Friday, July 31, 2009

Reflections on Race - reading Larry Elder

I was walking through Barnes and Nobles the other day, and I came across a book that gave me pause. It was a book by Larry Elder, originally titled "Stupid Black Men", but recently re-released under the new title, "What's Race go to do with it". The book boldly asserts that we are not evolving towards a "Post-Racial" America, but rather we have long since arrived. And furthermore, that Black People (and sympathetic Whites) are the last to arrive at the party.

He correctly asserts in the book that achievement is within the grasp of all, but then makes a logical leap to a false conclusion that because there are opportunities for success, then institutional and/or structural inequalities are inconsequential. That is a non-sequitur. Just because I won the race doesn't mean we started from the same starting line. I may have just run faster than you. And indeed, that is Elder's prescription for Black America; Run Faster. A part of that resonates with me, but there's yet another part of me that finds it disturbingly counter-revolutionary. We should encourage all of our youth to succeed despite the odds or the obstacles they face; but we should not accept the odds and obstacles as part of some perverse natural order. It is the duty of our generation, as it was with those who preceded us, to knock down those doors and barriers where we find them. We should never make peace with inequality, not even as a pathway to personal gain.

I struggled to reconcile Larry Elder's toothy grin and pollyanna perspective with the comments that I regularly read in newspaper's blogs, the unabashed race-baiting of Fox News, the stories of the Valley Swim club, and so many other issues lying right before our collective eyes. I wondered, 'is he simply being self-serving?' or does he really believe that he has somehow arrived in Xanadu, the whimsical capital of post-racial America. A magical place where race simply doesn't exist, because all residents have agreed not to talk about it. One who's gates are open to all who work without complaining.

As I thumbed through the pages, I was facinated by his arguments, his language, and his tenor. The book's chapters are titled things like "Stupid Black Leaders", "Stupid Black Politicians", "Stupid Blacks and Katrina"... And I wondered, IF Mr. Elder (and those of his ilk) truly believe that we have become a post-racial society, then who would he consider his target audience? Who exactly does he intend that his message of Black stupidity would resonate with? It is an incredibly dissonant act to say on the one hand that structural and institutional inequalities and the vestiges of racism and discrimination are largely things of the past, but then market a book that openly mocks and belittles black people in a way that would be considered outwardly racist by any measure.

Now in fairness, I'm certain that Mr. Elder would disagree with that characterization of his work. He'd probably assert that underneath it all, he has hidden what he intends to be read as a tough-love message of empowerment. But as my Father once said, there is no 'tough-love' unless you first have love...

Now my moral and philosophical disagreement with the position Elder espoused doesn't mean that I believe that America is a horrible place, that we've made no progress, or that "the Man" or "the System" are conspiring to keep us down, or anything of the sort. I just know that I see people of all races, with good hearts, and of good will everyday. I am surrounded by people who believe in fairness, equality, the end of racial disparities, and the end of disproportionalities, and who are willing to work to affect change. And I can say with certainty, that people who are actively pushing for a better and brighter tomorrow don't need to be fed with platitudes and bullshit about how we're already there. People can see today for what it is, and still see tomorrow for what it can be. Certainly we've come a long way. But acknowledging society's shortcomings is a necessary step towards overcoming them, not an act of acquiescence or succumbing to a victim-mentality...

Larry - Calling out for society to join you in a conversation about the 'stupidity' of black folks while collecting a check for your efforts is race hustling. Calling upon Black people to stop being "lazy", and "stupid" and to ignore the obstacles some may encounter, is not a revolutionary call to arms; to the contrary - its really nothing more than an elaborate coping strategy Butched-up with insults, attacks, and 19th century racial stereotypes. You are the anachronism brother Elder. Sorry I can't join you in Xanadu; but I guess I'll see you when we get there.

Read more...

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Health Care Reform in America and the Fierce Urgency of Now...

Guest Posted by Roslyn Brock; NAACP Vice-Chair and Director of Advocacy and Public Policy for Bon Secours Health Systems...


Over the past several days, I’ve had the most unsettling discussions around health care reform in my entire health policy career. Last Sunday, I spent the afternoon visiting with my uncle who was recovering from knee replacement. My aunt shared with me her dismay with the health care delivery system when upon admittance to the hospital, the attendant immediately asked for $2,400 to pay her portion of the hospital bill. Keep in mind, payment was requested before any services were rendered. Over the weekend, two young boys and their little sister all under 12 years of age from my neighborhood rushed up to me and hastily began a conversation: “We need some money, my dad had to go to the emergency room yesterday and we need money right away to pay for his hospital bill. Can you help us?” They opened a little red and white canister filled with juice packs on ice and asked for a dollar. I was flabbergasted and thought could this be the future of health care in America where children have to beg for money to pay for the rising cost of health care?

Today, during lunch a small business owner lamented how the rising costs of health care for him and his pregnant wife would ultimately cause him to close his business. These distinct encounters are a microcosm of how health care is lived in America.

Reforming the nation’s health care system by expanding access to consistent, high quality and affordable healthcare coverage is a critical issue for all Americans and in particular for African Americans when you consider the fact that over 7 million of the more than 46 million uninsured people in the U.S. are African- American, according to the Census Bureau. The poor economy further exacerbates this problem by putting more people out of work and out of insurance. The recession has driven the rate of unemployment among African Americans to 15 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As Congress considers fundamental health care reform, now is the time to ensure the delivery of quality, cost-effective care for minorities and other under-served populations, and to implement measures that improve cultural competency, eliminate barriers to health care, and build a more diverse health care workforce.

A comprehensive health care reform bill must cover all Americans. The White House proposes a public option plan that provides a range of insurance choices for the uninsured. The creation of this plan will not impact those who are currently insured. The biggest fear being promulgated by those in power is that expanded insurance coverage for the poor, vulnerable, immigrants, minorities and small businesses will in some way reduce current options provided to those currently insured. This is simply not true. In the current environment with more than 46 million uninsured, we’ve seen the result of inaction as evidenced by lost benefits, increased premiums and reduced wages. Basic and expanded preventive health care costs over time will stabilize and ultimately decrease because of improved health status and better decision making for accessing care by those who need it most.

President Obama cannot carry the health care reform message alone. Concerned citizens from all walks of life must be moved to action and visit, call and write congressional leaders today urging them to work decisively to achieve comprehensive health care reform without delay. We must speak now and act now with a unified voice for the common good. We need health care reform and we need it now.


Roslyn M. Brock is vice chairwoman of the NAACP National Board of Directors and Director of Advocacy and Public Policy for Bon Secours Health System in Marriottsville, Md.

Read more...

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The full text of the House Health Care Reform Bill



The Full text of the House version of the Health Care Reform Bill can be downloaded HERE

A section-by-section summary of the House Health Care Reform Bill can be downloaded HERE

Read more...

Kansas Unveils New Online Voter Registration System

On Tuesday, Kansas joined a handful of states, including Washington and Arizona, that permit residents to register online to vote.

"An online voter registration application is the next step in making the traditional elections process easier, faster and cheaper. As technology continues to change and evolve, it is important that we implement strategies that will allow the citizens of Kansas to register in a way that is most convenient to them, without sacrificing the security and uniformity that sets our elections system apart," Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh said in an agency news release.

The system links the secretary of state's voter registration process with the Department of Revenue's driver's license database. Residents submit their application, which is verified with information already in the state system.

To complete the registration process, voters must visit either Vote Kansas (www.voteks.org), the Kansas Secretary of State website (www.kssos.org) or the Kansas Department of Revenue (https://www.kdor.org/voterregistration/) Web sites and fill out a questionnaire. The standard questions of age, citizenship and felony convictions appear first, followed by a page on which to enter a valid Kansas driver's license or nondriver's identification card number.

Per Kansas law, first-time voters will still need to present identification at their polling place even if they've registered online. And, of course, traditional registration methods are still available.

Read more...

Executive Summary of the NAACP 'Smart and Safe' Campaign



For 100 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has played a pivotal role in shaping a national agenda to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of African Americans and other people who have faced historical discrimination in the United States. To support and leverage the work of our local units, who work tirelessly on behalf of many communities in crisis, the NAACP has developed a “smart and safe” framework in which to implement an advocacy agenda to ensure equal justice and safer communities. Our goal is to ensure public safety as a civil and human right. We believe this can be accomplished when we focus on what matters and what works.

When police officers focus on behavior rather than physical appearances, they catch more people who have broken the law.

Everyone wants to feel safe, and everyone wants to know that there are authoritative figures maintaining order. The use of race as a proxy for culpability leads to biased policing practices that challenge the integrity of law enforcement. Also, due to the trend of overpolicing of American schools, many normal adolescent behaviors, are today treated as criminal offenses. These practices contribute to a lack of trust between law enforcement and the communities of color that it protects and serves, which undermines fair practices and serves to deter a climate conducive to producing safe communities. It is because of this lack of trust that many African American communities do not believe the police will protect them if they come forward and cooperate in murder cases, thereby affecting case closure rates. It is because of this lack of trust that implicit biases are allowed to fester and grow without proper training to promote fair enforcement of the law, thereby affecting the way that law enforcement interacts with the communities it is entrusted to serve. It is because of this lack of trust that African Americans continue to be the most victimized community in the nation, thereby contributing to the disproportionately high rates of stress, abuse, addiction, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and other health indicators affecting the overall wellness of our communities. This lack of faith in the integrity of the system has deteriorated the social conditions that promote effective law enforcement and the partnerships that encourage public safety.

When our communities send first- or second-time, low-level, nonviolent drug offenders to prison, rather than offer rehabilitation or other common alternatives, we waste money, needlessly break up families, and steer many people into a life of crime.

In 2008, the United States spent more than $68 billion on incarceration. Largely as a result of the War on Drugs, the nation’s response to drug addiction has been punitive and narrow, tainted by a disparate racial impact on people of color. African Americans are arrested for drug offenses at 3.5 times the rate of their White counterparts, despite the fact that rates of drug use among each population are comparable. Data show that the War on Drugs and lack of judicial discretion to consider each case without mandatory minimum sentences have reduced the public’s faith in the integrity of our criminal and juvenile justice systems. A recent Zogby poll found that 76 percent of likely voters view the War on Drugs as failing —an assessment fueled by the fact that the odds of an African American drug offender being sentenced to imprisonment are approximately 20 percent higher than the odds of a White offender, and the fact that the “typical” African American drug offender receives a sentence approximately 10 percent longer than a comparable White drug offender.

In fact, the spending on incarceration has increased by 336% since 1986, a signal of our nation’s growing reliance on imprisonment to solve social problems—specifically addiction and mental illness, which could be more effectively treated outside, often before a person comes into contact with the criminal justice system. Over half of inmates in our nation’s prisons and jails have a mental illness; 61 percent of prison inmates who report mental illness have a history of committing violent offenses, and a quarter have been previously incarcerated three or more times. These numbers clearly indicate that drug offenders cannot be warehoused into wellness and our communities cannot be made safe by this warehousing. Though severe mental illness, drug addiction, and the violence and victimization that often accompany these concerns are serious matters that deserve intervention, research shows that imprisonment is an expensive and ineffective strategy for dealing with them. A number of states have already saved resources after developing alternative sentencing options for drug offenders and those who are mentally ill. However, many more states continue to individually spend hundreds of millions of dollars—and in some cases, billions of dollars—on corrections for people who would be better served through intensive community-based treatment and counseling.

If society sends people home from prison with more skills than when they entered, then more people get jobs, pay taxes, reunite with their families, and live as productive members of our communities, and fewer return to prison.

Incarceration has often been called “rehabilitation”; however, the warehousing of human beings is one of the least rehabilitative processes known to modern societies. The collateral costs—including increased financial burden upon social welfare systems to house children in foster care; increased rates of unrecoverable loss of wages, skills, and employability as a result of incarceration; and loss of tax revenue to states—are expensive checks to write in the name of being “tough on crime,” especially when evidence suggests that other interventions are more effective. Although prerelease programs exist in correctional facilities throughout the nation, they are often inadequate and lack proper coordination with community-based organizations that work with this population when they return to their home communities. However, when an investment is made to develop the minds and skills of those who have violated laws and are sentenced to spend time in secure confinement, then they can return to their communities with more options than when they left.

When we invest in helping people with a criminal record to access jobs, housing, education, civil society, and their children and families, more people are able to repay their debt to society, their victims, and themselves, and fewer commit additional crimes.

As more than 600,000 individuals leave U.S. prisons each year, our communities continue to grapple with the unique challenges presented by those who ostensibly have “paid their debt to society” and yet face barriers to reentry that effectively continue their punishment. Today, our nation’s returning citizens face significant and numerous barriers to finding housing and employment, regaining custody of their children, receiving a personal loan or financial aid toward school, and having other basic tools needed to rebuild their lives. Without an opportunity for redemption and the chance to move forward, up to half of all released individuals may return to prison, costing taxpayers more money and continuing to undermine our nation’s overall workforce productivity. Without any opportunity for employment or support, many pose a threat to public safety by committing new crimes—some petty, some not—and cycling back into prison. For this reason, many leading law enforcement agencies, including the National District Attorneys Association and national police organizations, have made facilitating successful reentry from prison and jail a priority approach to public safety. More resources are needed to ensure a successful reintegration of those who have a criminal record. Just as no single factor leads one down a path toward criminal behavior and incarceration, no single resource can provide successful reentry. It takes the collective effort of our society to provide opportunities for redemption.

Federal policymakers have an immediate opportunity to pass legislation that will begin to develop and implement a range of criminal justice policy reforms. These reforms include eliminating racial profiling; building trust, integrity, and accountability in law enforcement; and eliminating the mandatory minimum sentencing disparities that unfairly and adversely impact African American and Latino communities. At the state level, policymakers have the opportunity to embrace research-based and cost-effective approaches to sentencing and incarceration—those that allow our legal and criminal justice decision makers to objectively respond to incidents of violence and victimization and allow for fair and equitable responses to criminal or delinquent behavior. Through these policy opportunities and the development of effective sentencing alternatives to incarceration, we can stop the cycle of violence and victimization.

The demands of our current economy present new challenges and opportunities for our nation. Across the country, communities are grappling with the barriers presented by an underperforming economy and a strained fiscal climate. People of all socioeconomic strata continue to seek inclusion in processes that will improve their employment outcomes—and people living with a criminal record are no exception. Like most Americans, most of these returning citizens want the opportunity to be forgiven for their mistakes and to take ownership of their lives.

All communities seek a fair and just administration and enforcement of the law. Our goal is to ensure that a structure is in place to allow all communities—irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, age, or religion—to fully exercise their right to be safe. The NAACP will continue to work with key stakeholders, including law and policymakers, correctional institutions, scholars, the faith community, civic organizations, and others to report abuses of power in the criminal justice system, to develop thoughtful approaches to support public safety, and to shift our national priorities from incarceration to rehabilitation.

Read more...

Thursday, July 23, 2009

I couldn't resist...


"I’m outraged. I can’t believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge police force would treat any African-American male this way, and I am astonished that this happened to me; and more importantly I’m astonished that it could happen to any citizen of the United States, no matter what their race. And I’m deeply resolved to do and say the right things so that this cannot happen again." - Dr. Henry Louis Gates speaking on his recent arrest at his own home...

Read more...

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

What the NAACP means to me...



100 years is a long time...

The NAACP Centennial celebration has understandably caused people to question whether or not there is still a need for the NAACP. CNN ran a whole segment asking that same question. Bloggers have chimed in with questions of their own such as 'Can the NAACP keep up with the new generation of Activists', and others still ask if America, with its newly elected Black President, still needs or benefits from the NAACP. Some think of the Organization as a relic; a tool specially designed to perform a task long since completed. Others now argue that the continued existence of the NAACP is itself a source of division and an anachronism, slowing our progress towards that post-racial America we keep hearing about.

