News & Commentary

Being poor isn't a crime. Yet in some Michigan courtrooms, that simple fact has been ignored. That’s why we’re pleased that the continuing problem of debtors’ prisons in our state was addressed last week in Lansing. Debtors’ prisons and “pay-or-stay” sentences throw people in jail because they can't pay court fines or fees. These sentences are patently unconstitutional. When an inability to pay becomes the reason someone is serving time, it isn’t the defendant's crime but rather their poverty that is being punished. Often, the crimes themselves wouldn’t even be sufficient cause to incarcerate someone on their own.

With a history of civil liberties stretching back almost a century, the ACLU has got plenty of amazing cases for #TBT. Every Thursday, we'll be sharing updates on cases pulled from our archives of work in Michigan and beyond.

Annapolis High School senior Atiya Haynes learned a tough lesson about Michigan’s zero tolerance this week—and although it wasn’t as harsh as it could’ve been, it’s also a lesson she shouldn’t have been forced to learn at all.Atiya, a 17-year-old honor student and community volunteer, was suspended for the rest of her senior year by the Dearborn Heights school board this week after a school administrator found a knife in her purse that Atiya had forgotten was there.Atiya is one in a long line of victims of Michigan’s tough discipline policies. Her time at Annapolis is over, and it didn’t have to be. Granted, this could have been worse, were it not for a flood of public support for Atiya that poured in once news of her story hit the media. The school board did not expel her, which would have kept her out of all public schools for the next year.But the board also clearly missed an opportunity to exercise the discretion the law provides in cases where good, responsible, non-threatening students make the type mistake that adolescents tend to make.The case reaches back several months to the summer, when Haynes’ grandfather gave her the knife for protection as she biked through her tough southwest Detroit neighborhood to a volunteer job in nearby Dearborn. Atiya, who only agreed to take the knife to appease her grandfather, dropped it in her purse and quickly forgot about it.More than a month later, while at her school’s homecoming football game, Atiya was leaving a restroom when she was approached by an Annapolis High administrator. The teen has never been a disciplinary problem and believed she had nothing to hide so agreed to a search of her her purse.Her life has not been the same since.After the knife was discovered at the bottom of her bag, long covered up by numerous other personal items, Atiya was forced to miss classes for weeks while school officials debated whether to expel her. An expulsion would have meant banishment from all Michigan public schools as permitted under the state’s zero tolerance statute. Of course, that same law also permits a school board to forego permanent expulsion if a weapon “was not knowingly possessed by the pupil.”As a result, the board had the option of allowing Atiya to finish her senior year with her classmates.Atiya, who was represented by the ACLU of Michigan during her school disciplinary hearing, was hopeful that the board would exercise good judgment and let her stay in school.Unfortunately, those hopes were dashed on Monday when the board voted to extend her suspension to 180 days, agreeing only to allow her to take online classes. Her senior year with friends at Annapolis High is over. Her plans to enroll in college in the fall have been thrown into chaos.And in joining the tens of thousands of U.S. students forced from public schools each year as a result of zero tolerance laws, the aspiring journalist with a 3.0 grade point average has become a cautionary tale illustrating the dire need to reconsider these draconian policies.While Michigan does not collect statewide statistics on suspensions, the U.S. Department of Education reported that more than 137,000 students in the state were suspended out of school during the 2009-10 school year. About 1,800 students are expelled for Michigan schools annually.Born out of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, the zero tolerance approach to discipline mandates that every school district receiving federal education dollars adopt a policy of required expulsion for students who bring guns to school. Hoping to give states some latitude under the law, legislators permitted states to broaden the list to other “dangerous weapons,” while also giving them the right to make exceptions.Michigan legislators included four exceptions in the state’s zero tolerance law under which districts could exercise their own discretion and forego expulsions in favor of punishments that are corrective and in the best interest of the student. One such exemption grants school boards discretion in instances in which “the weapon was not knowingly possessed by the pupil”—in other words, in cases like Atiya’s.Problem is, too few school systems actually exercise discretion when they should. The tendency is to choose punishments that are too tough rather than appear too soft.But Atiya is exactly the sort of pupil that the exemptions were created to protect: an honor student with no history of discipline problems or of using weapons, she deserves better than what she received—even if the punishment wasn’t as drastic as it could’ve been.Moreover, our schools deserve even-handed policies that better address individual disciplinary concerns rather than laws that shoehorn each child into one-size mandates that clearly don’t fit all.That’s why the ACLU of Michigan is working to reform our state’s zero-tolerance laws, as well as ensure that every district knows about the exceptions to the law. It's what students like Atiya deserve.Key News and DocumentsKnow Your Rights When Facing School Discipline

As a civil-rights lawyer, I’ve dedicated my career to battling back the infuriating unfairness that runs rampant through our society. As a black woman, I’ve experienced for myself the sting of racism and know just how depressing and disempowering such hateful bias can feel. But when it comes to the water shut-offs I’ve seen taking place around Detroit—shut-offs that I’m fighting to end as an attorney with the ACLU of Michigan—I find myself feeling angrier and sadder than usual. With every meeting about the issue that I attend, I find myself leaving more bitter, more enraged and more heartbroken than the day before. Finally, I’ve figured out why: I’ve never before been faced with how devastating our government’s lack of regard for poor people can be—especially when the poor are also people of color. Before moving to the Midwest, I had been insulated from many of the problems that the extremely poor in the African-American community face on a daily basis. Growing up in Southern California, I typically found myself in social situations where I did not see any other black people. Years later, attending school in Atlanta and Washington, D.C., I met many more blacks—but most of them were highly educated and affluent. Yes, there were discussions of the effects of racism in these settings. And to be sure, my friends and I were angry about social inequality. But we were mostly mad that education and affluence had not facilitated our full acceptance into society, that our white bosses and colleagues still treated us as inferiors and relegated us to the fringes of the workplace, that our white neighbors still cringed when they saw us moving into the house next door. Poverty, however, was largely an academic discussion to me, an abstraction I understood primarily from college courses examining the intersection between race and class. I thought that, because racism is the root cause of much of the poverty in the African-American community today, eliminating racism would automatically result in the elimination of poverty. Therefore, I assumed, there was no need to think about ways to combat poverty head-on. Living in Detroit, I realize now just how misguided that assumption was. Here in Detroit, I see poor people who are going on month three with no water. I see a water department that has not come up with any workable system for restoring water service to the poorest people. I see a mayor whose only answer is to offer a payment plan for restoration of service—a useless solution for those whose water was turned off because they lacked the means to pay one of the country’s highest water bills in the first place. I see children, the elderly, the sick, and tons of others who are now being forced to do the impossible—learn to live without water. Given that it’s literally impossible to have life without water, I don’t see how this does or should make sense to anyone. But whether the powers that be find any logic in this proposition, they certainly don’t seem to care. They are content to let the City of Detroit pay off its creditors, regionalize the water system, go back to their homes with running water, and leave the poor in Detroit to fend for themselves. Even the judge in charge of Detroit’s historic bankruptcy has refused to support a moratorium on water shut-offs—despite the fact that he’s also the very same judge who found that Detroit residents were being irreparably harmed by not having access to water! I’m no stranger to injustice—but I’m becoming more familiar than I ever imagined. I knew we lived in a segregated society and sexist one. I knew that we in Michigan were increasingly living in a non-democratic world, too. But it wasn’t until I began fighting for poor people to have water did it dawn on me just how deeply inhumane we’ve become. I still hold to my ideals, though. Rather than infecting my enthusiasm for change, the inhumanity I’ve witnessed has inspired me. It's inspired me to work harder for justice, to resist the mistreatment of the poor, to refuse surrender. Why? Because here in Detroit, we are no longer fighting for only the noble ideals of justice and equality. We also are fighting, in the most literal sense imaginable, for the very lives of the poor. And for all of our sakes, it’s a fight we must win.  

