Award-winning Investigative Journalist Robert Parry (1949-2018)

Award-winning investigative journalist and founder/editor of, Robert Parry has passed away. His ground-breaking work uncovering Reagan-era dirty wars in Central America and many other illegal and immoral policies conducted by successive administrations and U.S. intelligence agencies, stands as an inspiration to all in journalists working in the public interest.

Robert had been a regular guest on our Between The Lines and Counterpoint radio shows -- and many other progressive outlets across the U.S. over four decades.

His penetrating analysis of U.S. foreign policy and international conflicts will be sorely missed, and not easily replaced. His son Nat Parry writes a tribute to his father: Robert Parry’s Legacy and the Future of Consortiumnews.

Thank you for donating

If you've made a donation and wish to receive thank you gifts for your donation, be sure to send us your mailing address via our Contact form.

See our thank you gifts for your donation.

The Resistance Starts Now!

Between The Lines' coverage and resource compilation of the Resistance Movement

SPECIAL REPORT: "The Resistance - Women's March 2018 - Hartford, Connecticut" Jan. 20, 2018

Selected speeches from the Women's March in Hartford, Connecticut 2018, recorded and produced by Scott Harris

SPECIAL REPORT: "No Fracking Waste in CT!" Jan. 14, 2018

SPECIAL REPORT: "Resistance Round Table: The Unraveling Continues..." Jan. 13, 2018

SPECIAL REPORT: "Capitalism to the ash heap?" Richard Wolff, Jan. 2, 2018

SPECIAL REPORT: Maryn McKenna, author of "Big Chicken", Dec. 7, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Nina Turner's address, Working Families Party Awards Banquet, Dec. 14, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Mic Check, Dec. 12, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Resistance Roundtable, Dec. 9, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: On Tyranny - one year later, Nov. 28, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Mic Check, Nov. 12, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Resistance Roundtable, Nov. 11, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Rainy Day Radio, Nov. 7, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Rainy Day Radio, Nov. 7, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: Resisting U.S. JeJu Island military base in South Korea, Oct. 24, 2017

SPECIAL REPORT: John Allen, Out in New Haven

2017 Gandhi Peace Awards

Promoting Enduring Peace presented its Gandhi Peace Award jointly to renowned consumer advocate Ralph Nader and BDS founder Omar Barghouti on April 23, 2017.

Subscribe to our Weekly Summary & receive our FREE Resist Trump window cling

resist (Car window cling)

Email us with your mailing address at to receive our "Resist Trump/Resist Hate" car window cling!


who helped make our 25th anniversary with Jeremy Scahill a success!

For those who missed the event, or were there and really wanted to fully absorb its import, here it is in video

Jeremy Scahill keynote speech, part 1 from PROUDEYEMEDIA on Vimeo.

Jeremy Scahill keynote speech, part 2 from PROUDEYEMEDIA on Vimeo.

Between The Lines on Stitcher


Between The Lines Presentation at the Left Forum 2016

"How Do We Build A Mass Movement to Reverse Runaway Inequality?" with Les Leopold, author of "Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice,"May 22, 2016, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, 860 11th Ave. (Between 58th and 59th), New York City. Between The Lines' Scott Harris and Richard Hill moderated this workshop. Listen to the audio/slideshows and more from this workshop.

Listen to audio of the plenary sessions from the weekend.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker "Dirty Wars"

Listen to the full interview (30:33) with Jeremy Scahill, an award-winning investigative journalist with the Nation Magazine, correspondent for Democracy Now! and author of the bestselling book, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army," about America's outsourcing of its military. In an exclusive interview with Counterpoint's Scott Harris on Sept. 16, 2013, Scahill talks about his latest book, "Dirty Wars, The World is a Battlefield," also made into a documentary film under the same title, and was nominated Dec. 5, 2013 for an Academy Award in the Best Documentary Feature category.

Listen to Scott Harris Live on WPKN Radio

Between The Lines' Executive Producer Scott Harris hosts a live, weekly talk show, Counterpoint, from which some of Between The Lines' interviews are excerpted. Listen every Monday evening from 8 to 10 p.m. EDT at (Follows the 5-7 minute White Rose Calendar.)

Counterpoint in its entirety is archived after midnight ET Monday nights, and is available for at least a year following broadcast in WPKN Radio's Archives.

You can also listen to full unedited interview segments from Counterpoint, which are generally available some time the day following broadcast.

Subscribe to Counterpoint bulletins via our subscriptions page.

Between The Lines Blog  BTL Blog

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Special Programming Special Programming

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Between The Lines Progressive Resources

A compilation of activist and news sites with a progressive point of view

Share this content:


Podcasts Subscribe to BTL

Podcasts:  direct  or  via iTunes

Subscribe to Program Summaries, Interview Transcripts or Counterpoint via email or RSS feed

If you have other questions regarding subscriptions, feeds or podcasts/mp3s go to our Audio Help page.

Between The Lines Blog

Stay connected to BTL

RSS feed  twitter  facebook

donate  Learn how to support our efforts!