As I left the Centennial Convention, I had plans to respond to a number of them.

But as I reflected on the work and the mission of the organization, I realized that what was needed was more in the way of an explanation than a defense. Because you see, within the questions themselves, there is the clear indication that not everyone clearly understands the work or the mission of the NAACP. Not everyone understands the role this organization plays and has played for the past 100 years. And rather than engaging in a snarky tit-for-tat exchange with our critics and nay-sayers, it would likely be more beneficial and more informative for me to describe the Organization as I have come to know it, to share with you all why I love it, and to clearly explain why it is needed now more than ever...

Civil Rights
What are "Civil Rights" anyway? Civil Rights are the rights and privileges guaranteed to all citizens by law or statute. The NAACP is a Civil Rights Organization meaning we are an Organization that is dedicated to ensuring first, that the laws of the land are fundamentally fair and that they provide level-playing fields and equal opportunities for all. And second, we are dedicated to ensuring that those rights and privileges guaranteed by law or statute are equally enjoyed and/or enforced for all.

Now, some of our critics would say, that there is no longer a need for the NAACP because the laws and statutes guaranteeing equal opportunity are already on the books. They would point out that the Colored water fountains and Jim Crow restrictions have all been beaten back. They would argue that the level of discrimination we see in our society is nowhere near the levels we saw just 10 or 20 years ago. And they would declare the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States a signal of a societal shift on matters of race...

These are they who believe the work of the NAACP and the struggle for Civil Rights is a retroactive or reactionary effort. They believe that the NAACP, in the absence of the Bull Connor's and Fire Hoses of the past, is nothing more than an anachronism - searching for racial hobgoblins like Jena or the Valley Swim club or the arrest of Professor Gates to justify its continued existence.

There is a simple logic to that line of reasoning, yet it clearly misses the point. The work of the NAACP was always broader, always more comprehensive, and always more future focused than many today give it credit for.

The NAACP was never simply an anti-Bull Connor organization, or an anti-colored water fountain organization, or an Anti Back-of-the-bus organization... We are a Civil Rights Organization; with all that that implies. Meaning that by design, we are an organization that is focused on eliminating disparities, discrimination, and disproportionality at a systemic and institutional level. By design, we are an organization that uses legislative and political advocacy to achieve our goals. YES we've won countless major victories against virulent state sanctioned racism, and for that we should all be thankful and proud. But the work of securing and safeguarding our civil rights and protections and ensuring that they are equally extended to and enforced on behalf of all, is far from done.

The laws and protections we currently enjoy are not static; they are dynamic. They shift and turn with every constitutional challenge, every court decision, and every interpretation. The fact that we live in a society with far less overt discrimination and racism is a testament to the work of previous generations. But on OUR watch, these same rights and protections that made it possible for so many of us to succeed are being openly challenged in the courts. The very protections that made it possible so many of our mothers and fathers to get into good schools, secure good paying jobs, and leap frog our generation into a better day, are under attack from conservative courts, enemies emboldened by a pervasive 'post-racial' mythology, and the apathy born of middle-class myopia.

We must be clear, the battle for Civil Rights is waged in the present, but it is necessarily future-focused. The NAACP is dedicated not only to the redress of grievances, but also (and perhaps more importantly) to ensuring that the rights and privileges that we now enjoy, are safeguarded, strengthened and passed on to our future generations.

Many believe that because we may not feel particularly oppressed in our day-to day lives that the battle has ended. But this is a misreading of our history. DuBois didn’t travel to Niagara Falls to meet and talk about how he could make a more comfortable life for himself – they were working so that we might enjoy THIS day. King, Abernathy, Wilkins, Carmichael, Hamer, Rustin, Malcolm, and Chisolm weren’t out there struggling and sacrificing so that they could build a brighter 1961; they were laying a foundation so that we might enjoy a society built on fairness and equality today.

The world that our children inherit tomorrow, will be shaped, and contoured by the vigilance and effort that we exhibit today.

When Ricci vs. DeStefano was decided, the Supreme Court created a totally new legal standard by using the Disparate Treatment protections of the 14th Amendment to nullify the Disparate Impact protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Disparate Impact provisions were put in place to protect women and minorities from being discriminated against through the use of onerous, non-job related qualifications or requisites. Unnecessary strength tests for women or culturally biased exams for African Americans or Latinos are all made unlawful by this provision. It prevented organizations and agencies from moving their testing facilities to suburbs or small communities with homogeneous populations. It prevented companies, lenders, and mortgage brokers from implementing policies or practices that had the effect of screening out African Americans, women, gays, or other minority groups. But the ruling of the Supreme Court basically turned that on its head. Their ruling infers that if a Police Department instituted a non mission essential strength test that no female test takers were able to pass, the disparate impact protections afforded by Title VII should not be upheld. Instead, the rights of the men who DID pass should be upheld on the basis on the disparate treatment protections afforded by the 14th amendment. And that throwing out the test would be an act of discrimination against the men who actually met the unnecessary strength requirement. The Disparate Impact provisions are an important pillar of Civil Rights Law, and our children should be afforded these same protections as they enter the workplace. Fighting the battle to restore and safeguard those protections is the work of the NAACP.

In 2002, then President Bush issued an Executive Order allowing faith-based organizations who receive Federal funds to discriminate in hiring, in blatant contravention of the Civil Rights Act. This creates a potential conundrum. Once we say that it is acceptable for some groups receiving Federal Funds to openly discriminate, then on what moral ground could we oppose others who petition for the same right? If individual business owners petitioned for the right to discriminate on the basis of their personal beliefs or to protect the culture or climate of their business, on what basis could one reasonably deny their appeal after having approved the former? Discrimination in employment is wrong; if you are qualified, capable, and available, then you should be given an equal opportunity to provide your services and secure a living for yourself and your family. This is the standard that we live under, and this standard should be preserved and kept in place for our children as well. Lobbying the Obama Administration to repeal President Bush's executive order and to restore the intent and protection of Title VII is the work of the NAACP.

In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled in Whren vs. the United States, that even though the Police chose to follow Michael Whren initially without cause, and used a minor traffic infraction as a pretext to conduct a vehicle stop, evidence found in the ensuing search was admissible in court. The Court Noted in their decision that there may have been 14th amendment implications, but they decided NOT to consider them in making their decision. They ruled that because there was a bona-fide traffic infraction, the stop itself was legal and since the stop itself was legal, the evidence found thereafter was admissible. And to THIS DAY, Police Departments around the country use this decision both as a justification and a mechanism for Racial Profiling. (As an experiment, go and ask your City Attorney or Police Chief about disproportionate stops and searches of African American motorists and watch them cite the Whren case) In acknowledging, then refusing to consider the 14th amendment equal protection implications, the court simply chose to ignore protections guaranteed under law and subsequently set a precedent that provides the legal framework and justification for Racial Profiling. An American citizen, who has committed no crime, should be able to come and go throughout this country without being subjected to stops, searches or seizures based solely upon the personal biases or suspicions of an individual law enforcement officer. This problem should not be allowed to plague the next generation as well. Lobbying for passage of Federal Racial Profiling legislation and the reconsideration of the Equal protection provisions is the work of the NAACP.

In the State of New York, less than 1% of contracting dollars were spent with businesses owned by African Americans. In Wichita (before we began working in collaboration with the City to modify their practices) our number was 0.7%. In cities and states all across the country, African American and minority contractors in general have to rely on incredibly small shares of state and city contracting purses. However, at least when it came to federal contracting or projects relying upon federal dollars, federal guidelines required that a small portion of all contracts be awarded to minority contractors or DBE's. But just this past March, U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriquez issued an injunction that opens the door for contractors to legally contest federal procurement, services and construction contracts granted to minority contractors under preference programs across the nation, including many contracts already in existence. Will our children receive their fair share of public contracting dollars? Advocating for increased outreach to and utilization of minority contractors and DBE's in Federal, State and Local projects is the work of the NAACP.

