House of Commons’ Post

✍🏾Reflecting on "Plessy vs. Ferguson" and the Legacy of "Separate but Equal" in Our Pursuit of Equity In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Plessy vs. Ferguson" entrenched the principle of "separate but equal," setting a legal precedent that sanctioned racial segregation. This ruling exemplified policies not rooted in the belief that all people are created equal. Instead, it perpetuated a hierarchy where some were considered more equal than others. As we engage in discussions about Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility, and Justice (DEIA&J), it's crucial to acknowledge that these concepts aren't new. They are about holding ourselves accountable as a nation to ensure that EVERYONE has access to the American Dream. For some, words like "equity" and "justice" might trigger discomfort or resistance, but for many, they serve as a rallying call—a beacon guiding us toward a more inclusive and fair society. Systemic issues like inequality and access have deep roots in policies that were explicitly designed to exclude and marginalize. "Plessy vs. Ferguson" is a stark reminder of how legal systems can reflect and reinforce societal prejudices. But it also serves as a historical marker for us to see how far we have come and how far we still need to go. As we continue to dismantle the lingering effects of such doctrines, let's remember that DEIA&J is about more than just correcting past injustices. It's about building a future where every individual has the opportunity to thrive without barriers. This commitment to justice and equality is what strengthens our society and brings us closer to fulfilling the true spirit of the American Dream. Let's keep pushing forward, learning from our past, and working together to ensure that policies and practices reflect the equality and dignity of every person. What was once a norm should not dictate our future. It’s time for us to live up to our ideals—truly and equitably.

Come join me for breakfast at Jurisdiction Cothing with Jessica Markham & learn more about the #enneagrampersonalitysystem

Hi Family, What font do you like better. Shirt number 1, 2, or 3. Please leave your vote in the comment section

“By voting, we add our voice to the chorus that forms opinions and the basis for actions.” Selamat Mengundi!

Read the December 2023 issue of Temple City Life, the Chamber's monthly paper! This issue features the scoop on the 2024 Royal Court, a peek into Temple City’s Rose Parade History, and more! 📰 bit.ly/TCLDec23

Check out our latest article on NIL. With Congressional hearings underway on the future of NIL, it's now more critical than ever for student-athletes, their representatives, and advertisers to get a handle on where we are currently and where we may be heading. https://lnkd.in/eu8QVXrZ

What would you do in this scenario as a L&D pro? 🤔 🗒 Follow the link in the FIRST COMMENT to cast your vote and share your wisdom.

The ACUS Assembly will now discuss Model Rules of Representative Conduct. #81stPlenarySession 🔗Watch the discussion live here:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & Executive Order 13166.

This morning, 29 November 2023, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Wolverhampton City Council & Ors (Respondents) v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors (Appellants) [2023] UKSC 47 (which was known as Barking & Dagenham in the High Court and Court of Appeal). The question before the Supreme Court was whether the courts had power to grant “newcomer” injunctions: that is, injunctions against persons who are unknown and unidentified at the date of the grant of the injunction, and who have not yet performed, or even threatened to perform, the acts which the injunction prohibits. The answer to the question was that the courts do have the power, subject to sufficient safeguards where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or to enforce public law that is not adequately met by any other available remedies. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, albeit for different reasons. Critical to the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the identification of the jurisdictional basis for such injunctions: equity. The point being that equity has an important role in addressing defects and inadequacies in the common law. It followed that in considering whether to grant a newcomer injunction, it was to equitable principles to which the court should have regard. Although the case concerned gypsy and traveller injunctions, the principles could be read across into other types of injunction, including protestor injunctions. Francis Taylor Building's Michael Fry acted for the interveners, High Speed 2 (HS2) Limited and the Secretary of State for Transport. A copy of the judgment: https://lnkd.in/dTSJik3Z On Friday 1 December, an FTB team, including Michael, will be discussing this judgment further in a lunchtime briefing. More information here: https://lnkd.in/e6a9JFZt #supremcourt #injunctions #webinar