Donna Hughes on the case against Rachel Paulose
University of Rhode Island Professor Donna Hughes is one of the foremost academic authorities on human trafficking. She has frequetly written for National Review Online on trafficking (most recently here, for example) and has a long list of professsional publications on the subject. Professor Hughes writes to comment on "The New York Times frames the case against Rachel Paulose." Professor Hughes writes:
Thank you for your defense of Rachel Paulouse on Power Line. There is an aspect of this attack on Paulouse that may not be apparent at first: Paulouse has taken aggressive action against trafficking and has quickly become one of the leading anti-trafficking prosecutors in the country. That alone is enough to make her the subject of attack.Professor Hughes also forwards the text of a letter that is being circulated to liberal, leftist, conservative, secular, and faith-based groups (the coalition that signed the letter referred to above) for signatures:We are in the final stages of negotiating the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007. The strongest opponent are those in the Justice Department who have subverted the Bush presidential directive on human trafficking. Right now, the only groups that support the position of the Justice Department are the liberal/leftists that support legalization of prostitution. Sound impossible?
Attached is a letter [omitted here] sent to Acting A.G. Keisler recently that addresses the poor performance of the Justice Department on issues related to prosecution and training on human trafficking, specifically sex trafficking. Please read it and please note the incredible breadth and depth of the signers of this letter -- from Gary Bauer to Kim Gandy, President of NOW. This diverse and powerful coalition is set to pass a historic anti-trafficking Reauthorization Act. We had bipartisan support in the House Judiciary Committee, but at the eleventh hour last Friday night, the Justice Department came in with a letter opposing the main provisions. Considering the political breadth of our coalition, that leaves the liberal/leftists groups that support legalization of prostitution in support of DOJ's opposition to the bill.
Sincerely,
Donna M. Hughes
Professor & Carlson Endowed Chair
University of Rhode Island
Dear Mr. Attorney General,The letter alludes to one of the accusations against Rachel regarding a derogatory comment she allegedly made about an office employee. I've known Rachel for ten years. For those of us who know her, the allegation is absurd on its face. Among other things, Rachel is herself an Indian sensitive to racial slights. I've never heard Rachel utter a swear word or cast a racial aspersion.
We are suspicious of what we suspect may be a classic Washington, D.C. campaign to destroy the character and end the tenure of Minnesota’s United States Attorney Rachel Paulose.
Given our experience with the Department of Justice’s treatment of anti-trafficking cases -- the subject of critical letters to the Department from Congressional leaders of both parties and in the attached October 5 to then-Acting Attorney General Keisler -- we believe it reasonable to at least surmise that Department officials who believe in priority treatment of anti-trafficking initiatives are subject to acute hostility from within the Department. Implicit in [the November 13] leaked New York Times front page story, and similar stories that have appeared in the Washington Post and elsewhere, is the sense that Ms. Paulose may be paying a price for her commitment to aggressively deal with what we think it fair to describe as the slavery issue of our time. Clearly, Ms. Paulose has faced serious resistance on the part of some within the Department for taking an office which had brought no trafficking cases before she arrived and for having made it what it clearly now is: The country’s leading U.S. Attorney’s Office in prosecuting the predators who enslave and destroy trafficked girls and women.
In this regard, we attach the recent story Minneapolis Star-Tribune story describing Ms. Paulose’s stellar and near-unique leadership in bringing cases against traffickers subject to her jurisdiction.
We are of course not familiar with all of the facts of the case, and note that Ms. Paulose has been accused of racial bigotry. Should this be proven we of course believe it appropriate that severe action should be taken against her. Having said this, however, we reiterate our concern that the use of indefensible press leaks to make these and similar charges suggests that the charges may represent pretextual efforts to cause Ms. Paulose’s dismissal.
In this regard, we note in particular the repeated references in the leaked stories to Ms. Paulose’s religious faith, and note our familiarity with efforts to demean anti-trafficking activism as a “Christian right” initiative.
Some of the signers of this letter are faith-based in their orientation. Others of us are secular in our belief systems and, as such, profoundly opposed to the efforts of many faith-based activists to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
Disagree as many of the signers of the letter do about Roe – and we do so sharply and passionately -- we write to make clear that we will have no part of any bigoted demeanment of anti-trafficking activists on the basis of their religious views or practices. On this issue, as the attached letter to then-Acting Attorney General Keisler makes clear, we are joined at the hip in our determination to ensure the vigorous prosecution of domestic traffickers, and in our determination to see to it that all U.S. Attorneys offices are as vigorous in the pursuit of this historic goal as Ms. Paulose has been.
We look forward to your judicious consideration of the charges against Ms. Paulose. As you do so, we note our implacable determination to ensure that no Department official will be made a sacrificial lamb for their religious faith or lack thereof, nor will Ms. Paulose for her commitment to the vigorous enforcement of the country’s anti-trafficking laws.
To comment on this post, go here.