Did you know that Public school districts with large minority populations receive nearly $1,000 less funding per pupil? Or that within primarily minority school districts, approximately 78 percent of teachers do not teach in their accredited subject area? Were you aware that teacher's union contracts generally allow the more senior teachers to transfer to the schools of their choice, thereby creating the phenomena we see wherein all too often the children with the greatest educational needs are taught by those with the least experience? You've probably heard by now, the shocking statistic that nearly 50% of African American youth who enroll in school will drop out prior to graduation. But did you know that an African American male who drops out of school is statistically more likely to be incarcerated than employed? We are losing a generation of our children in the Public Schools... And advocating for equity in funding and resources, maintaining certification standards, and inventive strategies to lower the drop out rate and eliminate the achievement gap, is the work of the NAACP.

Columnist Clarence Page recently asked the question, “If the NAACP ceased to exist, would anyone notice?” Well I would submit to you that if the NAACP ceased to exist, we’d have to create another one.

Surely there are other groups who deal with issues of race and racism. Some who have come along recently have begun developing new models for communication and online advocacy that will serve us well in the future. Among these bloggers and internet activists, it is frequently suggested that perhaps they have become the “new” leaders of the movement. But seen in its proper context, the rise of newer groups with new skills is merely an embarrassment of riches, as we all are pushing towards the same basic goals. This is not a competition. This is not the Highlander - ‘there can be more than one’.

Our work is not a struggle to achieve preeminence – it is a fight to achieve level paying fields, the elimination of disparities and disproportionality, and to establish a framework of fundamental fairness in housing, employment, politics, and society in general.

Until we no longer see gross disparities in the criminal justice system, both in arrests and length of sentence; there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see African Americans as the most under-insured, the most likely to die from preventable diseases, the most disproportionately impacted by HIV/Aids and the least likely to have access to funded educational or awareness programs, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see gross disparities in homicide closure rates between affluent majority neighborhoods and poor minority neighborhoods, thereby allowing those responsible for the countless murders of young African American and Latino youth to remain on the street, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see African American children removed from their homes at disproportionate rates by child welfare agencies and reintegrated with their families less often still, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see public schools in urban areas facing an Academic Achievement Gap, a school funding gap, and a teacher experience gap, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see Teachers Union Contracts governing teacher placements, School boards governing student assignments, State Legislatures governing school funding formulas, and parents left out of the loop, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see African Americans being the 'last hired and the first fired', the least contracted, and the most unemployed, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until all Americans are able to love who they love and marry who they choose, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see local Governments overfund Police Departments while underfunding Public Defenders offices leading to unmanageable caseloads and countless defendants facing trial with ineffective counsel, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Until we no longer see the hard earned rights and protections that generations of activists fought to secure under threat, there will be a need for the NAACP.

Yes, 100 years is a long time; and much has changed during these last 100 years. But I am truly thankful that the NAACP’s commitment to fairness, equality, and justice has not… I love this organization, I am committed to its mission, and that is why I continue to serve…

Read more...

Saturday, July 18, 2009

The Wichita Branch NAACP brings home two First Place Thalheimer Awards from the NAACP National Convention



The Wichita Branch NAACP received two Thalheimer Awards on Thursday at the NAACP National Convention. The Thalheimer is the highest award the NAACP can confer upon its branches. Thalheimer are awarded in two main categories: Programs (branch activities and campaigns) and Publications (including newsletters, e-media, television and/or radio). The Wichita Branch received its first Thalheimer Award for Programs in 1959 under the leadership of President Emeritus Chester I Lewis. Chet Lewis received the award for his aggressive leadership and his role in supporting the Dockum Drug Store sit-in of 1958. The Wichita Branch received its second Thalheimer award in 2007, with a 3rd place Award for programs. In 2008, the branch received its 3rd Thalheimer award with a second place finish for Publications. And last Thursday, we were blessed to receive our 4th and 5th Thalheimer Awards; this time with two First Place finishes in both Programs and Publications.

Also, while we were at the convention, our membership Chair had the opportunity to visit with the National membership office staff to confirm our numbers. And we are pleased to announce that we have DOUBLED our membership in just the first 6 months of this year!

Thank you to all of our Branch members and volunteers who made this possible. We are truly blessed to have a small group of extraordinary people who manage to do so much with so little...

Read more...

President Obama selects NAACP LDF's Jacqueline Berrien to head the EEOC!

President Obama picked Jacqueline A. Berrien, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The White House made the announcement just hours before President Obama's address to the NAACP in New York. Ms. Berrien, a Harvard Law School graduate, has been the fund’s associate director-counsel since 2004. For three years, she was program officer in the Ford Foundation’s peace and social justice program, administering more than $13 million in grants to promote political participation by under-represented groups.


Read more...

Conservatives say Texas social studies classes give too much credit to civil rights leaders

Reposted from The Dallas Morning News
By TERRENCE STUTZ


Civil rights leaders César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall – whose names appear on schools, libraries, streets and parks across the U.S. – are given too much attention in Texas social studies classes, conservatives advising the state on curriculum standards say.

"To have César Chávez listed next to Ben Franklin" – as in the current standards – "is ludicrous," wrote evangelical minister Peter Marshall, one of six experts advising the state as it develops new curriculum standards for social studies classes and textbooks. David Barton, president of Aledo-based WallBuilders, said in his review that Chávez, a Hispanic labor leader, "lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others."

Marshall also questioned whether Thurgood Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in school desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, should be presented to Texas students as an important historical figure. He wrote that the late justice is "not a strong enough example" of such a figure.

Both Barton and Marshall also singled out as overrated Anne Hutchinson, a New England pioneer and early advocate of women's rights and religious freedom, who was tried and banished from her Puritan colony in Massachusetts because of her nontraditional views.
"She was certainly not a significant colonial leader, and didn't accomplish anything except getting herself exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for making trouble," Marshall wrote. "Anne Hutchinson does not belong in the company of these eminent gentlemen," he said, referring to colonial leaders William Penn, Roger Williams and others. Williams later invited Hutchinson to help establish a colony in what became Rhode Island.

The recommendations are part of a long process as the State Board of Education prepares to write new social studies curriculum standards for public schools. Debate on the issue, which will also include questions of the role of religion in public life, could be as intense as that on new science standards that were adopted by the board in March, when evolution was a major flashpoint.

The social studies requirements will remain in place for the next decade, dictating what is taught in government, history and other social studies classes in all elementary and secondary schools. The standards also will be used to write textbooks and develop state tests for students.

Six experts
Although the actual standards are being drafted by teams of teachers, academics and community representatives, the education board appointed a panel of six experts to help guide the writing teams. Three of the experts, including Barton and Marshall, were appointed by Republican social conservatives on the board, while the other three experts – all professors at state universities in Texas – were appointed by the remaining Republicans and Democrats on the 15-member board.

Texas Freedom Network, a nonprofit group that has battled social conservatives on education issues, questioned the academic credentials of Barton and Marshall, and said their negative comments on Chávez are just the start of a "blacklist" of historical figures considered objectionable by social conservatives.

"It is what we expected from unqualified political activists put on this so-called panel of experts," said Dan Quinn of the freedom network. "This is yet another step toward politicizing our children's education."

Read more...

Friday, July 17, 2009

Action Alert: NAACP Opposes Discriminatory provisions in the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act

S. 132 COULD INSTITUTIONALIZE NEW RACIAL PROFILING PRACTICES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT


THE ISSUE:
Legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate, S. 132, the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009, which dramatically expands powers of law enforcement to try to address gang related activities and vastly increases punishments for those convicted of the same activities. While the NAACP agrees that gang violence is having a devastating effect on American lives, neighborhoods, and communities, and needs to be dealt with effectively, we respectfully disagree with the potentially discriminatory approach taken in S. 132. Specifically, the NAACP is concerned that provisions in S. 132 in its current form are destructive and counterproductive. We are opposed to the invariable increase in racial and ethnic disparities that will result from this bill's discriminatory enforcement, the bill's overly broad definition of "gang" and "gang crime," and its excessive penalties, including life without parole for youth as well as for adults. The legislation would also create "Gang member database" which would collect names of those identified as gang members. Because of problems with the "criminal intent" provision, as well as the lack of a common criminal purpose requirement in the bill, the potential for innocent young people and other to erroneously be added to this data base is high. There is also a lack of clarity in the bill about how one can be removed from this data base that is extremely problematic.

African American and Latino communities consistently bear the brunt and the cost of suppression and interdiction strategies, and S. 132 will not be an exception. The definitions in this bill are of particular concern because the lack of directives governing this bill's enforcement will invariably lead to an increase in the already troubling racial and ethnic disparity in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, criminalizing the conduct of many more people - particularly young men of color - whose conduct was never contemplated by this legislation. Of special concern is the expansion of the definition of a "gang" and "Gang Crime", which are so broad and vague in S. 132 that they will dramatically increase unwarranted federal prosecution of children and youth, especially low-income youth and youth of color. The definitions fail to include one of the most fundamental tenets of criminal law: criminal intent. As written, there is no "common criminal purpose" requirement in the bill. Thus, a group of young people who come together for any legal group activity and not for the purpose of committing gang crime will still be vulnerable to federal prosecution under this bill. The definitions of "gang" and "gang crime" in S. 132 are overbroad, vague, and will invite discriminatory enforcement.

Young men of color are disproportionately identified as gang members and targeted for surveillance, arrest and incarceration, while whites - who make up a significant share of gang members - rarely show up in law enforcement accounts of gang enforcement efforts. For instance, African American and Latinos are roughly 15 times more likely than whites to be identified by police as gang members, despite the fact that whites account for more than 40 percent of adolescent gang members.

The NAACP is committed to working with the supporters of S. 132 to amend and improve the bill to eliminate the potential for increased racial profiling and racial disparities by law enforcement and to include proven prevention strategies, especially for youth. Of special interest is the inclusion of the Youth Promise Act, introduced by Senators Casey (PA) and Snowe (ME) in the Senate and Congressman Scott (VA) in the House.

Click HERE for the Action we need you to take


Read more...

President Barack Obama's address to the NAACP at the Centennial Convention

Read more...

Saturday, July 11, 2009

The Florida State Conference NAACP leads fight to change negative impact of Zero Tolerance Policy on Black and Minority children in the State of Florida

Guest Posted by Leon Russell and Adora Obi Nweze


In 2005 and 2006, the Florida State Conference of the NAACP along with the Advancement Project and the NAACP LDF saw stories about a five year old girl being arrested at her elementary school by the St. Petersburg Police Department

As a result, the organizations became concerned about the issue of juveniles and their treatment by the local school districts.

Together the three organiozations conducted Town Hall meetings in six school districts around the state of Florida. Those districts were Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Duval, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties. The results of those meetings were outlined in a document called "Arresting Development".

The findings outlined several issues including the fact Black and Hispanic students were being disproportionately subjected to disciplinary action based on the application of Zero Tolerance policies, which had been created as the result of a state law on the subject. Further, the school district's administration of these policies was directly resulting in a disproportionately high number of Black and Hispanic students being introduced to the Juvenile Justice System. Indirectly, there was a drastic negative impact on graduation rates for Black and Hispanic students statewide because of the negative impact of these policies.

Based on these findings, the State Conference, the Advancement Project, and the NAACP LDF began to work with school districts to modify their policies and to work with the Florida State Legislature to change the law in order to reduce the negative disproportionate impact.

While this work was going on, the Governor named the Blueprint Commission on Juvenile Justice reform and directed the Commission to conduct a series of hearings throughout the state aimed at identifying recommedations for changes to improve the way that Florida's Department of Juvenile Justice deals with children in the system. The Blueprint Commission developed 52 strong recommendations which included the need to modify the application of the State Zero Tolerance policy. The Florida State Conference was represented on the Commission and was involved in crafting the Commission's recommendations.

The NAACP worked with stakeholders such as the Blueprint Commission, State Legislators, and other organizations to bring about specific legislative reform. In April of 2009, the Florida State Legislature adopted a reform bill modifying the Zero Tolerance statute and requiring each school district to develop and implement new policies designed to reduce the number of students suspended, expelled and referred to law enforcement. The intent of the legislation is to eliminate the racial disparities in the application of the policy, reduce the rates of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) with law enforcement, and ultimately to increase the Graduation Rates among Florida Students.

Read more...

Friday, July 10, 2009

We're off to the Convention!


5 members of the Wichita Branch NAACP and two members of the Wichita Branch Youth Council are heading off to New York for the NAACP Centennial Celebration and Convention. I will be blogging from the convention and I plan to post all of the proposed resolutions and policies just as soon as I get settled.

Read more...

NAACP At 100: Needed Now More than Ever

by Dr. Ronald Walters
NNPA Columnist
Originally posted 7/8/2009

I admit that, like most of us, I am an NAACP baby. Born in the struggle to desegregate the Dockum Drug Store in Wichita, Kansas in 1958 two years before the Greensboro sit-in, as a leader of the NAACP Youth Council. Over the years, as a political analysts, I have been asked whether the organization “is still relevant.” On its 100th birthday, I am clear that it is still relevant, even though we have a Black president sitting in the White House, because I know that at some point, they will have to use their access to that House to ask President Obama to do something for Black folks.

Whether he responds is a different story, but to be in the position to make the demand is important because in 2009 we are still not yet free. Well, some of us believe that we are free because we have achieved the material trappings of success. But I remember billionaire Bob Johnson wanting to start up an airline only to have mysterious problems and I remember his wife, Sheila, also a billionaire, having problems opening up a spa in hunt country, Virginia. But most of all I remember Michael Jackson in this hour, a heroic but also a tragic figure who eventually became a captive of the success he engendered to the point that it killed him. In all of his success, because of the lack of a normal upbringing and a distorted cultural self-image, even Michael was not free.

In this economic recession, I most often wonder about those who were broke and busted before it began; they are now at the back of the line once again, facing the prospect of having to start the game of life way back behind the newly poor, the newly unemployed, and the newly un-housed. With an unemployment rate approaching 20 percent, many Blacks will have to climb a long way back to achieve economic parity with the rest of the nation.

Then, those in our community who were attracted by subprime mortgages because they didn’t quite have the standard resources are, in many cases, worse off now and will be for some time to come. I worry about the tortuous fight for health care and the fact that Blacks constitute 20 percent of the 47 million uninsured and whether the eventual plan will retain a mandate for employers to insure workers. Moreover, since George Bush didn’t do anything to help close the health care gaps, what will there be in a generalized health care program that has special relevance to blacks.

I also worry about the state of public education for the working class and whether they will be able to obtain jobs in an economy that is growing more technologically sophisticated. We are bailing out on public education with no clear strategy in mind except charter schools that do not serve the masses.

Who will carry the fight to achieve the unfinished business of equality in these and other sectors of American life? Of course, there will be Rev. Sharpton, Rev. Jackson and others who are vitally needed to raise questions that others – sometimes even the NAACP – won’t, or may be late getting to. But there is no substitute in my mind for the fact that over the years the NAACP has built the institutional image and local strength to continue to be a major resource in whatever battles rage.

I mention the locals because I always have to remind journalists who ask the question of relevance – “which NAACP are you talking about?” Many of the questions have come because of problems at the National office, but the work of the organization predominantly takes place in cities and hamlets where leaders, like Kevin Myles of Wichita, Kansas (who has won two consecutive Thalheimer Awards for chapter excellence) create innovative programs that serve youth and maintain challenges to racial discrimination for adults.

This is the place where local citizens cry out for help and although most of the calls, letter and emails never seen by National, this chapter system constitutes the core of the vibrancy and the ser vice of the organization.

The National office is important because it serves politics and policy and many of the problems I have referred to need policy solutions and even when the NAACP may not be the prime sponsor of a measure, legislators check with Hillary Shelton, the organization’s expert on the Hill, to see if the language of a bill makes sense. That office also produces a Report Card that acts as a standard of accountability for votes in the House and Senate on issues that are favorable to African-Americans. It is a useful resource when it comes times for citizens to vote, or for some of us to analyze a political record.

So, I want to send a hearty “Happy Birthday” to the NAACP and cudos to its new President Ben Jealous who is bringing the kind of fire I believed that he would in igniting a new generation of leadership for the organization.

But the “relevance” of the organization is vested in our continued lack of equality and so, we will need the NAACP for a long, long time.

Ronald Walters is Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland College Park.

Read more...

Thursday, July 9, 2009

The State of California develops a sure-fire plan to eliminate the Academic Achievement Gap -- by Eliminating the Tests!?!?


The folks over at New America Media have reported that the California legislative budget conference committee met on June 16th to look for cost cutting measures. Unbelievably, what they proposed was a measure to suspend the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) as a graduation requirement!

The CAHSEE, which was authorized by Senate Bill 2 in 1999 as part of the state’s public school accountability program, made passing the CAHSEE a requirement for students to graduate from high school. The exam is divided into two sections: language arts (reading and writing) and mathematics. Based on the state’s Academic Content Standards, passing CAHSEE requires 10th grade language skills and mathematics aptitude through Algebra I (now an 8th grade requirement). Sophomores who take the test have eight opportunities to pass both sections; if they pass one section, they do not have to take that section again.

We have stated previously here on the blog that Testing and Measurement are not adequate substitutes for educational reform, yet it is clear that tests like the CAHSEE do provide a measure of accountability that is absolutely essential. And while the economic issues facing the State of California are both grave and complex, clearly, trimming the budget by reducing educational accountability is NOT a good solution. What do YOU think?


Read more...

Monday, July 6, 2009

NAACP Launches a New-Media National "Rapid Response System" to Help Citizens Report Police Misconduct

Part of sweeping new Civil Rights initiative on crime and safety

An innovative national program to help fight crime in American cities and towns will be unveiled Monday, July 13th at the NAACP Centennial Convention in New York City.

The initiative includes a bold new online effort, the NAACP Rapid Response System (RRS); a quick, effective way for citizens to report instances of police misconduct, and to help public safety officials move beyond the “tough on crime” policies that have lost their effectiveness.

The Rapid Response System will be available starting July 6, through the NAACP website (www.naacp.org). The user-friendly online RRS form will allow residents to send instant texts, emails, or video reports of police abuse to the association via cell phone.

Benjamin Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP, said the initiative is part of a wider Criminal Justice strategy called "Smart and Safe,” that the NAACP will be launching during its Centennial Year.

“Nationwide, more than 26,000 citizen complaints of police officer use of force were filed with state and local law enforcement agencies in 2002. However, because many incidents are not reported, this number does not capture the full magnitude of the problem,” Jealous said.

“Research has shown that there are many barriers to reporting incidents of police misconduct, including intimidation at police departments and a lack of trust in the integrity of the system, among other reasons. This breakdown leads to an absence of public safety and a deterioration of the quality of life in many communities of color. But public safety is a civil and a human right; and so we want a more accurate count of these incidents,” Jealous said.

"We know that most of police officers around the nation are excellent public servants. But the few who violate people's rights are often not held accountable. We hope to improve the relationship between our community and law enforcement officers -- which is the best way to create the trust needed for police to effectively solve crimes," Jealous said.

The Rapid Response System will be demonstrated for attendees at the NAACP Centennial Convention July 11-16th at the New York Hilton. More information on the full Convention schedule is available at www.naacp.org.


Read more...

Sunday, July 5, 2009

The NAACP supports the "Democracy Restoration Act" Voter Re-Enfranchisement for rehabilitated felony offenders

The Democracy Restoration Act, expected to be introduced in the next few weeks, would allow ex-felony offenders to vote in Federal Elections once they are out of prison.

The Issue:
Almost 4 million Americans, or 1 in 50 American adults, are not allowed to vote because they have been convicted of a felony, regardless of the nature or seriousness of the offense. Three fourths of these Americans are no longer in jail. 13% of African American males – 1.4 million – are prohibited from voting.

Furthermore, state laws vary when it comes to defining a felony and in determining if people who are no longer incarcerated can vote. Thus it is possible that in some states, a person can lose their right to vote forever if he or she writes one bad check. Furthermore, the process to regain one’s right to vote in any state is often difficult and cumbersome. Most states require specific gubernatorial action, and in 16 states federal ex-felons need a presidential pardon to regain their voting rights.

The “war on drugs” has had a disproportionate impact on African Americans; between 1985 and 1995, there was a 707% increase in the number of African Americans in state prison for a drug offense, compared to a 306% increase for whites over the same period. Thus African Americans are disproportionately losing their right to vote, even after they have paid their debt to society.

Because voting is such an integral part of being a productive member of American society, the NAACP has worked closely with other like-minded groups to develop legislation that would allow felons who are no longer incarcerated to reintegrate themselves into society and vote in federal elections. Congressman John Conyers (MI) and Senator Russ Feingold (WI) are expected to reintroduce legislation (the “Democracy Restoration Act”) re-enfranchising ex-felony offenders once they are released from prison as early as July. Furthermore, re-enfranchisement for rehabilitated felony offenders may be part of the continuing election reform package also to be considered later in the 111th Congress.

Click HERE for the Action we need you to take



Read more...

Friday, July 3, 2009

President Obama marks the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act: But safeguarding its protections will require work and not words

"Forty-five years ago today, President Johnson signed into law historic legislation that moved America closer toward fulfilling the dream of our founding – a dream of opportunity, equality, and justice for all. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended legal discrimination, helping grant all Americans equal justice under the law – no matter what their gender or the color of their skin.

"The Civil Rights Act was born during Freedom Summer 1963, but its passage was only possible because generations of Americans of all backgrounds stood up, sat down, and marched in freedom’s cause. Once it was signed into law, a renewed pledge was made to all Americans not to deny any man a seat at a lunch counter, not to deny any woman an opportunity in the workplace, and not to deny any child a chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

"But while the Civil Rights Act opened doors of freedom and opportunity, we know that far too many inequities and barriers remain in the African-American community and across this country. And we must continue to break down these barriers in our laws, our policies, and our hearts so that we can not only fulfill the full promise of the Civil Rights Act, but perfect the union that our founders created two hundred and thirty-three years ago this week."

~ President Barack Obama

As can now be expected, the President has delivered an eloquent and timely statement marking the anniversary of this important event in our history. The passage of the Civil Rights Act was a watershed moment in the struggle for equality and social justice. It was the culmination of countless protest marches, boycotts, demonstrations, rallies, prayers, songs, and dreams. But now we must ask ourselves; 45 years since the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act, what remains of the promises and protections it once offered?

The protections afforded by the Civil Rights act have been under assault from hostile Judges and Courts, eroded by judicial decisions and interpretations carrying the force of law, and by the radical re-visioning of post-racial delusions.

Activist Judges:
In 1972, just 8 years after Senator Robert Byrd's 15 hour floor speech to prevent the passage of the Act, William Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court. Rehnquist was a former Law Clerk who had fought against equal accommodations in his home city of Phoenix and who would distinguish himself with memorandums arguing against Brown v Board, defending the doctrine of Separate but Equal, referring to the 'search' for discrimination as "pathological", stating that the majority may in fact withhold rights from the minority because the majority ultimately determines the rights of the minority, and claiming that the 14th amendment dealt only with slavery and was in fact misapplied when used to grant basic rights to all citizens. Rehnquist went on to rule against African American and Hispanic litigants in almost every case he heard in his 33 years on the Supreme Court.

Radical Decisions and Legal Interpretations
In 1979, Lilly Ledbetter went to work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber company in Gadson, Alabama. While she and her male counterparts stared at the same pay, through a process of annual 'merit' increases, a disparity between her rate of compensation and that of her male coworkers appeared and began to grow. By 1998, she was making roughly $6,000 less than the lowest paid man. Ms. Ledbetter filed suit alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act but her claim was ultimately denied by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took the position that a claim of pay discrimination on the basis of race or gender would have to be filed with the courts within 180 days of the original act (meaning that since she didn't file her claim back in '79, within the 6 months following the first evaluation wherein she was rated lower than her male co-workers, then her statute of limitations had expired and her claim was no longer valid). This despite the fact that the disparities in evaluations continued throughout her career and she continued to be paid at the discriminatory rate. In 2007, Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to restore the intent of the Civil Rights Act and to reinstate the "Paycheck Accrual" interpretation - that each paycheck paid at a discriminatory rate constitutes an act of discrimination each with a fresh statute of limitations. The bill, facing the threat of a Presidential Veto by then President George W. Bush and opposition from Presidential candidate John McCain, was defeated in 2008 through filibuster and cloture. It was reintroduced in the 111th congress and was the first bill signed into law by President Obama.

"Similarly Situated" - the establishment of impossible burdens
In 2000, April Clark filed a claim of discrimination against the US Postal Service. The case (known as Clark v Runyon) was originally found in favor of the USPS then appealed. In the appeal, April Clark waived her right to a jury and the case proceeded as a bench trial. The Judge in this case did not dismiss the claim under summary judgment but went on to rule that April Clark failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the plaintiff must show that she 1) was a member of a protected group, 2) was meeting the legitimate expectations of her employer, 3) suffered an adverse employment action, and 4) that similarly situated employees, who are not members of the protected group were treated differently. In this case, the Judge ruled that the April Clark had the burden of demonstrating that there were individuals similarly situated in all relevant aspects to her by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the individuals used for comparison had to have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards, and engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating or distinguishing circumstances. And that in this case, there were no employees who were similarly situated.

In 2004, Otha Wheeler filed a claim of discrimination against Aventis Pharmaceuticals. She was terminated after claims that she had inappropriately toughed the genitalia of several male co-workers during 'horseplay'. While this fact was uncontested, Ms. Wheeler later noted that multiple employees engaged in this type of horseplay including one white male co-worker (Joe Harrell) who had touched the breasts and buttocks of several female co-workers and had been known to do so for more than a year, and a white female employee (Toni Conrad) who exposed her breasts to her co-workers while on the job. Mr. Harrell, the male employee who had touched the buttocks and breasts of his female co-workers, was eventually terminated (approximately a year after Otha Wheeler's termination and after Ms Wheeler's initial claim of discrimination). Ms. Conrad, the employee who exposed her breasts to employees while on the job, was only counseled and not terminated. The 8th circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier Courts order granting Summary Judgment. The court ruled that the even though Ms. Conrad, Mr. Harrell, and Ms. Wheeler were all in the same department, with the same supervisors, and all had engaged in inappropriate acts of sexual misconduct, the fact that Mr. Harrell's conduct had been ignored for more than a year until after Ms. Wheeler's claim of discrimination was simply unfortunate timing, and that since Ms. Conrad hadn't actually touched anybody, Ms. Conrad and Ms. Wheeler were not 'similarly situated'.

In 2003, The 8th Circuit Court of appeals heard an appeal in the case of George Philip v the Ford Motor Company. George Philip's original claim of discrimination against Ford was dismissed by an order of summary judgment. Mr. Philip alleged that after 10 years on the job, the plant physician placed him on disability. Ford Motors then elected to place him on a "no work available status" despite the fact that other similarly situated employees throughout the company were allowed to remain or rebid for their positions with any necessary accommodations. As a part of his case, Mr. Philip provided affidavits from the plant Physician, Dr. Zubieda Kahn, and from Nancy Schillinger, a Committeeperson for the United Auto Workers at the Twin Cities Assembly plant. Dr. Kahn testified as to a number of instances of possible disparate treatment by Ford. For example, Kahn testified that Human Resources Manager Jack Halverson had interfered with the medical placement of black employees and that the workers' compensation representative used derogatory language towards a black employee. Dr. Kahn also testified that Ford Company personnel failed to follow her medical recommendations regarding the placement of black employees. Nancy Schillinger's affidavit also suggests that black employees were treated differently. For example, she testified concerning specific instances where two Caucasian employees were treated differently based on race when they sought reclassification to driver-inspector positions (which was the same position that Mr. Philip was denied). The Court's ruling acknowledges that Mr. Philip's claim presented clear evidence of disparate treatment of black and white employees, but it ruled that because the examples cited were of employees with different supervisors or in different departments, they were not 'similarly situated' so his claim of discrimination was denied. The 8th circuit affirmed the earlier court’s ruling granting summary judgment.

The dissenting Judge in this case, Judge Donovan Frank, wrote in his dissent, "The positions of Philip and the white employees offered for comparison were reclassified, and should have been opened for bid and awarded on the basis of seniority. These employees are therefore similarly situated in all relevant respects. Applying the requirements of Runyon to non-disciplinary claims like Philip's places an inappropriate burden on plaintiffs to show similarities irrelevant to their claims."

Ricci v DeStefano - New Haven and the reinterpretation of Rights
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment. It also specifically prohibits the creation or implementation of employment standards, qualifications, or tests that by their design result in disparate outcomes among social groups. The reason for this protection is that employers who had discriminated in the past and who wanted to continue to discriminate could simply design tests or create requirements that were not job essential, but were really intended to screen out women or minorities. Things like unnecessary strength requirements to screen out women, or the introduction of culturally biased questions to screen out African Americans and Hispanics, and even the use of prohibitive sexual orientation requirements such as 'Dont ask Dont tell' are the types of non-essential measures that the disparate impact provisions of Title VII are designed to protect against.

Now comes New Haven: A city with documented cases of discriminatory hiring practices; even within its Fire Department. In a city that is 60% minority, they opted to go outside of the City's personnel department and to hire an outside consultant to design a new promotions test for the Fire Department. The result? 45 people took the tests, and while nearly 40% of the test takers were African American or Hispanic, only two of the minorities were eligible for promotion.

Now the outcome alone is not proof of discrimination. The City of New Haven had the option of performing a "validation study". The study had actually been suggested to the City by Fire Union President Pat Egan. A Validation Study is a process during which the test would have been professionally scrutinized to determine if in fact it was composed of job-essential questions. Had the test been validated and shown to be non-discriminatory, New Haven would have been able to promote the Fire Fighters and been protected from any future litigation -- no controversy. Had the test been submitted for validation and found to be invalid or found to be composed of questions or requirements that were not job essential, then the process would have identified those questions that needed to be stricken or changed and they could have reissued the test, again indemnified from litigation. But the City of New Haven elected to skip that step and to simply throw out the test, thus prompting the lawsuit. Skipping that step was an extremely consequential decision, the ramifications of which will be felt far beyond the boundaries of New Haven.

What the Supreme Court did, in essence, is use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to trump Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII, if an organization or agency enacts a test or qualification for employment that has a disparate impact on a particular group or sub-group, then that test or qualification should be changed. The New Haven ruling basically nullifies that protection by saying that it’s the rights of those who 'pass' the test that should not be abridged. The Supreme Court’s ruling infers that if a Police Department instituted a strength test that no female test takers were able to pass, the disparate impact protections afforded by Title VII should not be controlling. Instead, the rights of the men who DID pass should be upheld on the basis on the disparate treatment protections afforded by the 14th amendment. And that throwing out the test would be an act of discrimination against the men who actually met the unnecessary strength requirement.

Placed in more contemporary terms, it is analogous to saying that eliminating DADT (Don't ask, Don't tell) would constitute an act of discrimination against heterosexual recruits who might then be excluded if forced to compete on a level playing field with a larger applicant pool.

Justice Scalia took it a step further, indicating the direction he hopes the Court will move. Scalia expressed dissapointment that the Supreme Court did not use this case to challenge the validity of the Disparate Impact protections of the Civil Rights Act itself, saying that Title VII’s disparate impact provisions “place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes”. A practice which Justice Scalia calls "Discriminatory"...

More work ahead...
As an activist, and someone who believes in and fights for the establishment of level playing fields, it is troublesome to witness the constant attacks on and the gradual erosion of our Civil Rights protections. Now I know that there are many who argue that with Obama in the Whitehouse, we've reached some new post-racial landscape. But claiming that civil rights laws are no longer needed and therefore should be reversed or circumvented makes no more sense than arguing to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment because legal slavery has ended.What people fail to realize is that Civil Rights protections were not simply put in place as a remedy to past acts of discrimination... These are the legal safeguards put in place to ensure fair treatment and level playing fields for our children and grandchildren. As Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, along with Judges from the 8th and 10th circuits, and others continue to chip away at our hard-earned gains, it is those yet to come who will suffer; they are the ones who will be left unprotected.

In light of all this, I had an opportunity a few months back, to ask our new National NAACP President Benjamin Jealous a question during a conference call. I asked him if he thought that we as an Organization could return to our Legislative Advocacy roots and work towards the creation and introduction of new legislation (like Ledbetter) that would clarify the intent of civil rights law and protection. He asked if I had any suggestions -- and our team has been working on language ever since. I hope you haven't forgotten that exchange Ben, because I most certainly have not.

And while I am certainly happy to see our new President dutifully observing this significant milestone; it is clear to me that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in a state of disrepair. Repairing it, and reinstating its protections will require work over words, and leadership over language. And as a former Civil Rights Attorney and Constitutional Law Professor, I am prayerful that our new President decides to take this on...


Read more...

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Sound off: What do you think of the Congressional Resolution apologizing for Slavery?

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.

Whereas, during the history of the Nation, the United States has grown into a symbol of democracy and freedom around the world;

Whereas the legacy of African-Americans is interwoven with the very fabric of the democracy and freedom of the United States;

Whereas millions of Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and the 13 American colonies from 1619 through 1865;

Whereas Africans forced into slavery were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage;

Whereas many enslaved families were torn apart after family members were sold separately;

Whereas the system of slavery and the visceral racism against people of African descent upon which it depended became enmeshed in the social fabric of the United States;

Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the ratification of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1865, after the end of the Civil War;

Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;

Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as ``Jim Crow'', which arose in certain parts of the United States after the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for Whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against people of African descent that was engendered by slavery;

Whereas the system of Jim Crow laws officially existed until the 1960s--a century after the official end of slavery in the United States--until Congress took action to end it, but the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day;

Whereas African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws--long after both systems were formally abolished--through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty;

Whereas the story of the enslavement and de jure segregation of African-Americans and the dehumanizing atrocities committed against them should not be purged from or minimized in the telling of the history of the United States;

Whereas those African-Americans who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws, and their descendants, exemplify the strength of the human character and provide a model of courage, commitment, and perseverance;

Whereas, on July 8, 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush acknowledged the continuing legacy of slavery in life in the United States and the need to confront that legacy, when he stated that slavery ``was . . . one of the greatest crimes of history . . . The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destiny is set: liberty and justice for all.'';

Whereas President Bill Clinton also acknowledged the deep-seated problems caused by the continuing legacy of racism against African-Americans that began with slavery, when he initiated a national dialogue about race;

Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed and a formal apology to African-Americans will help bind the wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery and can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help the people of the United States understand the past and honor the history of all people of the United States;

Whereas the legislatures of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the States of Alabama, Florida, Maryland, and North Carolina have taken the lead in adopting resolutions officially expressing appropriate remorse for slavery, and other State legislatures are considering similar resolutions; and

Whereas it is important for the people of the United States, who legally recognized slavery through the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so they can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all people of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

That the sense of the Congress is the following:

(1) Apology for the enslavement and segregation of african-americans. --The Congress--

(A) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws;

(B) apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws; and

(C) expresses its recommitment to the principle that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and calls on all people of the United States to work toward eliminating racial prejudices, injustices, and discrimination from our society.

A special ceremony marking final passage will be held in the next couple weeks...

Read more...

Happy Birthday Justice Marshall: A brief remembrance of the man who ended legalized segregation...

Born in Baltimore, Maryland on July 2, 1908, Thurgood Marshall was the grandson of a slave. His father, William Marshall, instilled in him from youth an appreciation for the United States Constitution and the rule of law. After completing high school in 1925, Thurgood followed his brother, William Aubrey Marshall, at the historically black Lincoln University in Chester County, Pennsylvania. His classmates at Lincoln included a distinguished group of future Black leaders such as the poet and author Langston Hughes, the future President of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, and musician Cab Calloway. Just before graduation, he married his first wife, Vivian "Buster" Burey. Their twenty-five year marriage ended with her death from cancer in 1955.

In 1930, he applied to the University of Maryland Law School, but was denied admission because he was Black. This was an event that was to haunt him and direct his future professional life. Thurgood sought admission and was accepted at the Howard University Law School that same year and came under the immediate influence of the dynamic new dean, Charles Hamilton Houston, who instilled in all of his students the desire to apply the tenets of the Constitution to all Americans. Paramount in Houston's outlook was the need to overturn the 1898 Supreme Court ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson which established the legal doctrine called, "separate but equal." Marshall's first major court case came in 1933 when he successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray. Applauding Marshall's victory, author H.L. Mencken wrote that the decision of denial by the University of Maryland Law School was "brutal and absurd," and they should not object to the "presence among them of a self-respecting and ambitious young Afro-American well prepared for his studies by four years of hard work in a class A college."

Thurgood Marshall followed his Howard University mentor, Charles Hamilton Houston to New York and later became Chief Counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). During this period, Mr. Marshall was asked by the United Nations and the United Kingdom to help draft the constitutions of the emerging African nations of Ghana and what is now Tanzania. It was felt that the person who so successfully fought for the rights of America's oppressed minority would be the perfect person to ensure the rights of citizens in these two former European colonies. After amassing an impressive record of Supreme Court challenges to state-sponsored discrimination, including the landmark Brown v. Board decision in 1954 (which finally overturned Plessy v Ferguson), President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In this capacity, he wrote over 150 decisions including support for the rights of immigrants, limiting government intrusion in cases involving illegal search and seizure, double jeopardy, and right to privacy issues. Biographers Michael Davis and Hunter Clark note that, "none of his (Marshall's) 98 majority decisions was ever reversed by the Supreme Court." In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson appointed Judge Marshall to the office of U.S. Solicitor General. Before his subsequent nomination to the United States Supreme Court in 1967, Thurgood Marshall won 14 of the 19 cases he argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government. Indeed, Thurgood Marshall represented and won more cases before the United States Supreme Court than any other American.

Until his retirement from the highest court in the land, Justice Marshall established a record for supporting the voiceless American. Having honed his skills since the case against the University of Maryland, he developed a profound sensitivity to injustice by way of the crucible of racial discrimination in this country. As an Associate Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall leaves a legacy that expands that early sensitivity to include all of America's voiceless. Justice Marshall died on January 24, 1993.


Read more...

wibiya widget

About This Blog

Wichita NAACP Photoalbum

Loading...

About This Blog

Jung/Myers Briggs

INTJ - "Mastermind". Introverted intellectual with a preference for finding certainty. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 2.1% of total population.
Free Jung Personality Test (similar to Myers-Briggs/MBTI)

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP