Tag: diversity

Casting Society Of America To Host Town Hall On Diversity & Inclusion

The Casting Society of America will host a town hall on Thursday to explore diversity, equity and inclusion in the casting process. The virtual gathering is co-sponsored by the CSA’s Black, Indigenous and People of Color Alliance and will be moderated by Dr. Darnisa Amante-Jackson, CEO of the Disruptive Equity Education Project and a lecturer at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.

The town hall, which starts at noon PT, is the first in a new series of panel discussions called “Closer to Equity” that the CSA will host. The town hall is open to all casting professionals, including CSA members and non-members. To register, email: [email protected]

Thursday’s panelists will include casting directors Angelique Midthunder (Georgia O’Keeffe, Big Kill), Erica Jensen (Broadway’s A Raisin in the Sun, Hedwig and the Angry Inch), Kim Coleman (American Crime, Dear White People) and Zora DeHorter (12 to Midnight, Shadow Wolves); casting director and producer Kim Heil (San Diego Repertory Theatre); Kim Williams, VP Casting at Touchstone Television; and casting associates Margie Vargas (Kidding, Blindspotting) and Xavier Rubiano (Broadway’s Dear Evan Hansen, The Phantom of the Opera).

“The objective of this first conversation,” CSA says, “is to provide a space for casting professionals to have the difficult conversations around diversity, belonging, equity and inclusion, and move toward healing and change.” Dr. Amante-Jackson said that she strives to create “space and experiences that foster conversations around equity and dismantling systemic oppression and racism in pursuit of advancing equitable outcomes for all.”

The panelists had this to say in advance of Thursday’s town hall:

Angelique Midthunder: “As people of color ourselves, BIPOC casting directors have an intimate understanding of the complexities of different cultures as well as an ingrained obligation to represent them with integrity. We are the bridge between producers and the BIPOC acting community.”

Kim Heil: “Many BIPOC professionals in the arts and entertainment industry like ourselves have been working for years – if not decades – with equity, diversity, and inclusion in mind. So what’s different about now? This moment now demands that we examine not just those principles, but the infrastructure and the systems that those principles are circulated. The systems themselves are flawed. So how can we restructure a better way of working?”

Kim Williams: “I’m excited to go beyond just talking and, with the help of Dr. Darnisa, move towards addressing the critical issues and changes that are necessary to bring about true progress towards equity both in front of and behind the camera.”

Margie Vargas: “Diversity and inclusion in casting is about bringing something unique to the table that no one else can. Each unique perspective can only build a better, stronger, and more unified casting community.”

Zora DeHorter: “As a woman, a black woman, I have dealt with my share of assumptions and presumptions; at times an unnecessary burden to carry. Being part of an open, safe space to have dialogues about how to affect changes is so

Continue reading

Can new California law on board diversity really change corporate culture?

The summer was filled with scorching images of racial injustice, and the fury that injustice breeds. Now comes the fall, and with it a yearning for the cooling breeze of potent reform.

From all quarters is heard the righteous demand for diversity, equity and inclusion. This week, California purported to respond on the corporate front.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed into law a dramatic new statute that requires public corporations headquartered in California to put at least one minority on their board of directors by 2021. By 2022, most public boards are required to have at least one-third minority directors. Under this law, minority means either a member of a historically underrepresented racial group, or a gay, lesbian or transgender person.

In some ways, this is a remarkable advance for proponents of diversity in America’s most powerful institutions. Yet in a deeper sense, it is business as usual. Or worse, it is the co-option of the impulse to racial justice by prevailing systems of power and privilege.

What is diversity for?

Corporate law in the United States requires corporate directors to use their powers to pursue profits for shareholders. Profits may not be sacrificed in the interests of workers, consumers, communities or patriotic conscience.

“Cakes and ales,” as an old case puts it, are permitted, but only such as are necessary to make money for shareholders. This is the rule today, whether the issue is corporate diversity, coronavirus-themed advertising or any policy that purports to be socially responsible. In fact, American corporations routinely lay off thousands of workers, destroy local communities and ignore the national interest when profit so commands.