Universal Rights – An Alternative to Affirmative Action – Further Undermined by U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan Case

Posted May 7, 2014

MP3 Interview with Jamie Raskin, professor of constitutional law at American University, a Maryland state senator and a senior fellow at People for the American Way, conducted by Melinda Tuhus


On April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. The 6-to-2 ruling effectively endorsed similar measures in seven other states and may encourage additional states to pass new laws banning consideration of race in admissions policy.

This is the third affirmative action case from the state of Michigan to be decided by the Supreme Court. In 2003, the court struck down a plan from the University of Michigan undergraduate college in which a point system gave specific “weight” to minority applicants, but the court upheld the University of Michigan law school’s policy because it was more generalized. Then conservatives in Michigan pushed through an amendment to the state constitution forbidding any consideration of race in the admissions process. That referendum question was approved in 2006 with 58 percent of the vote. But the amendment was challenged by a coalition of student and minority rights groups, who won their case at the appellate level, but lost in this recent Supreme Court ruling.

Between The Lines' Melinda Tuhus spoke with Jamie Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University, a Maryland state senator and a senior fellow with the group People for the American Way. Here, he talks about the significance of this latest high court ruling and suggests alternative methods of rectifying historic discrimination.

JAMIE RASKIN: Essentially what the court has done is to say affirmative action and the use of race in admissions or in hiring can be forbidden by a state by virtue of a state constitutional amendment or even just by virtue of state law. What the court has said is that if a state wants to use affirmative action within the strict limits it has imposed in the past may do so, but who wants to forbid the use of affirmative action, it can forbid it, too.

BETWEEN THE LINES: I've read that the percentages of black and Latino students at least in the more prestigious universities has dropped significantly since some of these other affirmative action restrictions have been put in place. So these cases have a real world impact.

JAMIE RASKIN: The withdrawal of affirmative action has meant that the numbers of minority students at the most selective universities and colleges has plummeted. On the other hand, in Texas, after their racial and ethnic-based affirmative action plan was struck down, they moved to a different plan that guaranteed admission to the University of Texas and other state universities and colleges to the top five percent of the graduating class in each high school all over the state, so that guaranteed a kind of geographic distribution that allowed for diversity. So there are other mechanisms that states are starting to put in place to deal with both state laws that are hostile to affirmative action and to this Supreme Court decision.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Jamie Raskin, Over the course of all the decisions on affirmative action over the decades, how far-reaching is this one, do you think?

JAMIE RASKIN: Most of the main damage had already been done; there's not much left of affirmative action. The court permits generally, state universities and colleges to have generalized kinds of targets, but you can never make a difference in a particular case and it can't be quantified and you can't set aside certain numbers. There is a movement to try to get colleges and universities to engage in affirmative action based on economic disadvantage, which obviously would help to lift up a lot of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as poor and working class white people. In general, I think progressive movements are focused now on questions of student debt and how to make college more affordable for everyone. And in some sense, these questions may be more congruent with what the original civil rights movement was more interested in, which was dramatic changes in people's access to people's higher education and to jobs.

There may be a way in which the right-wing assault on affirmative action – which is ferocious and unremitting – could lead us to go back to the demand for universal rights and benefits and entitlements in the educational field. The Supreme Court's decades-long attack on affirmative action, which is the mildest and most modest of remedies and concessions to the civil rights movement historically, now may be the occasion for people to say, let's go back to what the original demands were of the civil rights movement, and, for example, in Europe today, everybody has the right to a college education. Once you get in, it's tough, you have to work hard and so on, but everybody has a right to go, and that's something that could be put on the table today, just like universal health care could be put on the table today.

So instead of beginning with the idea of scarcity and dividing up a scarce resource according to some racial or ethnic criterion, instead start with the assumption that everyone should have access to health care, everyone should have access to college education if that's something they want to do.

What we have today is a Supreme Court that is very hostile to the Reconstruction amendments, specifically the 14th amendment and equal protection, which was not just about the formal treatment of people as equals, but it was about actually changing a profoundly racist society and trying to redistribute wealth, power and social opportunities to people who had been marginalized and oppressed by law and by social conventions for centuries.

BETWEEN THE LINES: There's a certain stigma for people of color getting admitted to higher ed through affirmative action, the assumption being they wouldn't have gotten in otherwise. Do you think that race-based affirmative action was never the best way to go?

JAMIE RASKIN: If you go back and look at the politics of the civil rights movement in the '60s and writings of civil rights leaders, there was very little discussion of affirmative action. There was a lot of discussion about dismantling structures of discrimination and exclusion and then redistributing opportunities in wealth and power to bring everybody in. So it was much more concerned with a vision of real democratization rather than adding a few people here and a few people there. So, I like much better the image of the civil rights movement of creating movements to change the nature of society rather than assuming somehow the superiority or the virtue of certain institutions that were racist and exclusionary and elitist and reactionary for centuries, and just trying to get a few people into those institutions. I just think the civil rights movement would be better off today – or progressive movements generally – fighting for universal rights and entitlements for everybody.

For more information on Maryland state Sen. Jamie Raskin, visit

Related Links: