Archives for the month of: January, 2008

A quick thank you to all you readers who stuck with me through last week’s long blog entry. There was just so much to say! I promise this entry won’t be nearly as long, even though this week felt just as busy.

Monday was the Wal-Mart 12th Annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day sponsored by U.N.I.T.Y., the Corporate African American Resource Group of Wal-Mart. I was happy to be invited, so I spent most of my day in Bentonville helping Wal-Mart Store, Inc. celebrate and recognize the achievements of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Many law Walmart Logoschool alumni were prominently featured throughout the day. Tené Green served as the day’s emcee, Mike McGhee played Dr. King at a young age during a presentation of his memoirs, Latriece Watkins delivered the celebration’s closing remarks, Kendra Buford was featured in a video and Kendall Pringle sang a gospel song towards the end. I’m very proud of each and every one of them! Our alumni are very active at Wal-Mart, and we’re very proud of their accomplishments and how well they represent both Wal-Mart and the University of Arkansas. It was great to see them contributing in such big ways.

Wal-Mart MLK Celebration, Alums and Nance

Lee Scott, who introduced the keynote address, spoke about the importance of diversity to Wal-Mart’s coRev. Sharptonrporate culture and recognized the contributions of a number of their diverse associate groups. The keynote speaker for the event was Rev. Al Sharpton Jr., and earlier in the day I was invited to a private discussion with him and African American corporate associates of Wal-Mart. It was an honor to sit with Rev. Sharpton, and our discussion was quite interesting. He is now seeking to build a national multicultural, multiracial movement that addresses a number of issues while continuing to fight racial injustice. All in all it was a wonderful event and I was really pleased that I was able to attend.

Tuesday the 15th I was invited to speak with the Senior Democrats of Northwest Arkansas. My topic was on “Challenges and Access to Justice,” and I spoke about two challenges: the first is the lack of diversity of those admitted to the law school and the bar, and the second is the poor legal representation of citizens with moderate to low incomes. There is a need to increase the diversity of law school student populations, which will in time increase the diversity of the bar. Equally important is the need for poorer members of our community to have their rights represented during legal proceedings. All in all, it was a fun meeting, especially since my mom, Fern Nance, and Lynn Martin and Cleo Matter from my church were there.

BefAlpha Kappa Alpha Sororityore I forget, Happy Birthday to Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority! We’re very excited about the 100th anniversary of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. I was very pleased to be able to attend a celebration of our 100th anniversary Tuesday afternoon in the Union with a number of members from both our alumni and undergraduate chapter. It was fantastic to share in that sisterhood and to recognize the wonderful tradition of our sorority.

Those of you who have followed to blog for a while may remember that I am a member of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Board of Directors. The Board meets at least three times a year. One meeting, usually the JanuaryLirs logo mefl prj logoeting, has an educational component. This year we traveled to Phoenix to learn about the work of the Florence Project and to visit the Florence Detention Center in Florence, Ariz., about 60 miles from Phoenix. There we observed a Florence Project attorney giving the “Know your Rights” presentation that is given to the detainees before they attended immigration court. The Florence Project created the “Know Your Rights” presentation which is now part of the detention standards in many places across the country. During the presentation the attorney asks the detainees if they feel that have legitimate reasons they should not be deported. If so, those detainees will be given up to two weeks to confer with a lawyer to determine the legitimacy of their claims.

The presentations, given in both Spanish and English take place at about 7:30 in the morning. The court’s docket begins at department of justice8:30 a.m. The judges in immigration court are not Article III judges, but work for the department of justice. In the court proceedings we observed there were 34 male and two female detainees. Detainees from three facilities were bussed to the Florence Center for deportation hearings. The facility houses about 1100 detainees. It also serves as a staging ground for those who have already been processed and will be deported.

During the hearings we observed, none of the detainees were represented. The typical flow of the hearing for each was as follows:

The judge (through a translator) began by announcing that this was a group deportation hearing pertaining to the following individuals and each detainees name was stated for the record. “You have been placed in deportationdepartment of hs proceedings because the Department of Homeland Security says you are not a citizen and are here in violation of immigration laws. The purpose of this hearing is to see if these allegations are true. You have the right to be represented by an attorney at no cost to the U.S. government. You should have received a list of attorneys. Did you receive it? Some of them may represent you at little or no cost. Do you understand your right to an attorney? Does anyone want more time? I will reset those who desire more time . . .”