California’s new corporate minority quota comes fast on the heels of the Golden State adopting a gender quota for corporate boards in 2018. When that reform was passed, many scholars doubted the constitutional viability of the command. The Constitution requires “equal protection” under the law, and jurists usually hold that strict hiring quotas violate this standard. Yet only recently have a few cases begun to percolate that challenge the corporate gender quota. Most firms have complied with the new strictures, eagerly identifying women who will further the faithful pursuit of corporate profits.

Proponents of corporate diversity quotas believe that more women directors will improve corporate sensitivity to the needs of employees’ families and children. They hope minority directors will curb corporate abuses that harm poor and disadvantaged communities. They may be right. But if they are right, this will happen only through informal, unspoken compromises at the margin, in the shadow of the law that says shareholders are first — rather than being dealt with explicitly in the boardroom, in the corporate conscience, and in the most important decisions, where shareholders alone are served.

Without reform of our foundational corporate governance law, California’s diversity statutes represent (brace yourself) capitalism’s commodification of diversity, equity and inclusion, and a capture of gender and racial justice impulses in the service of the shareholding class, rather than genuine reform.

Progressives who want corporations to

Continue reading

Numerical Diversity Hiring Targets Attract Government Scrutiny

The U.S. Labor Department is investigating companies with federal contracts that have included specific numerical goals in their pledges to hire more diverse staff, arguing that these resemble illegal quotas and could potentially discriminate against white applicants and other groups, according to people familiar with the matter.

The department, which sent letters to

Microsoft Corp.


MSFT 0.36%

and

Wells Fargo


WFC 1.98%

& Co. last week about their stated goals to hire more Black employees in management roles, is now looking more broadly and may contact other companies soon, those people said. The department has asked for documents relating to these initiatives going back to January 1, 2020, and has given the companies until the end of this month to deliver a report.

A Labor Department spokesman wouldn’t comment on other possible inquiries, but said the agency will send letters to other contractors if it feels an inquiry is needed to confirm that companies aren’t using race- or sex-based hiring preferences or quotas.

“Companies must take affirmative action but must not discriminate in doing so,” the spokesman said.

The scrutiny, along with a recent White House directive to limit racial-sensitivity training, has caused confusion for many businesses that have federal contracts because federal rules not only allow, but encourage, companies to set diverse hiring goals, said David Cohen, co-founder of the Institute for Workplace Equality, a trade association for federal contractors that counts Microsoft and Wells Fargo as members. The rules were put in place to help expand the pools of job candidates considered to more closely mirror the available workforce, he added.

Microsoft said a Labor Department agency is questioning whether its June pledge regarding diversity violates federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race.



Photo:

Getty Images

Rules for federal contractors say they must identify the gaps between their workforces and available labor pools, then establish placement goals and plans for meeting them.

Microsoft said the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, a division of the Labor Department, is questioning whether its June pledge to double the number of Black managers and leaders in its U.S. workforce by 2025 violates federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race. Wells Fargo also pledged in June to double Black leaders over the next five years and said it would tie certain bonuses to achieving that goal. It too received a letter from the same agency reminding the bank that it may not discriminate on the basis of race to provide additional opportunities and that quotas are prohibited.

Both companies said they are confident their efforts comply with U.S. employment laws.

Some top contractors that announced recent diversity initiatives, including

Boeing Co.


BA 2.06%

, said they haven’t received similar letters from the OFCCP. Boeing pledged to increase its number of Black employees in the U.S. by 20% without giving a time frame.

Enforcing racial or other diversity quotas in hiring is illegal, but spelling out hiring goals is not, several labor law experts said.

Yet hiring goals can cross the line into

Continue reading

Government Probes Microsoft’s Effort to Boost Diversity | Business News

By MATT O’BRIEN and ALEXANDRA OLSON

Microsoft says the U.S. Labor Department is scrutinizing its efforts to boost Black employment and leadership at the tech company.

Microsoft disclosed in a blog post Tuesday that it received a letter from the agency last week asking about the company’s June pledge to double the number of Black and African American managers, senior individual contributors and senior leaders by 2025.

“The letter asked us to prove that the actions we are taking to improve opportunities are not illegal race-based decisions,” said Dev Stahlkopf, Microsoft’s general counsel. “Emphatically, they are not.”

CEO Satya Nadella made the June hiring commitment in response to Black Lives Matter protests around the country and as part of a broader message to employees about racial injustice and promoting a culture of inclusivity at the Redmond, Washington-based company.

It’s not uncommon for tech companies to publicly tout efforts to increase staff diversity, given the industry’s longstanding dearth of Black, Latino and female workers in technical and leadership positions. But this time they are running into scrutiny by a Trump administration that has sought to intervene with universities and other institutions over their approach to race and discrimination.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month “to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating” in the federal workforce and among federal contractors. Microsoft is a major federal contractor, supplying its Office workplace software and cloud computing services to multiple government agencies.

In a statement sent to The Associated Press, the Labor Department said it “appreciates Microsoft’s assurance on its website that it is not engaging in racial preferences or quotas in seeking to reach its affirmative action and outreach goals.” The agency added that it “looks forward to working with Microsoft to complete its inquiry.”

The letter from the Labor Department gives Microsoft until Oct. 29 to explain how it plans to carry out its pledge regarding Black leadership.

The Labor Department did not respond to a question about whether it has started similar inquiries into other companies with federal contracts.

The Trump administration’s move contrasts with a flurry of efforts by private companies and institutions to increase racial diversity in the wake of the Black Lives Matters protests. There has been a particular emphasis on bringing more African Americans into leadership positions.

More than 40 private and publicly traded companies have joined a pledge to add at least one Black member to their board of directors by 2021. Target last month pledged to increase the representation of its Black employees by 20% over the next three years. Goldman Sachs announced an initiative to recruit more bankers and traders from historically Black colleges. Other firms that have announced similar hiring or promotion goals include Salesforce, Mastercard and Accenture.

Glassdoor, the jobs site that allows users to review their employers anonymously, added new feature to allow users to rate companies on their diversity and inclusion initiatives. The company said the feature was added partly in response to a

Continue reading

Government probes Microsoft’s effort to boost diversity

Microsoft says the U.S. Labor Department is scrutinizing its efforts to boost Black employment and leadership at the tech company

Microsoft says the U.S. Labor Department is scrutinizing its efforts to boost Black employment and leadership at the tech company.

Microsoft disclosed in a blog post Tuesday that it received a letter from the agency last week asking about the company’s June pledge to double the number of Black and African American managers, senior individual contributors and senior leaders by 2025.

“The letter asked us to prove that the actions we are taking to improve opportunities are not illegal race-based decisions,” said Dev Stahlkopf, Microsoft’s general counsel. “Emphatically, they are not.”

CEO Satya Nadella made the June hiring commitment in response to Black Lives Matter protests around the country and as part of a broader message to employees about racial injustice and promoting a culture of inclusivity at the Redmond, Washington-based company.

It’s not uncommon for tech companies to publicly tout efforts to increase staff diversity, given the industry’s longstanding dearth of Black, Latino and female workers in technical and leadership positions. But this time they are running into scrutiny by a Trump administration that has sought to intervene with universities and other institutions over their approach to race and discrimination.

Labor Department representatives didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment Tuesday.

The Trump administration’s move contrasts a flurry of efforts by private companies and institutions to increase racial diversity in the wake of the Black Lives Matters protests. There has been a particular emphasis on bringing more African Americans into leadership positions.

More than 40 private and publicly traded companies have joined a pledge to add at least one Black member to their board of directors by 2021. Target last month pledged to increase the representation of its Black employees by 20% over the next three years. Goldman Sachs announced an initiative to recruit more bankers and traders from historically Black colleges. Other firms that have announced similar hiring or promotion goals include Salesforce, Mastercard and Accenture.

Glassdoor, the jobs site that allows users to review their employers anonymously, added new feature to allow users to rate companies on their diversity and inclusion initiatives. The company said the feature was added partly in response to a 63% spike in reviews mention diversity over the summer, following protests over the police killing of George Floyd.

