HOW AFRICAN AMERICANS CAN CELEBRATE CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH

April 2010

 

We have learned a lot about where we stand in terms of race relations and our collective memory since Governor Robert F. McDonnell issued a proclamation declaring April Confederate History Month in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The rush on the part of the nation's leading editorial pages to condemn McDonnell's edict as revisionist history shows that at least the elite media have reached a consensus that the southern states fought the Civil War to preserve the evils of slavery.

 

Since most of us who came of age in the twentieth century were often peddled the nonsense that the Civil War was about tariffs or some unspecified states' rights during our K-12 education, this development represents a major shift in our public culture. The fact that Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi, which has the largest black population in the United States, callously dismissed McDonnell's critics as "trying to make a big deal out of something that doesn't amount to diddly," shows that we have much work to do to achieve a healthy collective memory of slavery and the Civil War.

 

There are two ways that the black community and their progressive allies can use this controversy to move the ball forward on this issue. First, we must apply what political scientists call the "politics of re-articulation" to the Confederate History Month.

 

Re-articulation is simply giving a political act or symbol a new meaning based on one's own interests. Progressives can easily achieve this end by staging a remembrance ceremony in Richmond (and other state capitals where there are Confederate History Months) to honor the slaves whose toil provided the foundation for America's rise to global supremacy.

 

Instead of the normal histrionics that accompany most modern political rallies in America, these ceremonies should be solemn affairs akin to the NAACP's protests against lynching in the early twentieth century. Moreover, instead of speeches, these ceremonies should simply feature the testimonies provided to the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s by African-Americans who lived through the horrors of slavery. Imagine the moral and spiritual clarity that would fill Richmond as Americans of all races--rich, poor, famous, and unknown--took turns at the microphone reading the lived experiences of these survivors. Could men like Governor McDonnell or Governor Barbour deny the importance of slavery in the face of this testimony? Would they even continue to issue these proclamations if progressives showed up at the beginning or end of Confederate History Month to wreck their fantasies with the power of truth? The answer to both of these questions is likely a resounding no.

 

Bringing order to their own houses with regard to the celebration of Confederate symbols is another way that the black community and progressives can help the cause. One of the main arguments that Governor Barbour used to deflect criticism of Confederate History Month is the fact that Democrats also engage in this behavior. Consider, for example, the fact that at least four prominent black Americans--including the civil rights leaders Vernon Jordan and Andrew Young--are members of the Alfalfa Club, an elite Washington, DC social organization founded in 1913 to throw an annual dinner in honor of the birthday of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Because the club did not admit blacks until 1974, both President Jimmy Carter and President Bill Clinton refused the club's invitations to address the annual gathering. President Obama broke with this boycott tradition when he addressed the group in January of 2009.

 

 

 

 

Of course, the black members of the Alfalfa Club and President Obama do not intend to glorify Confederate History. Indeed, President Obama acknowledged the tension surrounding his decision to break the boycott by telling a joke about how confused General Lee would be by the spectacle of a black president if he were in the room.

 

Despite their intentions, participation in such organizations definitely provides cover for men like Governor Barbour. It also shows that even our most enlightened leaders still do not guard the legacies of the slaves as jealously as they should. Can you imagine any respectable Jewish leader or mainstream politician attending a dinner or joining a club that organized initially to celebrate the birthday of General Erwin Rommel? Even 150 years from now, I suspect that such a gesture would be unthinkable. Until progressives begin to adopt similar standards, and stop whistling Dixie even when no one is watching, we will never stamp out Confederate History Month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAACP JOINS LEGAL CHALLENGE TO ARIZONA RACIAL PROFILING LAW

June 2010

The NAACP in coalition with other civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit today challenging Arizona's new law requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. If an individual is caught without papers they can be arrested and jailed. The extreme law, the coalition charged, invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law.

"We are joining this lawsuit because the Arizona law is out of step with American values of fairness and equality. It encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional. African-Americans know all too well the insidious effects of racial profiling," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP. "The government should be preventing police from investigating and detaining people based on color and accent, not mandating it. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country anywhere for anyone." "Subjecting human beings to discrimination and punishment based upon race and accent is morally offensive, unconstitutional and un-American, said Wilbert Nelson, the president of the NAACP Arizona state conference "We will fight vigorously to make sure this poisonous law never takes effect. It is part of a menacing return to racial discrimination and the beginning of a slippery slope. Right after this hate law was passed, a statute banning the ethnic studies in our school was passed. "

The lawsuit charges that the Arizona law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers in violation of the First Amendment. A number of other states are considering similar laws.

