The relentless focus on the Benghazi attack makes me think about 2016. This is about Hillary Clinton after all, isn’t it? If she runs, then let this be her Achilles heel. But what if she doesn’t run? Or runs and loses? After our first president of color, will we put another white male in the White House? Or will we elect a person who represents either half the population or our growing communities of color?

While the current Republican prospects include Latino Senator Marco Rubio and Asian American Governor Bobby Jindal, they are all men nonetheless. Paul Ryan, Chis Christie, Rand Paul and Jeb Bush round out the list.

The Democratic field is far more diverse and inclusive. Aside from Hillary Clinton, names being tossed around include Joe Biden; Governors Andrew Cuomo, Martin O’Malley and Deval Patrick; Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren; and Mayors Cory Booker, Antonio Villaraigosa and Julian Castro.

Of course Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin may try again and perhaps Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley will join the fray.

Twenty-sixteen should be interesting. At the end of the day, however, we need to elect the person best qualified to lead and unify our country as it continues to be more diverse and polarized.

May 6, 2013; TVNZ

The culture war has cost Family First, a New Zealand nonprofit that promotes marriage between one woman and one man, its charitable status. The independent Charities Registration Board has removed the organization from the Charities Register and endangered the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status because it does not meet New Zealand’s definition of a charity.

“At a recent meeting of the board, the members determined that Family First’s purpose did not meet the charitable purpose recognized in New Zealand law and set out in the Charities Act 2005,” said Brandon Ward, General Manager Charities at the Department of Internal Affairs.

According to New Zealand’s Charities Act of 2005, “charitable purpose includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.” Ward contends that Family First’s main purpose is “to promote particular points of view about family life” and “under the Act promotion of a controversial point of view is a political purpose.”

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First, counters that the Charities Registration Board’s decision is a “highly politicized decision which is grim evidence that groups that think differently to the prevailing politically correct view will be targeted in an attempt to shut them up.” McCoskrie and his organization were very vocal in its opposition to New Zealand’s marriage equality bill, which was enacted last month.

Family First is free to advocate for its belief about marriage and families. The nonprofit is also free to believe that its advocacy is good for society. “Family First maintains that it is beneficial to the public that it promotes debate and discussion of different points of view on family life,” Ward conceded. He went on to say, however, that “the current legal position is that promoting debate on particular points of view is not a charitable purpose.”

Ironically, the pro-marriage equality Green Party has come to Family First’s defense. “Advocacy in charities is where we also keep our democracy,” said Green MP Denise Roche. “Not-for-profits and charitable organizations have a real role in advocating for a better society, and if they are unable to do that then we lose a voice.” Roche believes that the current law should be revisited and is working on a bill that would include advocacy under the “charitable” rubric.

The ability of nonprofits to advocate on behalf of their constituents and causes is indeed crucial to any vital democracy. Establishing rules, however, on defining and regulating the participation of charitable organizations in the democratic process is a fraught exercise. Should Family First decide to appeal to the High Court, New Zealand will be forced to reconsider the role of nonprofits beyond providing charity. Many of us will be watching.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins the amendment process Thursday. It will be interesting to see which amendments make the cut and how the measure will look after weeks of what will no doubt be spirited hearings.

LGBT advocates and their allies will be anxiously monitoring two proposals from Sen. Leahy. The amendments seek to rectify the immigration measure which currently excludes lesbian and gay binational couples. GOP senators and conservative activists have warned that inclusion of such couples would be a “poison pill” which would kill the legislation.

The purpose of Leahy’s first pro-LGBT submission is “to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents.” In short, to treat permanent partnerships the same as marriages for immigration purposes.

Leahy’s second proposal seeks “to recognize, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any marriage entered into in full compliance with the laws of the State or foreign country within which such marriage was performed.”

Neither amendment uses the words lesbian, gay, or homosexual. Everyone knows, however, that these changes have to do with same-gender couples. I have said elsewhere that I believe lesbian and gay couples will be left out of immigration reform. Not because I think we should. My husband and I are among the thousands of couples that would benefit. I say so because of the political realities of Washington.

You can watch the HuffPost Live segment where I join the discussion about the immigration bill and gay binational couples here.

May 2, 2103; The Advocate

This week, senators will be offering amendments to the immigration bill crafted by eight of their colleagues. Advocates have been working overtime on lawmakers to make sure that changes in the measure reflect their interests. LGBT groups have been among the most vocal, protesting the exclusion of same-gender bi-national couples and insisting that any bill voted on by the full chamber include LGBT immigrant families.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has indicated that he would offer an amendment allowing gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born spouses and partners for green cards, a privilege enjoyed by straight Americans. Republican senators have warned that such a move would be a “poison pill” which would kill any immigration bill. “It will virtually guarantee that it won’t pass,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told POLITICO. “This issue is a difficult enough issue as it is. I respect everyone’s views on it. But ultimately, if that issue is injected into this bill, the bill will fail and the coalition that helped put it together will fall apart.”

Religious fundamentalists and other conservatives have weighed in, threatening to withdraw support if immigration reform were inclusive. “We strongly would oppose the provision and it could force us to reconsider our support for the bill,” said Kevin Appleby, director of the Catholic Bishops’ Office of Migration and Public Affairs.

LGBT advocates are calling that bluff. “We do not believe that our friends in the evangelical faith community or conservative Republicans would allow the entire immigration reform bill to fail simply because it affords 28,500 same-sex couples equal immigration rights,” reads a joint statement from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAAD, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, United We Dream, and the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project. “This take-it-or-leave-it stance with regard to same-sex bi-national couples is not helpful when we all share the same goal of passing comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship.”

The president, who has chosen to let Congress take the lead in forging immigration legislation, has hedged on the matter. While he continues to assure LGBT and other progressive groups that he supports the inclusion of gay bi-national couples, he has also made it crystal clear that he will sign compromise legislation that will leave some sectors disgruntled. “I can tell you I think that this provision is the right thing to do,” he said. “I can also tell you I’m not going to get everything I want in this bill. Republicans are not going to get everything that they want in this bill.”

President Obama is spot on in that not everyone will be happy. Should a final bill pass, it is very possible that gay bi-national couples will not be part of it. Fact is, compromises are made and deals brokered whenever legislation is crafted. Moreover, some constituencies are more valuable than others. In this situation, the LGBT lobby will not prevail as there are far more important players to please and the “greater good” to consider.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

The resolution explains that as an “organization dedicated to the preservation and support of academic freedom and of the right to education for students and scholars in the U.S. and globally,” AAAS stood in solidarity with Palestinian students and academics who have faced “restrictions on movement and travel that limit their ability to attend and work at universities, travel to conferences and to study abroad, and thereby obstruct their right to education.”

Moreover, the association claims that “Israeli institutions of higher education have not condemned or taken measures to oppose the occupation and racial discrimination against Palestinians in Israel, but have, rather, been directly and indirectly complicit in the systematic maintenance of the occupation and of policies and practices that discriminate against Palestinian students and scholars throughout Palestine and in Israel.” This complicity in “Israel’s violations of international law and human rights and in its denial of the right to education and academic freedom to Palestinians, in addition to their basic rights as guaranteed by international law” prompted AAAS members to endorse “the call of Palestinian civil society” for a boycott.

Rajini Srikanth, the group’s former president, drew parallels to boycotts against South African universities during apartheid and stressed that AAAS was protesting institutions, not individual academics.

“The reason that we’re very clear that this is a boycott of Israeli institutions and not Israeli scholars is that we are very aware that there are Israeli scholars who understand the difficulties that Palestinian academics and students have and speak up in support of Palestinian rights,” Srikanth told Inside Higher Ed. “So we would absolutely be working with them, and providing them whatever support they need to challenge their institutions.” Nonetheless, she stressed that AAAS discourages partnerships with Israeli academic institutions so as to avoid “becoming complicit with the discriminatory practices of Israeli institutions.”

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), a pro-Israel organization, condemned the AAAS action. “SPME deplores the AAAS resolution as it is counter to any acceptable academic discourse and is contrary to the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group’s statement read. “Additionally, by focusing exclusively and obsessively on Israel, and not on many other countries in the world where actual human and civil rights abuses exist, the actions of those supporting academic boycotts, as well as calls for divestment, are, according to former Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers, ‘anti-Semitic in their effect if not in their intent.’”

SPME added that “the world academic community frowns upon academic boycotts which it regards as antithetical to the fundamental principles of academic freedom. Whatever their feelings, academics cannot say they support academic freedom and exchange if they boycott, censor, or otherwise interrupt the exchange of ideas, research and information.”

Will other organizations follow suit, or will AAAS be a voice in the wilderness?

Originally posted on the Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

The president and the senators are, for the most part, in sync. But differences over a few key provisions have advocates from all corners expressing concern for their constituencies, promising an intense debate moving forward. As could be expected from some quarters, immigration reform was insinuated into the Boston terror attack.

The President prioritizes an immediate path to citizenship, while the Senate focuses first on secure borders and successful enforcement. Under both plans, it will take eligible immigrants about the same amount of time — at least 13 years — to become U.S. citizens. The Senate bill cuts the number of family visas and repeals diversity visa programs, both of which are of grave concern to immigrant advocates. The president’s blueprint includes LGBT families, while the Senate’s bill purposely leaves them out.

The immigration bill is far from perfect and the House of Representatives should be offering their own legislation shortly. We can expect various groups lobbying hard to ensure that the final bill, should there be one, covers their interests. We can also expect the Gang of Eight to fight hard for what the president has characterized as a compromise effort. Sen. Rubio, in particular, has come out swinging. His presidential ambitions, after all, are at stake.

The president and the senators are, for the most part, in sync. But differences over a few key provisions will have advocates from all corners lobbying for their constituencies and will make for an interesting debate moving forward.

The President prioritizes an immediate path to citizenship, while the Senate focuses first on secure borders and successful enforcement. Under both plans, it will take eligible immigrants the same amount of time—at least 13 years—to become U.S. citizens. The Senate bill cuts the number of family visas, which is of grave concern to immigrant advocates.  It also repeals diversity visa programs. The President’s proposal includes LGBT families, while the Senate’s bill purposely leaves them out.

The House of Representatives should offer their own bill shortly. It will most likely have the same contours.

Originally posted on Urban Institute’s MetroTrends Blog.

The Senate Gang of Eight has finally released its much-awaited immigration legislation. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 is characterized by President Obama as a compromise bill which is largely consistent with his own principles for immigration reform.

The proposed law further fortifies our southern border and bolsters law enforcement, provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, creates guest worker programs for low-skilled and agricultural workers, increases the number of employment visas, and eliminates employment and family visa backlogs. It also cuts and limits the number of family visas and repeals diversity visa programs while creating a merit-based visa system based on education, employment, and length of residence in the U.S.

The comprehensive bill excludes LGBT families. Lesbian and gay Americans and permanent residents will still not be able to sponsor their loved ones for permanent residency.

The exclusion of families like mine comes as no surprise. I have been in Washington, D.C. long enough to know that compromises are made and deals brokered when crafting legislation. I am also aware that some constituencies are more influential than others. In order to get bipartisan buy-in, both sides had to give some. The Democratic senators decided that tens of thousands of LGBT families are dispensable. While the LGBT community has sway with Democrats, it was not enough in this battle. There are far more important players to please and the “greater good” to consider.

How do I feel? Angry, certainly. Resigned, mostly. This is how our democracy works. In the coming months, various interest groups and their champions will lobby Congress to make sure that they get something in the final immigration reform package. LGBT organizations and coalition partners will vigorously protest the exclusion of lesbian and gay binational couples. But at the end of the day, we will still be left out in the cold. And President Obama, who includes us in his own reform blueprint, will sign a comprehensive – but not inclusive – immigration law. And, I will be rational, saying to myself that this is a good thing.

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds and the Huffington Post.

March 31, 2013; Source: Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Before long, Asian American students may have an alternative to Harvard and other top colleges. Hun Loo Gong, a self-made tech billionaire and Harvard reject, is reportedly establishing a university in California for students he calls “vengeful rejects” of elite institutions, “students who want to let Harvard and Berkeley and Stanford know the schools made a great, big mistake.”

The online college will be named Vincent Chin University, after the Chinese American who was killed in a racially motivated attack in1982, and headquartered in San Francisco. It will target Asian American immigrants and others locked out of top universities. Gong said that enrollment and tuition will be minimal, and that the school will count on future alumni to “pay [the school] when they make it big.” “We’ll give them what they need to succeed,” Gong says. “We don’t have to give them Shakespeare. We’re very focused.”

Last December, the New York Times had various experts weigh in on a discussion about the place of Asian Americans in elite schools, asking, “Are top colleges deliberately limiting the number of Asian-Americans they admit?” Ron Unz, publisher of the American Conservative, wrote, “[J]ust as their predecessors of the 1920s always denied the existence of ‘Jewish quotas,’ top officials at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools today strongly deny the existence of ‘Asian quotas.’ But there exists powerful statistical evidence to the contrary.”

S.B. Woo, founding president of the 80-20 National Asian American Educational Foundation, wrote, “Top colleges are clearly limiting the number of Asians they admit, and what’s at stake for America is of more importance than just the number of Asians going to Harvard.” Woo, the former lieutenant governor of Delaware, cited the work of Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade, who wrote in his book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life, that “to receive equal consideration by elite colleges, Asian Americans must outperform Whites by 140 points, Hispanics by 280 points, Blacks by 450 points in SAT (Total 1600).”

It will be interesting to see how Gong’s alternative university fares. Will Vincent Chin University attract Asian American students who dream of an Ivy League education but are turned away?

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly’s Nonprofit Newswire.

March 27, 2013; Source: The Atlantic