—————

AP Business Writer Alexandra Olson in New York contributed to this story.

Source Article

Continue reading

Conservative group sues to block California boardroom diversity law

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A conservative legal group announced Monday that it sued to block California’s first-in-the-nation law that requires hundreds of corporations based in the state to have directors from racial or sexual minorities on their boards.

Judicial Watch claimed in the suit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court that the law is unconstitutional.

“The legislation’s requirement that certain corporations appoint a specific number of directors based upon race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender status is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and triggers strict scrutiny review by the court,” the group said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill last week saying it was crucial to fighting racial injustice by giving minorities “seats at the table” of corporate power.

California already has a law requiring corporations to have at least one female director on their boards. Judicial Watch is also challenging that law in court and a trial is scheduled next summer.


The new measure cited statistics showing few of the 662 public corporations headquartered in California had Blacks or Latinos on their boards.

The measure requires at least two directors from different racial or sexual minority groups be appointed to boards with four to nine directors by the end of 2022. Three directors are required for boards with nine or more directors.

Firms that don’t comply would face fines of $100,00 for first violations and $300,000 for repeated violations.

Those who qualify would self-identify as Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

The lawsuit notes that a Senate analysis said the bill draws distinctions based on race and ethnicity, and therefore is “suspect.”

The group said the law is unconstitutional because the quotas don’t achieve a compelling governmental interest that is more narrowly defined than “the existence of general societal discrimination.”

Assemblyman Chris Holden, who coauthored AB 979, said research showed racial, ethnic and sexual minority groups were systematically excluded from corporate boards.

“No surprise!” Holden said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Some would rather maintain a status quo that doesn’t embrace diversity and inclusion.”

The lawsuit seeks to an order declaring it illegal to spend state funds to ensure companies comply with the law and to prevent the law from taking effect.

“California’s government has a penchant for quotas that are brazenly unconstitutional,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Gender quotas and now new quotas for numerous other groups for corporate boards are slaps in the face to the core American value of equal protection under the law.”

Source Article

Continue reading

Group sues to block California boardroom diversity law

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A conservative legal group announced Monday that it sued to block California’s first-in-the-nation law that requires hundreds of corporations based in the state to have directors from racial or sexual minorities on their boards.

Judicial Watch claimed in the suit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court that the law is unconstitutional.

“The legislation’s requirement that certain corporations appoint a specific number of directors based upon race, ethnicity, sexual preference, and transgender status is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and triggers strict scrutiny review by the court,” the group said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill last week saying it was crucial to fighting racial injustice by giving minorities “seats at the table” of corporate power.

California already has a law requiring corporations to have at least one female director on their boards. Judicial Watch is also challenging that law in court and a trial is scheduled next summer.


The new measure cited statistics showing few of the 662 public corporations headquartered in California had Blacks or Latinos on their boards.

The measure requires at least two directors from different racial or sexual minority groups be appointed to boards with four to nine directors by the end of 2022. Three directors are required for boards with nine or more directors.

Firms that don’t comply would face fines of $100,00 for first violations and $300,000 for repeated violations.

Those who qualify would self-identify as Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

The lawsuit notes that a Senate analysis said the bill draws distinctions based on race and ethnicity, and therefore is “suspect.”

The group said the law is unconstitutional because the quotas don’t achieve a compelling governmental interest that is more narrowly defined than “the existence of general societal discrimination.”

Assemblyman Chris Holden, who coauthored AB 979, said research showed racial, ethnic and sexual minority groups were systematically excluded from corporate boards.

“No surprise!” Holden said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Some would rather maintain a status quo that doesn’t embrace diversity and inclusion.”

The lawsuit seeks to an order declaring it illegal to spend state funds to ensure companies comply with the law and to prevent the law from taking effect.

“California’s government has a penchant for quotas that are brazenly unconstitutional,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Gender quotas and now new quotas for numerous other groups for corporate boards are slaps in the face to the core American value of equal protection under the law.”

Source Article

Continue reading

Woke California Mandates Tokenism with New Diversity Law

Congratulations! You got this job because California progressives demand we have more diversity.”