 

Several prominent law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, oppose the law because it diverts limited resources from law enforcement's primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting public safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.

"As a former police officer, many of us in law enforcement want to ensure that the resources of the police are put into fighting serious crime and not turn them into federal immigration agents," said Reverend Oscar Tillman, president of the Maricopa County Branch (Phoenix, Arizona). "It can jeopardize security when victims or witnesses to crime are afraid to talk to police because they might be targeted by this law."

The coalition filing the lawsuit includes the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) - a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARIZONA’S NEGATIVE ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Nov 2010

 

On Tuesday, Arizona voters were given the chance to vote on Proposition 107, which prohibits "the state from giving preferential treatment to or discriminating against any person or group on the basis of race, sex, colour, ethnicity or national origin". The measure passed with 59% of the vote, effectively banning affirmative action in the state.

 

Proposition 107 supporters, including Republican representative Steve Montenegro, who sponsored the measure to amend the Arizona constitution, have invoked civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr's dream that "little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" and twisted that into a plea for "colour-blindness" rather than equality. Affirmative action, which began in the United States in 1965, is a policy designed to mitigate historic and present discrimination and institutional racism and sexism. 

 

A 1996 essay in the Journal for Social Issues noted that in a society where whiteness remains the baseline and the preference – consciously or subconsciously – people of colour are at a disadvantage:

 

"All else being equal, colour-blind seniority systems tend to protect white workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually white (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, colour-blind college admissions favour white students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, colour-blind policies do not correct racial injustice – they reinforce it."

 

Affirmative action offers a way to counteract that racial bias – and the gender bias – that remain pervasive in our society. The journal article offers a statistic from the US labour department, revealing that affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members, as well as 6 million white and minority women, move up in the workforce.

Of course, there are those who would claim that the forces that may have inhibited the success of women and minorities in the past have been erased, especially since, thanks to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, we've achieved a post-racial and post-feminist society. (Please note: tongue firmly in cheek, here.)

It astonishes me how short our collective memory is. Institutional racism is not a thing of the distant past, some evil that died with the Civil war. I am 40 years old. My paternal grandparents were not allowed to vote until they were well into their 60s, when the Civil Rights Act was signed. My father was raised in the Jim Crow south, attending separate and unequal schools, riding in the back of the bus, and never entering through a white neighbour's front door. My mother's choices, as a young woman in the 1960s, were limited both by the biases against black people, but also against women.

For generations upon generations, people of colour and women were barred from positions of power, from voting for their own government representation, and from taking part equally in opportunities for growth and success. That marginalisation made it more difficult to lay the foundation for the achievement of future generations. The idea that we have made up for hundreds of years of oppression in barely 50 years is ludicrous. 

And oppression is not merely history. Bias and inequality live and "the playing field" is not equal. Women still earn 77 cents to the male dollar. Extract from that black and Latina women and the figure drops to 68 cents and 58 cents respectively. Research has shown that people with names traditionally thought of as African American, or who have other racially identifying information on their resumes, receive fewer responses to job queries. According to the Journal on Social Issues article:

 

"[W]ithout affirmative action, the percentage of black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen & Bok, 1998). This would effectively choke off black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality."

 

These figures may seem startling to some – according to the New York Times, "maybe because of the popular perception that affirmative action still confers significant advantages [my emphasis] to black job candidates, a perception that is not borne out in studies. Moreover, statistics show even college-educated blacks suffering disproportionately in this jobless environment compared with whites."

 

It is a privilege to believe in a level playing field, a privilege to believe in post-racialism and post-feminism. Women and people of colour cannot afford to be so naive. Arizona, a state that voted no to a Martin Luther King holiday and wants brown folks to routinely have their "papers" checked, just made it a little harder for marginalised people to get along. In a disingenuous effort to guard against discrimination, Republican lawmakers have led Arizonans actually to enshrine inequality in the state's governing document.

 

 

Maryland Court of Appeals hears racial-profiling records case

NOVEMBER 5, 2010

ANNAPOLIS — The Maryland State Police and the NAACP clashed Friday before the state’s highest court over documents the group says it needs to determine if troopers are stopping motorists based on their skin color and whether the agency is taking adequate steps to prevent and investigate complaints.

In February, a lower court ordered the state police to surrender about 10,000 of the requested documents sought under the Maryland Public Information Act.

Arguing on behalf of the state police, Assistant Attorney General Steven M. Sullivan told the Court of Appeals that the documents — which relate to internal investigations of racial-profiling complaints — cannot be disclosed under the act.

