements than is it really necessary to have a commission that is gridlocked because of party politics? Or if it is still necessary to have legislation similar to the Civil Rights era than why is this commission dismissing legislation like the Matthew Shepard law? I think new legislation such as the Matthew Shepard law, or universal health care, is still needed but wonder if this commission is still needed. I am hopeful that blatant racism, bigotry and maybe homophobia are no longer widely accepted by the public meaning an “independent” commission might also not be needed.
Secondly, the recent abolishment of affirmative action in Nebraska and the new legislation in Arizona makes me wonder if we (Whatever 'we' means.) are not moving toward a more culturally isolated, xenophobic view of American. Who Are We? by Samuel Huntington portrayed a view that I think is quite prevalent in America which is essentially this new wave of immigrants, largely Spanish speaking, can not be assimilated and will not become American thus we need to protect us from them. Or in another view, the in-group needs to stop the out-group from becoming the “new” in-group. I think this has disturbing implications, but this is where I would hope this commission would step in and give advice about problems affecting new immigrants. This article, however, makes one think the commission is not doing this and for me this is worrisome.
Ultimately, if Americans are happy with the current situation with racism (Or bigotry, hatred, homophobia, etc) then we ought to stop masking this happiness with the United States Commission on Civil Rights because having this commission makes it appear as if Americans are not happy with the status quo. But, if Americans want change in our society’s views of immigrants, racial or sexual minorities than they ought to want this commission to actually act in a beneficial manner. Regardless of how you stand (Either yes America is done with Civil Rights problems or no America has lots of work to do) you should be concerned about this article and the implications it brings.


***Human Rights Class***
I think you can see the clear correlations with human rights though it may not talk about human rights explicitly. For example, if you think freedom of movement is a human right than you probably are concerned about the recent AZ law, which is a law that, perhaps, this commission should comment on. Or, if you believe crimes against someone's sexuality is problematic than you definitely should be concerned about this commission's stance on the Matthew Shepard law.