Gavin Newsom et al. standing next to a man in a suit and tie: California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks in front of the hospital ship USNS Mercy that arrived into the Port of Los Angeles on Friday, March 27, 2020, to provide relief for Southland hospitals overwhelmed by the coronavirus pandemic. Also attending the press conference were Director Mark Ghilarducci, Cal OES, left, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, second from right, and Dr. Mark Ghaly, Secretary of Health and Human Services, far right, along with others not shown. (Photo by Carolyn Cole-Pool/Getty Images)


© Carolyn Cole-Pool/Getty
California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks in front of the hospital ship USNS Mercy that arrived into the Port of Los Angeles on Friday, March 27, 2020, to provide relief for Southland hospitals overwhelmed by the coronavirus pandemic. Also attending the press conference were Director Mark Ghilarducci, Cal OES, left, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, second from right, and Dr. Mark Ghaly, Secretary of Health and Human Services, far right, along with others not shown. (Photo by Carolyn Cole-Pool/Getty Images)

Sound offensive? It should. Yet here we are, dealing with government-mandated tokenism in the name of social justice and racial equity from the state of California. As is so often the case, this latest move amounts to condescending pandering from politicians who want to be literal white knights coming to the rescue.

Under a newly signed corporate diversity law, California-based corporations are mandated to add a member from an “underrepresented community” to their boards. This includes both self-identified racial minorities and members of the LGBTQ community, inadvertently treating every unique person, with their unique background, as equally oppressed, regardless of socio-economic background. The legislation doesn’t bother to explain why diversity serves companies. It simply demands it.

Governor Gavin Newsom is proud of this accomplishment. He shouldn’t be. In the name of diversity and inclusion, the governor isn’t just amplifying an insidious message that minorities can’t earn positions on our own. He’s turning us into props to make white progressives feel good about themselves.

As corporations eagerly adopt social justice causes like Black Lives Matter and promote racial equity training for their employees, the implication that racism is keeping boards white is hard to believe. The very text of the legislation notes only 35 percent of the state’s companies have all-white boards, suggesting corporations are diversifying with qualified candidates without government intervention. There’s no reason to believe the trend won’t continue, yet the state compels diversity anyway.

Glass Fire In Napa County, California Continues To Rapidly Expand

UP NEXT

UP NEXT

Who would want to be appointed to a board the day after this bill goes into effect? Racial or sexual minorities will go from wondering if they didn’t get a job due to bigotry to wondering if they got the job due to tokenism. What a horrible feeling to have.

I wouldn’t want to be hired for being gay; I would want to earn the job. Would I be expected to declare my sexual orientation to make it easier for the hiring manager to classify me? I’d much rather avoid the awkwardness of trying to casually drop my sexuality during an interview in a way that won’t seem like I’m asking for extra diversity points. Must white men and women wear their LGBTQ status on their sleeves in order to ensure they don’t get tossed aside as a “white candidate” who wouldn’t pass diversity muster?

This is the second law of its kind

Continue reading

Ashley Banjo Says Diversity Ofcom Complaints Are Evidence Of A Deeper Issue In British Society



Ashley Banjo for GQ Hype


© Adama Jalloh
Ashley Banjo for GQ Hype

Diversity troupe leader Ashley Banjo has said the controversy surrounding the group’s recent performance on Britain’s Got Talent, which reflected on the events of 2020, is indicative of a deeper issue in British society.

In the first semi-final show of this year’s BGT, Diversity returned to the stage to put on a powerful performance looking back at key moments in the year, including scenes alluding to the coronavirus pandemic, the killing of George Floyd and the ensuing global protests against police brutality.

While the routine won widespread praise at the time, it also led to more than 24,000 complaints being made to Ofcom, which the media regulator eventually dismissed.

Reflecting on the performance in a new interview with GQ Hype, Ashley admitted he was surprised at how much the Black Lives Matter-inspired section of the routine ended up being focussed on.