Those detainees requesting more time were removed from the group hearing. The Judge told the deportees that the government filed a document with the court, a “Notice to Appear” with the reasons they are to be deported and that each of them seemingly had signed that document. He then asked if they had received copies. All responded that they had. He told them that they would be asked individually to admit or deny the charges and that if they admitted them, the removal order would be sustained. Then each was asked a series of questions:

  • Are you (name)?
  • Do you understand your rights?
  • Do you want more time to speak with a lawyer?
  • Are you a citizen?
  • Are your parents citizens?
  • The governments says you entered this country illegally and should be deported. Did you enter the country illegally?
  • Did you enter without being inspected by an immigration officer?LIRS Law Books
  • Through the desert or the hills?
  • Are you a citizen of (country)?
  • If you should be deported, where would you like to be deported?
  • Are you afraid to go to (country)?
  • Do you have any money?
  • I find by your admission, the order of deportation is sustained.
  • I order you removed to (country).
  • Do you want to appeal?

Most of the hearings proceeded in this manner, except for the instances when the detainee had come to the facility after serving time in jail. In those cases, the judge asked them about the charges as well. The judges have discretion in voluntary removal cases. They can look at factors like good moral character and the existed of a criminal history, family ties such as hardship to children, medical health of a family member and criminal history. The judge would not grant voluntary departure to anyone who had been arrested or served time in jail. The impact of this is that if a detainee is deported voluntarily and wants to apply to enter the country in the future, he or she does not have to apply for a waiver to get around that fact of a previous order of deportation.

After observing the expedited removal hearings, our group toured the detention facility and visited with Judge Taylor who answered our questions about the process. We learned from David Koss, the Officer in Charge that 90 percent of the detainees in the facility are removed within 7-10 days of arrival. Approximately 28,000 detainees cycled through the center in one year. Detainees from other facilities are brought to Florence for their hearing and their deportation. The center as I mentioned above is a staging facility for removal. Detainees from Hondouras, Guatelmala are flown back to their native countries on flights of 128 people. The operating budget of the facility is $5 million per year. The per person cost is $68-$75 per year.

LIRS group

Afterwards we returned to the offices of the Florence Project where we shared our thoughts about what we had seen that morning and had lunch. (Thanks to the Project for a yummy, homestyle Mexican lunch.) Chris Breljie, the founder of the Florence Project, shared its history with us. Judge Taylor explained how important the work of the project is to the system and to the detainees. By having lawyers there to prescreen the detainees, it is much more likely that those who have a valid right to remain in the country will have the chance to present their claim. He talked about the fact that without the rights presentations, citizens and other protected by immigration laws ended up getting lost in the process. The presentations also helps sort out those who have no claim, so that the system moves much more quickly.

One important sidebar about the Florence Project is noteworthy. Several of the lawyers who have worked there in the past have gone on the very prominent positions. Matt Wilch now is on the staff of LIRS, Andrea Black founded Detention Watch, Elizabeth Dallam works in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Chris Nugent is Holland and Knight’s Probono Coordinator, Gina Germain is an adjunct faculty member at Denver Law School and author of the leading practitioner’s guide to asylum law and Lamont Freerks is now a judge in Phoenix.

On the way back to Phoenix, we flew back in Chris’ Cessna Skylane, four-seater plane, and he let me pilot the plane for a bit. Wow!

Dean flying plane

We went from the airport to a church where we talked with parishioners who help resettle refugees. As you might imagine, their needs are great when they first arrive in this country and the churches adopt the families and help easy their transitions.

The next day we went to Southwest Key, which has a contract with ICE to hold undocumented children who have been swk logoapprehended without an adult. Typically children are separated from parents when crossing the border, or came to reunite with a parent, or were street children in their native countries. The 123-bed facility has a multilingual staff of 119, which provides a number of services to the children including healthcare and counseling. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, also has a curriculum for unaccompanied minors on trafficking and challenges in reunification.

