News & Commentary

State education Commissioner Deborah Gist has decided to push back the timeline for proposed high school graduation requirements that the ACLU had argued would stigmatize 90% of at-risk students and essentially create a caste system in Rhode Island’s schools.  The decision is an important victory for the ACLU and numerous civil rights, community and advocacy groups which had been extremely critical of the proposal ever since it was raised last fall.

The Rhode Island ACLU has asked a federal court to rule unconstitutional, without the need for a trial, the City of Pawtucket’s long-standing practice of giving preferential treatment to parochial schools over public schools in granting permits for the use of city athletics fields. The ACLU’s motion for summary judgment follows months of discovery in the lawsuit, which was filed in October 2009 on behalf of seven Pawtucket parents and their children.

On the eve of a final public hearing on proposed new high school graduation requirements for students in Rhode Island, a diverse group of organizations has highlighted startling statistics documenting the devastating impact that the requirements would have on at-risk students in the state. The groups – the RI ACLU, RI Disability Law Center, the Autism Project of RI, RI Legal Services, Urban League of RI, Progreso Latino, Parent Support Network of RI, the Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy, Young Voices and the George Wiley Center – claim that the new policy would essentially institutionalize a caste system in Rhode Island’s public schools.

A number of open government groups expressed deep concern today over regulations adopted by the Rhode Island Department of Public Safety (DPS) that would significantly restrict the information publicly available from state police agencies under DPS’s jurisdiction, including the State Police. The objections, from the Rhode Island ACLU, Common Cause Rhode Island and ACCESS/RI, also targeted the questionable process by which the regulations were adopted.

In response to a civil rights complaint filed by the Rhode Island ACLU against the state’s Department of Human Services (DHS) for violating laws requiring the agency to provide appropriate language interpreter services, a detailed 24-page resolution agreement has been entered this week between DHS and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The agreement establishes detailed timeframes for DHS to follow in order to ensure that clients who have limited English proficiency (LEP) have access to the services and programs provided by the agency.

Rejecting the ACLU’s legal arguments, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit yesterday upheld the constitutionality of the Town of Narragansett’s highly-publicized “orange sticker” ordinance. However, in upholding the ordinance on its face, the court acknowledged that it could still be subject to constitutional challenge in its application to particular cases, and the ACLU plans to go back to court to pursue those challenges.

The ACLU today applauded Governor Lincoln Chafee's rescission of former Governor Carcieri's executive order on illegal immigration. In addition to lifting a requirement that state agencies use "E-Verify," a flawed federal employment verification system, the governor’s action also ends an agreement, known as 287(g), between state police and federal immigration officials allowing the police to enforce federal immigration law.

In response to a civil rights complaint filed by Rhode Island Legal Services and the Rhode Island ACLU, the Pawtucket School District has entered into a consent agreement to revise its practices governing the evaluation of special education students.

In testimony submitted at a public hearing yesterday by the RI ACLU and Cooperating Attorney Jennifer Azevedo, the ACLU expressed opposition to proposed Department of Public Safety regulations that would significantly restrict information the Rhode Island State Police (RISP) would release about criminal investigations and subjects.  Under the Department’s proposal, only five specific pieces of information would be guaranteed to be open to the public: the arrestee’s name, address, age, location of arrest, and name of arresting officer.