The agency seeks to comply “with an express mandate of the legislature,” said Sullivan, chief of litigation at the attorney general’s office. “If it’s a personnel record, don’t disclose it.”  Blacking out the names in the personnel file would not fully mask a trooper’s identity, Sullivan said, since “the trooper’s name is all over” other documents in the records.

But the NAACP’s pro bono lawyer, Seth A. Rosenthal, said the law’s overriding goal of shedding light on possible police wrongdoing supersedes the troopers’ asserted privacy interest, especially since the group does not object to officers’ names and other identifying information being redacted before disclosure.

“These records reflect upon the state police as an agency,” not on individual troopers, he said.

Rosenthal agreed that the purpose of the personnel records exception is to protect the privacy of state employees. But such privacy concerns do not apply to the documentation of traffic stops and whether a complaint was adequately addressed by the police, he added.  Troopers “do not carry with them a reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding traffic stops, Rosenthal said, “What occurs at traffic stops does not have reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Behind the numbers
The dispute over records follows a 2003 consent decree that requires the Maryland State Police to submit quarterly reports regarding racial-profiling complaints.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland sued on behalf of the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, seeking the internal documents the agency uses in preparing the reports.

During Friday’s session, judges grilled Sullivan on how the NAACP could ever verify the accuracy of MSP reports without seeing the documents the agency uses to compile the data.

“They want to go behind the numbers,” said Judge Lynne A. Battaglia. “In order to do it, you have to go to those forms.”

Rosenthal was pressed on the risk that disclosure of the documents would expose to public view internal investigations of specific troopers, an invasion of privacy the MPIA’s personnel-records exception was designed to prevent.

Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr., for example, invoked the Ten Commandments in saying the personnel-records exception reads like “Thou shalt not disclose.”

Rosenthal countered that the General Assembly sought to protect only confidential personnel records, such as test scores or missed workdays, not documents about the troopers’ on–the-job activity of pulling over wayward motorists and how often those actions resulted in profiling complaints that were inadequately investigated, he said.

Access to such records is essential to ensure the MSP is complying with the spirit of the consent decree, Rosenthal said.  Without such oversight, the police “could have thrown [racial-profiling complaints] in the circular file and no one would be the wiser,” said Rosenthal, a partner at Venable LLP in Washington, D.C.

The Daily Record and a dozen other news organizations joined a brief that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted to the high court in support of the NAACP. The brief states that exempting the internal records from disclosure “would serve as a serious blow to journalists and the public who depend on them to hold the police accountable for their actions.”

2008 settlement
The 2003 consent decree ended a 10-year legal battle in federal district court between the MSP and the NAACP over the racial- profiling practice sardonically referred to as “driving while black.”

In April 2008, the state Board of Public Works approved a $400,000 settlement to resolve claims alleged by individual plaintiffs. State police did not admit to practicing racial profiling in either agreement.

That June, Baltimore County Circuit Judge Timothy J. Martin — over the MSP’s objections — upheld the NAACP’s request for the documents under the condition that officers’ names and identification numbers be redacted.

Martin also told the NAACP to select three attorneys to review unredacted MSP records and identify the documents they wanted released in redacted form. These attorneys would be barred from disclosing the names of any troopers mentioned in the documents, Martin said.

When the Court of Special Appeals ruled that the documents sought are not personnel records, the MSP sought review by the Court of Appeals.  The court did not indicate when it will render a decision in the case, Maryland Department of State Police v. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, No. 41, September Term 2010.

 

 One recent day at Dr. Natalie Carroll's OB-GYN practice, located inside a low-income apartment complex tucked between a gas station and a freeway, 12 pregnant black women come for consultations. Some bring their children or their mothers. Only one brings a husband.

 

Things move slowly here. Women sit shoulder-to-shoulder in the narrow waiting room, sometimes for more than an hour. Carroll does not rush her mothers in and out. She wants her babies born as healthy as possible, so Carroll spends time talking to the mothers about how they should care for themselves, what she expects them to do — and why they need to get married.

 

Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unmarried mothers today, according to government statistics. This number is inseparable from the work of Carroll, an obstetrician who has dedicated her 40-year career to helping black women.

 

"The girls don't think they have to get married. I tell them children deserve a mama and a daddy. They really do," Carroll says from behind the desk of her office, which has cushioned pink-and-green armchairs, bars on the windows, and a wooden "LOVE" carving between two African figurines. Diamonds circle Carroll's ring finger.

 

As the issue of black unwed parenthood inches into public discourse, Carroll is among the few speaking boldly about it. And as a black woman who has brought thousands of babies into the world, who has sacrificed income to serve Houston's poor, Carroll is among the few whom black women will actually listen to.

 

"A mama can't give it all. And neither can a daddy, not by themselves," Carroll says. "Part of the reason is because you can only give that which you have. A mother cannot give all that a man can give. A truly involved father figure offers more fullness to a child's life."  Statistics show just what that fullness means. Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.

 

The black community's 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.

 

This issue entered the public consciousness in 1965, when a now famous government report by future senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described a "tangle of pathology" among blacks that fed a 24 percent black "illegitimacy" rate. The white rate then was 4 percent.

 

Many accused Moynihan, who was white, of "blaming the victim:" of saying that black behavior, not racism, was the main cause of black problems. That dynamic persists. Most talk about the 72 percent has come from conservative circles; when influential blacks like Bill Cosby have spoken out about it, they have been all but shouted down by liberals saying that a lack of equal education and opportunity are the true root of the problem.

 

'Nobody talks about it' 
Even in black churches, "nobody talks about it," Carroll says. "It's like some big secret." But there are signs of change, of discussion and debate within and outside the black community on how to address the growing problem.

 

Research has increased into links between behavior and poverty, scholars say. Historically black Hampton University recently launched a National Center on African American Marriages and Parenting. There is a Marry Your Baby Daddy Day, founded by a black woman who was left at the altar, and a Black Marriage Day, which aims "to make healthy marriages the norm rather than the exception."

 

In September, Princeton University and the liberal Brookings Institution released a collection of "Fragile Families" reports on unwed parents. And an online movement called "No Wedding No Womb" ignited a fierce debate that included strong opposition from many black women.

 

"There are a lot of sides to this," Carroll says. "Part of our community has lost its way."

 

There are simple arguments for why so many black women have children without marriage.  The legacy of segregation, the logic goes, means blacks are more likely to attend inferior schools. This creates a high proportion of blacks unprepared to compete for jobs in today's economy, where middle-class industrial work for unskilled laborers has largely disappeared.

 

The drug epidemic sent disproportionate numbers of black men to prison, and crushed the job opportunities for those who served their time. Women don't want to marry men who can't provide for their families, and welfare laws created a financial incentive for poor mothers to stay single.  If you remove these inequalities, some say, the 72 percent will decrease.

 

"It's all connected. The question should be, how has the black family survived at all?" says Maria Kefalas, co-author of "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage."  The book is based on interviews with 162 low-income single mothers. One of its conclusions is that these women see motherhood as one of life's most fulfilling roles — a rare opportunity for love and joy, husband or no husband.

 

"It's trying to kill a tree by pulling leaves off the limbs. And it carries a message of shame," said Clayton, a black woman born to a single mother. "I came out fine. My brother is married with children. (NWNW) makes it seem like there's something immoral about you, like you're contributing to the ultimate downfall of the black race. My mom worked hard to raise me, so I do take it personally."

 

Demetria Lucas, relationships editor at Essence, the magazine for black women, declined an invitation for her award-winning personal blog to endorse NWNW. Lucas, author of the forthcoming book "A Belle in Brooklyn: Advice for Living Your Single Life & Enjoying Mr. Right Now," says plenty of black women want to be married but have a hard time finding suitable black husbands.

 

70 percent of professsional black women are unmarried 
Lucas says 42 percent of all black women and 70 percent of professional black women are unmarried. "If you can't get a husband, who am I to tell you no, you can't be a mom?" she asks. "A lot of women resent the idea that you're telling me my chances of being married are like 1 in 2, it's a crapshoot right now, but whether I can have a family of my own is based on whether a guy asks me to marry him or not."

 

Much has been made of the lack of marriageable black men, Lucas says, which has created the message that "there's no real chance of me being married, but because some black men can't get their stuff together I got to let my whole world fall apart. That's what the logic is for some women."

 

That logic rings false to Amy Wax, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, whose book "Race, Wrongs and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century" argues that even though discrimination caused blacks' present problems, only black action can cure them.

 

"The black community has fallen into this horribly dysfunctional equilibrium" with unwed mothers, Wax says in an interview. "It just doesn't work."

 

"Blacks as a group will never be equal while they have this situation going on, where the vast majority of children do not have fathers in the home married to their mother, involved in their lives, investing in them, investing in the next generation."

FEWER BLACK BASEBALL PLAYERS A DISTURBING TREND AMONST AMERICA’S PASTTIME

April 2010

 

Major League Baseball celebrates an iconic American figure April 15.  Each year, baseball honors Jackie Robinson. Not only did Robinson compile a Hall-of-Fame career in 10 marvelous seasons, but he also broke baseball's color barrier, progressed race relations in professional baseball and effectively "led off" the effort for equal rights for blacks and minorities in the United States.

 

Robinson paved the way for black athletes to play the game that, at the time, was America's favorite organized sport. When he broke the color barrier in 1947, it was a monumental and joyous feat for the black community. After all, it was America's pastime. After years of being underrepresented and discriminated, blacks finally had their shot at stepping into the spotlight to play the game as equals.

 

According to Gallup Polls conducted between 1951 and 1954, 52 percent of blacks admitted to actively following Major League Baseball. 

 

Fifty years later, Gallup Polls have shown a disturbing trend. In 2002, only 5 percent of blacks considered baseball their favorite sport, giving way to overwhelming popularity for basketball and football.

 

The incredible decrease in popularity of baseball among the black community is troubling for several reasons. Fewer blacks are watching baseball -- but more disturbingly -- fewer black athletes are playing baseball than ever before.

 

As a fan of the sport, I grew up admiring the likes of Ken Griffey Jr., Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds. Recent steroid scandals aside, all three of those players were among the most talented and popular players in the game.  They were as fun to watch as anyone on the diamond. During long summers filled with whiffle ball home run derby, I'd often step out of my comfort zone and switch sides of the plate to imitate Griffey,  one of my favorite center fielders of all time.

 

In my coverage of the University baseball team this season, I have noticed the same trend in Mid-American Conference.  Fewer black athletes are choosing to play baseball now than at any time in the sport's storied history, and although some may argue this problem is being blown out of proportion, I disagree.

 

Granted, choosing to play a respective sport is a matter of personal preference, but there are reasons that choice may no longer be in the hands of black youth. Look no further than MLB's implementation of the RBI (Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities) and Junior RBI programs, which aim to, among other things, "promote greater inclusion of minorities into the mainstream of the game."

 

Baseball is an expensive sport, and many inner-city communities simply do not have the capabilities to provide opportunities for many black youths to play baseball at a young age. Many of those children shoot jumpers on basketball courts or toss footballs on vacant lawns; sports less expensive to establish and play compared to baseball.

 

I believe the problems begin with the lack of opportunities for blacks, but no one jumps straight from grade school to the MLB. 

 

Because of  Title IX, colleges with state funding are required to provide an equal amount of scholarships to both males and females. In recent years, the number of baseball scholarships on the college level has plummeted, providing fewer financially-assisted education opportunities to baseball players.

 

Consequently, more black athletes stray away from baseball and turn to basketball and football -- two sports providing more scholarship opportunities and a better chance at moving on to the next level.

 

I don't think this was what Jackie Robinson had in mind for his posterity.

 

Baseball is a game steeped in tradition and grandeur. Although several events tainted the game's storied past, baseball has overcome its own struggles and remains a popular game in America. It's still considered America's "National Pastime." 

 

With the systematic decline of black athletes choosing to play baseball, there are even fewer reasons for black youth to get into the game. 

 

In 1975, 27 percent of Major Leaguers were black, and any child turning on a television would get to see "Hammerin' Hank Aaron" or "Mr. October," Reggie Jackson hit towering home runs and establish a legacy worthy of imitation.

 

The lack of black major leaguers is a major problem, and the trickle-down effect has never been more apparent. Baseball is a sport that has benefited from racial and cultural diversity for decades. In a time in which sports have become more publicized than ever, the opportunity to present that diversity to America's youth has never been bigger. 

 

Baseball cannot thrive without cultural diversity, and the declining popularity of the game proves this. It is our responsibility to raise awareness of the problem and take steps to ensure Jackie Robinson's legacy does not fade away.

 

Next year, the University will be the home to Brandon Howard, a top-ranked black middle infielder from Cincinnati. Although this might not seem like a big deal, given the state of baseball today, it kind of is. And it could be a big deal to future black athletes that visit the University with the intention of one day playing baseball at the collegiate level. Every coach will tell you his or her goal is to put the most talented group of players on the field, and black players can be as talented as any.

 

 What we as a society must do is recognize the decreasing number of black baseball players as a problem, and do something about it. American ideals are centered around inclusion and diversity. If baseball truly is America's pastime, we have to recognize that baseball would not be the great sport it is today without the diversity and success of the athletes playing the game.

 

Jackie Robinson once said, "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." 

 

So often we forget how much impact we can have on those around us.