LIRS contracts with the Florence Project to have lawyers, Liz Sweet and Aryah Summers, represent the children. Otherwise, they would not have legal representation. The children are in the custody of the ORR. This is a change that LIRS lobbied for. Originally, the children were held in ICE detention or in criminal juvenile facilities. The focus of Southwest Key is family unity. Social workers funded by LIRS perform background checks on the adults who claim the children and perform home visits. The LIRS lawyers act as advocates in deportation proceedings. The goal is to have the children stay in the facility for as little time as possible. Sometimes they are eligible for long term foster care, but there is a need for additional families. LIRS is the sole partner agency that provides the assessments and the legal representation for the children. We interact will all ORR minor facilities.

The general population of the facility at this time of year is 15-17 year old males. When asked why they were there, some say to seek a better life, some that it is a right of passage. Other children came because their parents called them to come. Others were the first in their immediate family to come to the U.S. and sought to join aunts and uncles or other relatives who were already living here.

Although Southwest Key provides healthcare, programming and education to the children, LIRS feels it is not appropriate for long-term care because it is an institution, nevertheless. It’s primary purpose if reunification. The staff stressed the need for more attorneys to represent the children, additional foster homes, and mental health treatment placements.
After our visit to Southwest Key we visited Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest where the Florence Project attorneys who work with the children gave us a presentation on the legal issues that arise during the course of representing them. They also shared with us the reality of what an unaccompanied minor faces when crossing the border. They stressed a need for research on one issue that hadn’t occurred to me. Many children incur tremendous debt in coming to the U.S., and if deported, they are not safe because they owe the lender who sponsored their trip. They are often afraid that they or their family members will suffer because they were not able to stay in the U.S. to work off the debt.

Kids @ LIRS

Ok foodies, I haven forgotten you. Later that evening we decompressed at a restaurant in Phoenix with very good food; however, I cannot remember the name. I had blue cornmeal covered rockfish with a mild pepper sauce and steamed veggies.

The next day we visited with the Phoenix Refugee Resettlement Program (also a part of Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest and funded in part by LIRS) and heard the stories of several Iraqi refugees who asked that they not be photographed for fear or retaliation against family members still in Iraq. Craig Thorensen, director of the program, explained that the goal is for families to be independent within 180 days. During the first 90 days, the focus is basic services. The agency’s job placement rate is 97 percent. The agency connects refugees with the long-term social and economic services they need such a vocational training, ethnic associations and the area council on aging. Forty-eight Phoenix churches aid in the resettlement process. There have been 350 refugees resettled in Phoenix from 20 countries. They are Karin, Chin Burmese, Burundian, Iraqi, Iranian, Sudanese, Somalian, Congolese, Eritrean and Ethiopian.
We broke for lunch at a wonderful Iraqi restaurant where we had babba ganoush, tabouleh, hummus, lamb, chicken, beef, mixed veggies in sauce, pita bread and baklava.

Charles Shipman, the Arizona State refugee coordinator, visited with us briefly to talk about the statutory role of the state coordinator which is to aid in the resettlement of refugees. He wears two hats in that he channels federal funds (cash and medical assistance) to refugees and disburses discretionary grants to resettlement agencies.

We thanked everyone at the Center and headed to dinner at a wonderful Mexican restaurant

The conference wrapped up Saturday morning with our Board meeting, and I was home by evening. It was nice to kick off my shoes and relax for a little bit before Monday morning rolled around. I hope you all had a chance to unwind, too.

Advertisements

Minority Groups LuncheonMinority Groups LuncheonPart I

Hello and welcome back for spring semester 2008! I hope you all had a chance to enjoy the love and warmth of the holidays with friends and family and that you’re refreshed and looking forward to the challenges of a new semester. Class of 2008 you are on your way—graduation is just around the corner.

The first week of this semester—actually, the first week of the year—was a busy one. As a matter of fact, it was too packed to write about it all in one entry! I, along with some of my associates, attended the Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting. Law faculty from across the country participate in this event, and this year it was held in New York. I left for the conference bright and early on Wednesday, January 2, and checked in at the Marriott Marquis Hotel before walking over to the Hilton, where most of the conference was held. That evening I was able to go and enjoy a quiet Indian dinner at Utsav Festive India Restaurant off of Times Square that was recommended by the concierge. The restaurant was on the second floor of a big building, where patrons could look out on the passersby while enjoying a candlelit dinner. The restaurant was lovely, and I was able to enjoy some samosas, naan, saag with chicken and rice and a glass of wine.

Manhattan

The weather was very, very cold the next morning, so I hailed a cab over to the Hilton. At 9 a.m. there were two competing panels. Malcolm McNair—who also served as the Planning Chair for all the programs in the advancement section of the conference—chaired the section on Institutional Advancement and gave the welcome in the Sheraton, and Mike Mullane was featured in a panel on “Attractions and Distractions: Student Use of Laptop Computers in the Classroom” that was held at the Hilton. Unfortunately, Mike was on the second panel of that three-hour session, and I had to leave for a meeting of the AALS Committee on Libraries and Technology. I was sorry to miss his session but was able to have a friend Barabra Glassner-Fines from UMKC snap a few photos..

At noon Dave Gearhart, Vice Chancellor for University Advancement and an alum of the law schdean-nance-terry-seligmann-and-teri-staffordool, spoke to the AALS Section on Institutional Advancement during their luncheon at the Sheraton Hotel. Since the Sheraton is about a block away from the Hilton, I really had to hustle to get there. Dave spoke about “21st Century Issues Facing Higher Education and the Importance of the Advancement Professional,” and his address was interesting and well received. We were able to welcome Teri Stafford, the law school’s new director of development, who joined us at the conference. It’s good to have her aboard and was a pleasure to have her there. Again, Malcolm was the Planning Chair for all the programs in the advancement section this year. Following the lunch, we all went to listen to Dave talk about major gifts in terms of development. It was very helpful to me, and I was able to glean a lot of advice and encouragement from Dave’s presentation. Afterwards, I rushed back to the Hilton for more presentations.

Later that afternoon there was a public hearing on a new ABA Standard held by the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. The Standard is Standard Interpretation 301-6, and that hearing was packed – standing room only. The hearing was held to decide whether the Standard would adopt a new requirement for accreditation, which would explicitly use bar passage rate as a measure to determine whether a school was actually preparing students for the practice of law. It’s been controversial for a number of reasons. First of all, as you know, bar pass rates tend to vary across various states; each state sets its standards at a different level. Also, some schools have students who take the bar in different states. This new standard would require schools to keep up with the bar pass rate of their students in other states up to a certain percentage. It would also look at bar passage rates over a number of years, an issue which many schools have expressed concern with. As you can imagine, these two things are very complicated for law schools to monitor: first you have to know where each of your students are sitting on the bar, and then you must keep meticulous records for multiple years. The last issue is that the bar pass rate is set at a 75 percent, and there are some schools (specifically mission schools) that perform outreach to under-represented communities. The National Bar Association’s preliminary work on this new Interpretation found that some of these schools would not be accredited based on the new Interpretation. A number of people spoke very passionately about this issue. The current plan is for the ABA House of Delegates to vote upon the Interpretation at its mid-winter meeting in February.

At 5:15 p.m. we went to the first meeting of the Association of American Law Schools House of Representatives and heard Law Alumni Societya report. I sat with Phil Shelton and Leigh Taylor. The highlight of that session was the report of Carl Monk, who is retiring. This was his last presentation, and the room was packed. Everyone gave him a standing ovation, which was very emotional for Carl. That evening was our law school’s New York Law Alumni Society reception, and a number of our alums attended, including Karen Callahan (’88), Patti Evans (’83), Charles Finelli (’93), Robert Dean (’88) and James Frazier (’96). We were very excited to see them and very proud to have hosted a reception. A number of luminaries in legal education also stopped by including Rick Geiger, Steven Hobbs,Barabra-Glassner-Fines, Terry Seligmann and Len Strickman.

All of that in just one day! If you can believe it, the rest of my trip was even more jam-packed, but more on that a little later. Until then, study hard and check back often.

