National Black Law Journal

While recognizing intersectionality and its importance to critical race thinking, this Article begins in Part I with a discussion of the national efforts to suppress learning about race and law. Part II discusses the historical silencing of enslaved people and the origins of Thirteenth Amendment doctrine outlawing badges of slavery. Part III explores the new badges of slavery, and Part IV outlines the utility of Thirteenth Amendment doctrine in stopping legislation that suppresses learning about race. The Article provides a historical analysis of the Thirteenth Amendment and its application to both judicial doctrine and legislative power. This Article proposes that the Thirteenth Amendment is a source of both juridical and legislative remedies available today as a counter to the new attempt at badges of slavery.

This Article overall will discuss war against African Americans implicated in this legislation, including its linkage to other race-based suppression, such as denial of voting rights, which have been recognized as a basis for judicial intervention. Additionally, it will argue that not only is this attack motivated by current resistance and response to racial inequity, but it is also linked to the historical suppression of people who were enslaved and their descendants. The maintenance of a mindset built around the silencing of Black cries of injustice is a continuation of a “Plantation Mentality” that is part and parcel of the badges of slavery specifically denounced by the Thirteenth Amendment.

This Article explores the race, gender, and class dynamics that render poor Black women vulnerable to racial surveillance and harassment in predominately white communities. In particular, this Article interrogates the recent phenomenon of police officers and public officials enforcing private citizens' discriminatory complaints, which ultimately excludes Black women and their children from publicly subsidized housing in traditionally white neighborhoods. The Article suggests that these particular mechanisms represent a confluence of the racially exclusionary workings of the social welfare state and the criminal justice system. I thus argue that the concerted effort of welfare and criminal policing institutions, together with private actors, to restrict the housing choices of poor Black women functions in ways that are analogous to the formally repudiated racially restrictive covenant.

In this article, I use a critical race approach and a civil rights of health framework to examine the role of racism in medical treatment, specifically of Black women. Because racism is built into our institutions, widespread in our culture, and influences our beliefs and behavior, it is necessary to recognize and understand its universal presence when determining the most effective method to confront its impact on patient care in the health care setting. The current civil rights doctrine is ineffective in addressing this insidious racism, which is why I propose a doctrinal shift in disparate impact claims and use patient narratives to demonstrate the need for this shift. This new doctrinal framework assumes the existence of bias once a patient has identified disparate impact, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove this impact was not a result of discrimination. This change removes the need for plaintiffs to identify a specific discriminatory policy or practice and acknowledges the pervasiveness of racism and implicit bias in our society.

With these proposed changes, litigants will gain the ability to challenge their experiences of discrimination and provide for relief to empower patients and incite change in healthcare institutions to eliminate the harmful effects of bias.

This paper examines the constitutionality of diversity fellowship programs at major law firms, contextualized within recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action and ongoing legal challenges to diversity, equity, and includion (DEI) initiatives. The analysis begins by exploring the role and importance of diversity fellowship programs in promoting inclusion and addressing systemic inequities in the legal profession. The paper then delves into the implications of the Supreme Court's decisions on affirmative action for Black law students, highlighting the potential impact on admissions, educational experiences, and career opportunities. Furthermore, it scrutinizes the attacks on diversity fellowships by conservative legal activists and the subsequent changes made by law firms to their fellowship programs to avoid litigation. The discussion also considers the application of the American Bar Association's Rules of Legal Ethics to these diversity programs, questioning their constitutionality in light of recent legal developments. Through this analysis, the paper argues that while diversity fellowships are essential for fostering a more representative legal profession, they significant challenges in the current legal and political climate.