Group 7:
Racing and E-Racing
Private
Capital Has a Problem
Tomica C. Saul, Rutgers Law School
In October of 2023, the women of color run venture capital firm,
Fearless Fund, was sued for granting $20,000 grants to women of color. The
plaintiff, a white man named Edward Blum, justified his lawsuit using Section
1981 the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which prohibits racial discrimination in
making and enforcing contracts. In an interview to the New York Times, Mr. Blum
stated that “an individual’s race and ethnicity should not be used to help them
or harm them in their life’s endeavors.” Yet, the funding bias in private
investment belies the sector’s entrenchment with systemic racism.
This Article discusses the socio-legal realities that create funding
biases in private investment and makes the case for the necessity of women and
minority lead funds, despite widespread legal attacks on affirmative action and
corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives. These already vulnerable, and
statistically insignificant funds must be given the legal protections to grow
an invisible class of marginalized, high-growth, entrepreneurs.
The erroneous assumption that private investment is colorblind must be
debunked. Affirmative action via minority-run funds and prioritized investing
based on race and gender is an attempt at economic self-repair. In the absence
of legislative support for racial inclusion at the top levels of investing and
funding, advocates must clear the way for Fearless Fund and similar
mission-based investors.
De-Racing
School Safety
Janel George, Georgetown University Law Center
School safety is a term that often serves as a pretext for the
implementation of overly punitive and exclusionary school discipline measures
that negatively impact many Black students’ educational experiences and
outcomes. Research demonstrates that punitive and exclusionary discipline
measures implemented in schools, like suspensions and expulsions, as well as
policing, surveillance, and cultures of control, have not made schools safer.
However, policymakers and school leaders continue to overwhelmingly invest in
these measures, particularly in schools predominantly attended by Black
students. This Article asserts that “school safety” is a concept that is rooted
in racialized stigma of what makes a school “safe.” Drawing upon R.A. Lenhardt’s
concept of “racial stigma,” this Article asserts that school disciplinary
responses to Black children are tainted by racial stigma. Stigma influences
racialized fears that translate into policies and practices that uphold
segregation and exclusion of Black children from many predominantly white
communities. This Article asserts that prevailing school safety measures fall
short of realizing genuine school safety, as evidenced by the persistence of
school shootings and other school-based violence. It argues that the
stigmatization of Black children facilitates—for too many of them—their
criminalization and early involvement with the criminal legal system, most
frequently for minor offenses, and without attendant increases in school
safety. I contend that we must remove racial stigma when crafting school
discipline policies and practices—what I call “de-racing” school safety—and
instead, design and implement evidence-based school safety policy interventions
that address the structural violence prevalent in majority-Black schools. This
Article outlines some of these interventions, which are informed by social
science research as well as experience drawn from Georgetown Law’s Racial
Equity in Education Law and Policy Clinic’s work with community-based organizations
seeking safe and inclusive schools for children of color.
Discussant and Moderator: Jill C.
Engle, Penn State Law