The most important thing I've learned in life, and I can't stress this enough: you gotta make a salad in a bigger bowl than you think

“The key points to bear in mind here are as follows. First, institutional racism does not require overtly racist individuals: it conceives racism as arising through social processes - a difficult idea for the English imagination since (as a former Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, once gloriously observed) the latter has no concept of ‘the social’ which cannot be reduced to ‘individuals and their families’. Second, institutional racism has clearly taken the argument that culture regulates conduct. These behavioural norms are carried within the occupational culture of an organization, and transmitted by informal and implicit ways through its routine, everyday practices as an indestructible part of the institutional habitus. Racism of this kind becomes routine, habitual, taken for granted. It is far more effective in socializing the practice of officers than formal training or regulations. (The arduous reporting of racial incidents or domestic violence, by contrast, is defined, in the occupational culture, as 'rubbish’ policing.) And it blocks a professional reflexivity from ever coming into operation. Far from being seen as exceptional, this 'unwitting’ type of racism becomes part of the very working definition of 'normal police work’. It is perfectly possible for young officers - whose promotion up the ranks and acceptance as 'regular cops’ depends on imbibing as an unreflected practice this folk-wisdom of 'how to be a good copper’ - to love reggae, eat Vindaloo curry every Saturday night, have a few black friends, and still think that 'good policing’ requires them to act on the assumption that a young black man carrying a holdall at a bus-stop after dark almost certainly just committed a robbery and should be 'sussed’ - stopped and searched. This is certainly not the only kind of racism which operates in our institutions, but it is one, distinct variety and, precisely because of its institutional embeddedness, one of the most difficult to identify and dismantle.”

The lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island and challenging Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Homeland Security policies, argued that the administration is requiring states to change their elections systems and help DHS with immigration enforcement. The conditions would also allow DHS to terminate grants at any time and for any reason.

“Once again, the Trump Administration is threatening to jeopardize public safety by unlawfully withholding billions in critical funding and once again, they won’t get away with it,” Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said. “This Administration is using the safety of Americans as collateral by attempting to bully the states into relinquishing their constitutional right to enact policies and laws that best serve their residents.”

The states argue putting conditions on congressionally appropriated funding violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution’s spending clause.

In a statement, a spokesperson for FEMA called the lawsuit an example of “partisan pushback” and said they expected “these left-wing politicians to oppose common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.”