Part II

In the words of the famous broadcaster Paul Harvey, “And now, the rest of the story…”

The breakfast for the Labor and Employment Law Section was held bright and early Friday morning, and this year I’m delighted to say that Jim LaVaute, Chair of American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section, was my guest and attended both the breakfast and business meeting. He was able to meet a number of legal academics in labor and employment law, talk about some of the programs and invite them to become more active in the ABA. We alsoclauss honored Carin Clauss, the Nathan P. Feisinger Professor of Labor Law at the University of Wisconsin, with the Section’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Carin served as the U.S. Solicitor of Labor from 1977 to 1981 and was the chairperson of Wisconsin’s Worker Compensation Study Commission as well as the vice-chairperson of the Wisconsin Task Force on Comparable Worth. She is a former member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors for the Group Health Cooperative of Wisconsin; was a member of the Litigation Committee for the ACLU’s National Women’s Rights Project; was a past secretary for the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section and the former co chair of both the Federal Bar Association’s Labor Committee and Wage and Hour Subcommittee. In the past, Carin has participated in some of the discussions between the U.S. and Mexico on labor standards as part of the NAFTA agreement, and she chaired an intergovernmental committee charged with examining the possible adoption of specific ILO conventions on labor standards by the United States. She currently is a member of the Joyce Foundation’s Board of Directors, writes extensively about employment law issues, engages in pro bono law practice specializing in sex discrimination cases and is an accomplished speaker. Congratulations again, Carin!

paul

Following that was a session on the Section for the Law School Dean, and the topic was “The Carnegie Report: Educating Lawyers from the Vantage Point of the Law School Dean.” The moderator was Rex R. Perschbacher of University of California at Davis School of Law, and the speakers were Mary C. Daly of St. John’s University School of Law; Michael A. Fitts of University of Pennsylvania Law School; Carolyn C. Jones of University of Iowa College of Law; Thomas M. Mengler of University of St. Thomas School of Law; Emily A. Spieler of Northeastern University School of Law and Judith W. Wegner of University of North Carolina School of Law. That program gave multiple perspectives on the Carnegie Report and the speakers presented thoughtful comments on which things in the Report make sense to implement. One of the good things about the panel was the number of panelists. Each came from a different law school with different missions and perspectives, which made their comments very, very interesting. Because it was about such a hot topic—the reformation of legal education to focus more on experiential learning and less on Socratic-based classroom teaching—the session was quite full.

The next section that I was supposed to attend was on Labor Relations and Employment Law, but instead I bumped into Dennis Shields who you, if you follow the blog, may know is my hero (and the person who admitted me to law school in Iowa). We sat down and caught up and had a long conversation about some of the challenges and joys of deaning. He’s the Dean of Phoenix International Law School, so we chatted about what it’s like for him to be bringing a new law school online.

That afternoon there were more sessions on “Rethinking Legal Education” and again, they were very well attended. These were held in a huge ballroom, and were so full that they had to use overflow seating in the balcony. A little later was the Employment Discrimination Section, and there was a very interesting panel on “Employment Discrimination Remedies: The Shape of Lawsuits, The Shape of the Law” which I attended with Jim LaVaute. The panel was moderated by Michael Kelly, San Diego Law School and featured Tristan Green, Seton Hall, Brad Seligman, Director of the Impact Fund, Berkeley, Elaine Shoben, UNLV and Julie Suk, Yeshiva. It was followed by a brief business meeting during which folks whose area is employment discrimination were able to meet and chat. That evening was the AALS Gala Reception that was held in the Rainbow Room at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. The Rainbow Room is a wonderful space, famous for its dinner and dancing combination. The security was very, very tight—you had to leave your coat and be checked before you got on the elevator, but it was certainly worth the hassle once you got upstairs and had the fabulous view of Manhattan. Upstairs we were met with quite a spread, along with delicious hors d’œuvres and a full bar. It was a chance to meet new folks in legal education as well as to catch up with old friends in a lovely setting.

That evening at 8 o’clock was the dinner for the minority deans at The Palm Restaurant, and what a riot! We just had such a wonderful time. The food was terrific, but the fellowship was even greater. It was a good chance to be able to catch up with Blake and Paulette Morant, Fred and Phyllis White, Gil Holmes, Leroy Pernell, Freddie and Harriette Pitcher, Peter Alexander and John White. Stacie Walters took the train up from Washington, D.C. and joined us as well. What wonderful dinner companions, but more importantly, friends!

palm

Saturday morning was the Dean’s Breakfast hosted by the Access Group. I’m so glad I got up and went, even though it was freezing outside, because in addition to being able to mingle with a number of deans, the talk was about the new legislation in congress and some of the choices facing students who have student loans. I have contacted Access Group, and they have agreed to come in and make a presentation to students. I think it’s very important, not only because it is essential to know what the repayment options are and what the legislation does for students who are graduating, but also because the new legislation has an impact on what those loans may cost over time. I believe it’s good to have someone with expertise talk us through that. I’m excited that Access Group will visit the law school to share that information with us.

Later that morning, I attended a Section on Minority Groups program entitled, “In the Name of Love: What Does Martin Luther King Mean on the 40th Anniversary of His Assassination?” A very diverse group of 10 panelists of all ages and ethnicities shared their insights. The speakers were, Lisa Chiyemi Ikemoto, U. C. Davis, Beto Juarez, Jr., Denver ,Margaret E. Montoya, New Mexico, Charles Ogletree, Harvard,Wendy Brown Scott, North Carolina Central, Jennifer Marie Chacon, U. C. Davis, Frank Rudy Cooper, Suffolk, Emily M.S. Houh, Cincinnati, Camille Antoinette Nelson, Saint Louis, Catherine E. Smith, Denver. The reflections were fascinating. Folks talked about growing up in the legacy of Dr. King and what that meant to each of them. That was a really, really warm session and a real tribute to Dr. King. It’s just a shame that more people didn’t attend it, but those of us who did were given a real treat.

Directly afterwards, I attended the AALS Section on Minority Groups Luncheon and, again, it was fun to catch up with Minority Groups Luncheonpeople of color and legal education from all over the country. One of the highlights of this luncheon to me, is recognizing those who have recently obtained tenure, been promoted, and those who have become deans or chaired professors. To boot, there are a number of awards given out to people who are doing fantastic things from the platform of legal education. It’s a wonderful annual event. Following the luncheon there was an informal gathering of black women in law teaching, and I have to tell you it was amazing to be a part of that gathering. It really was a great chance to get acquainted and to discuss how those of us who have been in legal education for a while could better serve those who are newer members of the academy. The conversation was very frank and a number of ideas were shared, but I think the most important thing was having a group of sisters in one room. A number of folks who have been around awhile, like Adrian Wing and Odeana Neal and Beverly McQueary, were there, and it was just terrific to meet many of the academy’s young women of color for the first time. It was truly a fantastic gathering.

That afternoon, Chris Kelley (who teaches in our agricultural law program), along with Neil Hamilton of Drake University Law School and J.B. Ruhl of Florida State University College of Law, sat on a panel moderated by Anthony Brian Shutz of University of Nebraska College of Law. The topic was “Energy, Food and the Environment: Agriculture’s Future.” Stacie WalterFortunately, I did get to hear Neil Hamilton’s talk about ethanol, even though I missed Chris’ talk to get ready to depart from the Marriott Hotel for “A Night at the Opera.” This lovely event was sponsored by the Fordham Law School and hosted by Dean William Treanor and his wife, Allison. They hosted a fabulous dinner in the law school atrium, where Lesley Rosenthal, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, talked about what it’s like to be General Counsel for the Lincoln Center. Her talk was very interesting, especially when she mentioned the various issues she faces involving labor and employment law . After the wonderful meal, we were escorted over to the Metropolitan Opera for a performance of Macbeth. We had fantastic seats right on the main floor, and the opera was really wonderful. Many, many thanks to Dean William & Allison Treanor, who hosted such a classy event. Despite all the fun, it had been a long day, and I was certainly ready for some rest.

At 9 o’clock onManhattan2 Sunday morning I walked back over to the Hilton to see Sharon Foster’s panel, “New Voices in Human Rights.” Sharon’s topic was “Ignorance and Want: A Human Rights Conflict Analysis Regarding Competing Interests in Healthcare, Food and Education and an Author’s Moral Rights and Right To Material Gain.” Sharon spoke on the fact that human rights are very much joined with economic rights and economic advancement. She stated that people will not realize their human rights unless they’re able to be a part of their development, and people must have economic justice as well. After Sharon’s panel, I went back to the Marriott to check out and had about four hours before a flight, so I walked around Manhattan, took a number of pictures and stopped at a very small Vietnamese restaurant and had noodles for lunch before heading back to the hotel to grab my luggage. From there, it was off to the airport and back to Fayetteville. So that was my first week of the new year … I’ve definitely hit the ground running!