DETROIT -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan in a letter today urged the Ferndale Police Department to hire an independent firm to investigate why black motorists are being issued traffic citations at a rate grossly disproportionate to their presence in the local population. After receiving multiple complaints from the public regarding possible racial profiling in Ferndale, the ACLU of Michigan obtained public records from the Ferndale Police Department that indicate that black drivers are far more likely to be ticketed in Ferndale than white drivers.“There is no place for racial profiling in law enforcement,” said Mark Fancher, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan’s Racial Justice Project. “It’s time for Ferndale to seek outside help on this issue and, if warranted, implement reforms. The public cannot have confidence in the police unless they know that law-enforcement decisions are fair and unbiased.”In response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU of Michigan, the Ferndale Police Department produced a summary of all traffic tickets issued by Ferndale police officers between January 1, 2013 and May 15, 2014. The public data shows that, even though black people make up less than 10 percent of Ferndale’s population, they made up approximately 60 percent of the motorists ticketed by Ferndale officers when the race of the driver was known.Based on these troubling statistics, the ACLU of Michigan wrote a letter to Ferndale police chief Timothy D. Collins encouraging him to appoint independent experts to conduct an in-depth statistical study and evaluation of the department’s police practices. The ACLU’s letter noted that a similar approach was recently taken by the Kalamazoo Police Department based on racial profiling concerns. After the study there revealed that black people in Kalamazoo were more than twice as likely as white people to be stopped by police, the Kalamazoo police chief implemented recommended reforms.“Racial profiling contradicts this country’s most fundamental principles and ideals,” the ACLU of Michigan wrote in its letter. “Every person should be able to live without the fear or experience of being singled out by law enforcement and treated differently because of their color. Racial profiling also places society at greater risk of crime because police are less focused on the conduct of those who break laws, and they are more focused on law abiding citizens who happen to be people of color. In addition, effective law enforcement requires a cooperative relationship between the police and the community.”The letter comes on the heels of multiple complaints that the ACLU of Michigan has received regarding possible racially motivated traffic stops in Ferndale, particularly near the area of Woodward and Eight Mile Road, which borders Detroit. The complaints led the organization to request and analyze data from the Ferndale Police Department about the race of drivers stopped by Ferndale officers.Many of the findings were startling. For example, a single Ferndale officer issued 4,189 citations during the period that the ACLU of Michigan examined. Of the citations given to motorists whose race was recorded, 2,404 citations--or 66 percent--were issued to black drivers while only 1,248 (34 percent) were issued to white motorists. Another officer issued 4,025 total citations, with 64 percent (2,399) going to black drivers and 36 percent (1,333) being issued to white drivers in instances where the race of the motorist was known.In addition to Fancher, Gillian Talwar, chair of the ACLU’s Oakland County Lawyers Committee, also signed the letter. 

In June of 2011, Gov. Rick Snyder stepped behind a microphone at Detroit's Renaissance High School to announce the start of a revolutionary new approach to education in Michigan.The problem of poor academic performance would be addressed in dramatic fashion."We do have too many failing schools in our state," he said. "If you look at us statewide, only 16 percent of our kids are college-ready. That's absolutely unacceptable."We need to focus on a new way of doing things."The target would be Michigan's lowest-performing schools. The bottom 5 percent.The stakes could not have been higher. As the governor explained it, the future of both the city and the state as a whole would be riding on this experiment in education."For Detroit to be successful, it depends on having successful schools. For Michigan to be successful, it depends on having a successful Detroit," Snyder declared. "So we're all in this together, and we're going to make this happen as a team."A little more than a year after that speech, the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) opened its doors to students. Instead of taking on the challenge of lifting up all of the state's low-performing schools, or even a large number of them in different areas, decision-makers — operating in a way that was anything but transparent — decided to have as this experiment's proving ground 15 Detroit schools. Three of those would be independent charters. The other 12 would serve as the focal point for the EAA's attempt to radically reconstruct the way in which students are educated.In all, about 10,000 students — largely poor, predominantly African American, often lagging years behind in terms of academics — would be the test subjects.In more ways than one. The system itself would be unique, with all strings leading back to the governor.The legal loophole through which the EAA slipped into being is a little-used state law that allows two units of government, acting in cooperation, to create a third public entity. It this case, it was Detroit Public Schools (DPS) — under the control of a Snyder-appointed emergency manager — and the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents, the majority of whom are gubernatorial appointees, that entered into what's called an inter-local agreement that created the EAA.It is overseen by an 11-person board, with the governor appointing seven members and EMU and the DPS's emergency manager each selecting two more.And so this became the test of a completely new system of schooling.It turned out to be another kind of test as well.A test of software, developed by one for-profit corporation and marketed by another.A product named Buzz.

The Labor Day barbecues have been cleaned up. The “Back to School” sections at local stores have been wiped out. For the younger ones, bedtimes are being enforced and lunches are packed. The 2013-2014 school year has officially started. I wish you all the best this school year but, in case you hit some bumps along the way, here is a crash course on your rights as a student. This overview of student rights should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you have a specific question, you should check with the ACLU or a lawyer. Can I express my views at school? Yes, you have a constitutional right to express yourself outside of the classroom unless it causes a “material and substantial disruption” to class or other school activities. That means that you can't be silenced just because your message is might be offensive, unpopular, controversial, or draws attention. The famous Supreme Court case on student speech is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. In that case, the ACLU defended a group of students who were suspended for silently wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. Learn more... Here in Michigan, we've defended students' free speech rights many times. When school officials sent Bretton Barber home for wearing a political t-shirt, we stepped in. When administrators deleted Abbey Mohler's yearbook message because it included a quotation from the Bible, we were there. It's important to know that you are not protected if you use threats, abusive language, or obscene speech. If you believe you've been unjustly censored by your school contact the ACLU of Michigan. Want to learn more about free speech in schools? What about on my Facebook page or Twitter account? If you post something during school hours, on school property, and/or through the use of school property, you must abide by school rules about speech. Also threats, harassment, and obscene speech are not protected. While the ACLU believes students have the right to express their views about school and other issues on social media when they are off campus, some school districts also have policies about off-campus speech. It’s always best to be aware of your school and district policies about online activity and to contact the ACLU if you believe the school rules violate your rights. Can I demonstrate at school? What about handing out flyers? Yes, students have a general First Amendment right to demonstrate at school as long as it is not disruptive Some school districts have policies about when, where, and how to organize these protests. You can get in trouble for demonstrations that disrupt classes, block hallways, or encourage students to miss class, or happen inside of class. The rules for handing out flyers expressing a view or announcing an event are similar. You have a right to distribute most flyers as long as they aren’t disruptive, but your school probably has rules about when, where, and how to do so. Can I start an Atheist Club or a Christian Club? A Gay/Straight Alliance? Administrators can't prevent groups from forming or meeting on campus just because they don’t support the group. If your school allows any student group to form or use school facilities for meetings or other activities, they must allow all student groups the same opportunity. Do I have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? What about a prayer before a football game? No. Michigan law requires an opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day, but teachers can't force you to say the pledge or punish you for remaining silent. You also have the right to refuse to rise during the pledge and to refuse to salute the flag. If you refuse to do so, teachers can't force you to leave the room. As for prayer, while students are free to pray on their own, it's unconstitutional for any school official, including coaches, to encourage or lead prayer or any other religious activity. Your school also may not invite religious leaders to lead prayer for school activities, including those that occur after school hours, such as a football game. Can my school tell me what to wear and how to do my hair? It depends. Schools can prohibit vulgar and lewd speech, including on clothing, and they can ban gang-related apparel and clothing that contains pictures or words that encourage illegal drug use. However, unless there is good reason to think that a substantial disruption will occur, schools cannot prohibit clothing that makes a political or religious statement, such as a t-shirt that criticizes the President or an arm band worn to protest against a war. Schools can establish reasonable rules about hairstyles and grooming. However, they cannot discriminate against you based on race, sex, or religion. Can I be searched at school? What about my locker? Schools can't search your clothes or your personal belongings such as your backpack or purse, or even your cell phone unless they have a specific reason to suspect you of violating a law or a school rule. Even then, the search must be reasonably calculated to uncover evidence of the violation and can't be too intrusive of your privacy. Some courts have held that your locker is not subject to these limits because it is the property of the school. Can my school drug test me? Your school cannot drug test everyone who goes to your school. However, the Supreme Court ruled schools can drug test students who choose to participate in some after-school activities. Can my school suspend or expel me without an explanation or hearing? No. Even as a student, you have a right to due process and an opportunity to defend yourself. Before a school can suspend or expel you, you must be informed of what rule or policy you are being accused of violating and why, and you must also have a chance to tell your side of the story. For suspensions lasting longer than ten days, a formal hearing is required. Key News and Documents Know Your Rights When Facing School Discipline The ACLU of Michigan & Student Rights

Detroit's future is in court this week, as hearings to confirm the plan of adjustment for the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history begins.As the bankruptcy hearing commences, we'll hear from banks, bond insurers, and other creditors vying to get their "fair" share from the city.While those voices are loud, we cannot forget that there are thousands of everyday men and women whose lives are hinging on the bankruptcy judge's decision.

Will Mayor Mike Duggan’s 10-point plan to help Detroit residents pay their water bills work?