Ashley Banjo looking at the camera: Ashley Banjo for GQ Hype


© Adama Jalloh
Ashley Banjo for GQ Hype

Asked about “that Diversity BLM performance”, Ashley explained: “I’m proud for it to be [called that], but it’s really interesting how you coined it our ‘BLM performance’, because it wasn’t.

“What I find the most incredible thing about all of this is that the Black Lives Matter element of the routine is the part that stuck with people, which, like I said, I can’t reiterate enough how much I’m proud of.

“But the performance itself was supposed to be a roundup of everything that we felt in the year; a summary of the things that have affected us… it was an idea of unity, the idea of hope. And obviously, as part of that routine, it would be impossible to ignore how much the Black Lives Matter movement, the idea of racism coming to the forefront of global attention, is present. It’s here and it’s right now.

“So in our summary of the year, it was impossible for me not to reflect upon it.”



a group of people standing on a stage: Ashley and his fellow Diversity performers taking a knee during their routine


© Dymond/Thames/Syco/Shutterstock
Ashley and his fellow Diversity performers taking a knee during their routine

Insisting he always had the full support of ITV, Ashley continued: “I said to them on the phone that week before, ‘This is what I think I’m going to do’. And they were great with it. That’s really important. They didn’t say anything until we turned up on the day. We turned up and we rehearsed.

“I think it was a bit of a shock for everybody [there]. Everyone was like, ‘Wow, this is where you’re going’. But as much as it was a shock, I don’t think as many people have ever taken me aside individually. The first run-through in rehearsal, people said they either were in tears or that it connected with them. That for me was so important.”

The Diversity performer was also asked whether he thought the complaints were a symptom of a “significant problem with British culture”.

“I think a significant problem is an idea of perspective, right?” Ashley said. “I feel like, to some people, there is a massively

Continue reading

Barr blasted by federal judge for lacking diversity on panel studying law enforcement

A federal judge last week blocked a Justice Department commission studying issues plaguing the law enforcement community from releasing its report because the panel excluded civil-rights leaders.

U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the much-ballyhooed Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires government committees to receive input from “fairly balanced” viewpoints.

Judge Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his 45-page opinion that the commission was full of law enforcement officials, but none of the members have “a criminal defense, civil rights, or community organization background.”

The judge also scolded the Justice Department for holding closed-door meetings and failing to notify the public when meetings would take place. So far, the commission has held more than 20 meetings, according to Judge Bates’ opinion.

“Especially in 2020, when racial justice and civil rights issues involving law enforcement have erupted across the nation, one may legitimately question whether it is sound policy to have a group with little diversity of experience, examine, behind closed doors, the sensitive issues facing law enforcement and the criminal justice system in America today,” he wrote.

The commission was expected to release its report later this month, ahead of the 2020 presidential election. President Trump has made law enforcement and public safety one of the central themes of his reelection campaign.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed the lawsuit earlier this year seeking more diversity on the commission. Attorney General William P. Barr and the Justice Department were both named as defendants.

Justice Department lawyers had argued that the commission was not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Department, but did not challenge claims it would run afoul of the law, if applicable.

Judge Bates ruled that the LDF had suffered an injury because its voice was denied access to the commission. He ordered both parties to submit additional briefs on how to ensure the commission has a “fairly balanced” membership.

“Because Attorney General Barr appointed the Commissioners at the same time as establishing the Commission, and only selected from those with law enforcement backgrounds, it does not appear that LDF and its representatives had an opportunity to formally apply for Commission membership,” Judge Bates wrote.

Mr. Barr unveiled the commission in January, following an executive order in October 2019. It is tasked with studying mental illness, homelessness, substance abuse and other issues that impact law enforcement efforts to reduce crime.

At the time, the Justice Department said the panel would explore “modern issues affecting law enforcement that most impact the ability of the American people to reduce crime.”

All of the commission’s 18 members work in law enforcement, and no defense attorneys, civil rights organizations or academics were included. The commission has 15 working groups, but they are largely made up of police officials or prosecutors.

Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF’s president and director-counsel, hailed the decision as “an important step in the right direction.”

“The country has been demanding accountability for police

Continue reading