12 minute read
Opinion
OPINION End Qualified Immunity to Increase Police Accountability
Andrew Ceonzo Guest Writer
On Aug. 26, the Milwaukee Bucks decided to forego their playoff game to bring attention to the police shooting of Jacob Blake the previous Sunday in Kenosha, Wisconsin. As the rest of the NBA games scheduled for that night were postponed, the WNBA, MLB and MLS also post- poned their remaining schedule for the evening in a show of unity. According to ESPN, the Bucks players used the time to call the Wisconsin Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor and asked how to help enact police reform, to which the Lieutenant Governor recommended pushing for “action at every level of government.” One of the most effective reforms the players could use their platforms to advocate for is the elimination of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often prevents people from suing when their constitutional rights have been violated by government officials, including police officers. After the Civil War, African Americans in Southern states were subjected to denial of their newly acquired constitutional rights as local and state officials failed to prevent racial violence. As part of Reconstruc- tion, Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which contained a provision, now known as Section 1983, providing a path for citizens to sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. The law was a critical step in protecting indi- viduals’ constitutional rights because it empowered citizens to recover damBrendan Donoghue Staff Writer As Election Day 2020 approaches, both the Republicans and Democrats have wrapped up their respective conventions, with President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden having officially accepted their re- spective party nominations. Histor- ically, party conventions have given each candidate the best chance to frame the election and make their case directly to the American people. While 2020 has certainly been anything but a normal year (underscored by the largely virtual conventions), the one constant in this election cycle has been the role of the party conventions. There were many identifi- able differences between the two conventions, ranging from the more substantive messaging to the more superficial production value. More than anything, the single greatest difference between the two parties was who they chose as their messengers. Specifically, the Dem- ocratic Party made a fundamental error in their reliance on celebrities to champion their electability. Almost by definition, celebrities have an inflated sense of their own importance, and a politages when those rights were violat- ed. Today, Section 1983 is the main avenue through which individuals can hold their government accountable if they are a victim of police brutality; this is typically done through a lawsuit alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from un- reasonable search and seizure. How- ever, through a series of cases since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has invent- ed the doctrine of qualified immunity, which has become a significant barrier to citizens’ ability to successfully sue on the basis of a violation of their rights. The Supreme Court qualified immunity precedent holds that gov- ernment officials cannot be sued even if someone’s rights have been violated unless the infringement is “clearly established law.” As the Cato Institute has explained, this means “it is entirely possible—and quite common—for courts to hold that government agents did violate someone’s rights, but that the illegality of their conduct wasn’t sufficiently obvious for them to be held liable to the victim of their miscon- duct.” While the legal jargon may obscure to the untrained eye how the doctrine prevents accountability, a few examples demonstrate its untenability and why it is imperative for it to be abolished. Under the doctrine, the “clearly established” standard means that unless there is a practically iden- tical case demonstrating the conduct was unconstitutional, the government official in question will be granted immunity. Take the case of Alexander Baxter, who sued two police officers who in the course of his arrest sicced their canine on him after he surrenical party that trots out celebrities as their chief messengers overestimates the impact that celebrity endorsements have on the electorate. In an election that will come down, once again, to the votes of blue collar Americans, celebrity endorsements do very little to influence key voters. Americans living in rural Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan care very little about the political perspectives of Julia Louis-Dreyfus or Kerry Washing- ton. They care even less about who Billy Porter or Billie Eilish want to see elected President. Instead, they want a President who they believe can have a positive and recogniz- able impact on their lives. They want a President whose policies prioritize jobs, economic growth and security. The impassioned pleas of millionaire actors and art- ists living in Beverly Hills do next to nothing in terms of convincing an individual making $60,000 a year fracking in Pennsylvania to change their vote. Contrast the lineup of Hollywood celebrities throwing their support behind Joe Biden at the DNC to the Americans expressing their support for President Trump at the RNC. A Wisconsin dairy farmer, a Minnesota logger, a police officer and the president of a Nebraska-based heating, ventiladered. One might think it is clearly a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights to have a police dog released on you after you have surrendered and have your hands in the air, as Baxter did. However, as the Institute for Jus- tice explains, the officers were “entitled to qualified immunity because—while an earlier case had held that officers were not allowed to sic a dog on some- one lying down—no case had ever discussed whether they could do so to a suspect who was sitting down with his hands up.” Additionally, the court further explained, according to the Cato Institute, that while “an earlier case had established that the use of an attack dog against a suspect who was not fleeing was an excessive use of force, the court distinguished that case because the dog in Baxter’s case had better training and police had warned Baxter they might use the dog before he surrendered.” Or consider the case where police shot a 10-year-old child while trying to shoot the family’s non-threatening dog. The officer was granted immunity because, according to the Institute for Justice, “no earlier case held it was unconstitutional for a police officer to recklessly fire his gun into a group of children without justification. The Court also declined to establish that rule. Not only was the officer let off the hook in that case, but the very same officer could act the same way again, and would still be entitled to qualified immunity.” Recognizing the problems with qualified immunity, public interest legal organizations across the ideological spectrum, such as the Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, and tion and air conditioning company are just a few examples of working-class Americans who highlighted the RNC speaker lineup. President Trump won the presidency in 2016 because of the American people’s strong dislike of Hillary Clinton and his successful attempt to appeal to working-class Americans in rural areas. By ignoring those same working-class Americans in favor of liberal celebrities is, in my opinion, a NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have all taken steps to rein it in by supporting litigation that seeks to chip away at the doctrine. Instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to correct its mistake—a process that could take years—the doctrine could be eliminated through an act of Congress at any time. In fact, Representatives Justin Amash (L-MI) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) have introduced such a bill, aptly named the Ending Qualified Immunity Act. Additionally, state legislatures can take action to curtail qualified immunity within state courts, just as Colorado did earlier this summer in response to the police killing of George Floyd. Eliminating qualified immunity would have the immediate effect of giving citizens a way to collect damages as a remedy for a violation of their con- stitutional rights, introducing much needed accountability. Additionally, the threat of such liability would have the long-term effect of making gov- ernments bear the cost of violating an individual’s rights, providing a strong incentive for governments to improve hiring, training, and disciplinary practices of officials, especially police officers. Ending qualified immunity would mean that the government and citizens would be on equal footing: the citizens are responsible to obey the laws, and the government will be held accountable to follow the Constitution. There cannot be two sets of laws in this country where the citizenry is held to a stricter standard than the gov- ernment officials who serve at the will of the citizens. Abolishing qualified immunity will bring us one step closer
American Disconnect: The Tale of Two National Conventions
to making that principle a reality. mistake of colossal proportion for a democratic party that refuses to learn its lesson from 2016. There is a significant chance President Trump loses in November. After an effective and targeted convention, he could blow it all with one tweet. That is what Democrats are counting on. But if the President exhibits anything close to self control (an admittedly big “if ”), the reliance on celebrities could backfire in a big way.
EMILY COX Editor-in-Chief
TYLER KEMP Editor-in-Chief
JACK ROBERGE Opinion Editor
LETTERS TO THE EDITORS
The Villanovan encourages all members of the Villanova community to voice their opinions. Letters to the editors may be submitted via e-mail to villanovan.eic@gmail.com. Letters must not exceed 500 words and must be signed. No anonyous letters will be published. All submissions become property of The Villanovan and are subject to editing for clarity and space.
POLICY
The unsigned editorial that appears is the opinion of The Villanovan as deteermined by the majority of the Editorial Board. Other columns, letters and artwork represent the opinions of their auhtors and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Villanovan.
The Impact of Hong Kong’s National Security Law On American Universities and International Students
Alexis Leanord Staff Writer Earlier this month, China passed a national security law in Hong Kong forbidding its citizens from criticizing the government. Given China’s proclivity to assault and arrest protestors, this sentiment isn’t new. The Chinese government frequently stymies protests; however, it wasn’t legislated in Hong Kong until this summer. This law concerns pro-democracy inhabitants of Hong Kong, a city which tends to act with Western ideals. Security forces of the Chinese Communist Party are now imprisoning the residents of the once democratic and capitalist Hong Kong for protesting or speaking against the government. Further threatening the freedom of Hong Kong’s citizens, Beijing is upending Hong Kong’s autonomy. Legislation particularly concerning China also affects Chinese students taking courses abroad and the professors of those courses. Political science and international business courses hold discussions and assign essays criticizing the Chinese government, so will Chinese students studying here opt out of these courses? American universities encourage free thinking, so how should professors approach this issue? Per the Wall Street Journal’s reporting, professors at Ivy League colleges, such as Princeton and University of Pennsylvania, thought of possible solutions to these problems. One possibility includes the assignment of codes to students in order to prevent the Chinese government from discovering the author of assignments critical of China. Another option is to place an advisory note on each class cautioning students of content which will criticize Chinese politics or societal aspects. Surprisingly, adjusting courses for Chinese international students has upset many Americans who think the United States should not make accommodations for students from China. Anti-accommodationists radically claim that American universities should not alter anything for Chinese students because the students study here of their own volition and are aware of the risk involved. American universities should, however, feel compelled to disguise Chinese international students if they are willing to take the course. The professors cannot guarantee a student’s safety, but they can take steps to protect students wanting to study and participate in the course. The Ivy League universities accommodating Chinese students should serve as a model for Villanova. In the upcoming semester, The University must decide to resist the new Hong Kong national security law and demonstrate its commitment to free thinking while protecting students’ identities.
Students in Hong Kong gather to protest the new policy. Courtesy of Time Magazine
Letter From the Editors: Stay on Campus this Weekend
As Labor Day weekend approaches, we believe that it is important to remind the community of the pledge we made when we signed The CARITAS Commitment. We promised to put our community first. Not only did we make this promise, we assured the school that we would modify our behaviors and limit travel. All students signed a practically binding contract with the school that we would only travel for essential reasons in order to limit unnecessary exposures. We even promised that we would find new ways to connect with others — safe ways that would allow for social distancing. With this weekend being our first, and only, long weekend of this semester, it is understandable that students want to go home to visit family, go down to the shore or take any number of other off-campus trips this weekend. While this may be tempting, we must acknowledge that it is our duty to protect one anoth- er and the staff and faculty who make the University the place we know and love. Many of us have already watched friends and acquantiences get sent home because they were not following guidelines provided to us by the University. Many of us even have friends who have had or are battling COVID-19. While it is easy for the administration to regulate, and punish, what goes on on-campus, it has a much harder time controlling what happens off campus. That responsiblity is on all of us; we have a duty to ask our friends to cancel their plans and stay on campus for this long weekend. We aren’t asking you to not have any fun and to not enjoy the three-day weekend, but we are asking you to be smart about how you do it. We owe it to ourselves and our community to hold one another accountable this semester if we want it to last. We have already witnessed other schools, including ones in the Philadelphia area, get sent home or go fully online. Villanova is one of the few schools in the area to still attempt an in-person semester, and we should keep this in mind. The administration has faith that we can be smart, be respectful and make this work. It is on us to prove America wrong right now. This pandemic is not a joke, and schools are not treating it as such; just because we are doing (relatively) well so far does not mean that we are suddenly in the clear and have the license to act as though everything is normal. Everyone who can stay on campus this weekend should absolutely do so. It may feel like a good weekend to party, but with school-wide testing likely coming after Labor Day, this will be the make-or-break weekend. Have fun, but please, stay here and stay responsible.
FOR RENT
4 bedrooms single house, located 10 minutes from campus in Wayne on Lancaster Ave. Furnished (no beds) living room, dining room, kitchen, and 2 newly renovated bathrooms Laundry facility and a large yard with off-street parking Available from August 1, 2020 $1850.00 per month for 4, plus utilities
