Subscribe
Showing posts with label National Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Issues. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

LIVE Webcast: Race and Genetics - The Future of Personalized Medicine

Health disparities between some racial and ethnic groups have persisted despite programs aimed at reducing those differences. Recently, attention has turned to the potential of personalized medicine, the use of genetic or molecular information to make clinical decisions. However, there is not widespread consensus about the use of race in developing new medical technologies.

On Wednesday, August 20, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. ET, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s live, interactive webcast series, Today’s Topics In Health Disparities, will discuss the potential of race-based medical solutions for improving health care and reducing racial/ethnic health disparities. The webcast on “Race and Genetics: The Future of Personalized Medicine” will take a closer look at efforts to study the interaction between race, genetics and health.

The panelists will discuss the efforts underway to develop medications to treat diseases that disproportionately affect certain racial and ethnic groups, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of using genetic markers for race in medical decisions. Other topics to be covered include which genetic factors are being used to personalize medicine and what pharmaceutical companies are doing to target the drugs and treatments they offer to certain groups. Questions for the panel can be submitted before or during the webcast to ask@kaisernetwork.org.

PANELISTS:
  • Richard Levy, Ph.D., president, Levy Consulting, and former vice president for scientific affairs, National Pharmaceutical Council
  • Dorothy Roberts, J.D., Kirkland & Ellis professor, Northwestern University Law School
  • Clyde Yancy, M.D., medical director, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, chief, Cardiothoracic Transplantation, Baylor University Medical Center, and president-elect, American Heart Association

The discussion will be moderated by Marsha Lillie-Blanton, Dr.P.H., senior advisor on race, ethnicity and health care for the Kaiser Family Foundation.


WHEN: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. ET
Add this event to your Outlook Calendar (Please note that all times are ET).

WHERE: View the live webcast at www.kaisernetwork.org/todaystopics/20aug08 .

HOW: The panel of experts will take your questions via email. Submit questions before or during the show to ask@kaisernetwork.org. If you have never viewed a webcast before, please test your media player in advance of the live webcast.

Today's Topics In Health Disparities is a series of live, interactive webcasts devoted to addressing a range of issues relating to health and health care disparities in the United States. Each discussion features a panel of experts tackling current issues in health disparities and answering questions from webcast viewers. Previous shows have addressed topics including the influence of immigration policies on health care decisions, federal legislative efforts to address health disparities, and what it would take to eliminate the disproportionate burden of HIV/AIDS among African Americans. See www.kaisernetwork.org/todaystopics for more details.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

CIS Program Seeks to Resolve the Digital Divide Between African-American Women with New Grant

The Florida A&M University (FAMU) Computer Information Sciences (CIS) Program, housed in the College of Arts and Sciences, is the recipient of a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant valued at $552,000 dedicated to recruiting minority women to computer science and information technology disciplines.

“The numbers are staggering,” said Jason T. Black, Ph. D., assistant professor in CIS. “The latest data shows that out of all U.S. entering freshmen declaring a major in computer science, African-American women made up only 3.3 percent. The fact is that women are not choosing technology, and this is a dangerous predicament. When you couple that with the fact that it is estimated that 75 percent of all jobs by the year 2020 will require a technology background, it becomes a crisis call.”

The program, entitled African-American Women in Computer Science, (AAWCS), is a four-year program that provides scholarships and other assistance to women who express a financial need and an interest in computer science or information technology.


Saturday, August 2, 2008

Congress Passes HEA Reauthorization!

Guest Post from: Heather Valentine
Council for Opportunity in Education

On July 31, 2008, both chambers of Congress passed the Higher Education Opportunity Act by overwhelming majorities. Specifically, the bill passed by a vote of 380-49 in the House and a vote of 83-8 in the Senate. As the legislation heads to President Bush's desk for signature, the recently released statement of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings gives COE strong hope that he will, in fact, sign the bill into law.

This legislation reauthorized the Higher Education Act of 1965 for the first time in 10 years and included numerous provisions that enhance TRIO programs. Specifically, this legislation:
  • extends all TRIO grants from four to five years;
  • increases the minimum TRIO grant to $200,000;
  • allows branch campuses to apply for TRIO grants;
  • creates an appeals process for unsuccessful TRIO grant applicants;
  • kills the Upward Bound Absolute Priority, including the double-recruitment evaluation
  • and ensures that any future evaluation of TRIO programs protects the integrity of students and institutions by disallowing over-recruitment and denial of services for the purposes of an evaluation and requiring the consideration of institutional review boards and the burdens placed on TRIO program participants and grantees;

It also allows TRIO grantees to target student populations with particular needs, including:

  • students with limited English proficiency
  • disabled students
  • homeless and foster youth
  • "disconnected youth" (i.e., teen parents and students who have been involved in the criminal justice system)

It also expands eligibility for Veterans Upward Bound to include:

  • older veterans who served before January 31, 1955
  • federal reservists who served for more than 30 days
  • federal reservists called to action on or after September 11, 2001

In addition to changes that benefit TRIO, the legislation also:

  • creates a simplified, 2-page Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application form;
  • allows students to receive Pell Grants year-round;
  • expands eligibility for the Academic Competitiveness and National SMART grant programs; and
  • creates greater educational access for servicemen and women and their families through deferred and interest-free loans.

These are only some of the enhancements created by this bill that will benefit American students in pursuit of higher education. Please be sure to thank your Member of Congress for their support for this important piece of legislation. For your convenience, we have drafted a sample thank you letter here.

Thank you all for your tremendous efforts in achieving this great victory for all TRIO students!



Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Sudanese Ambassador John Ukec Lueth Ukec's visit to Wichita

Last weekend, Sudanese Ambassador John Ukec Lueth Ukec visited Wichita. His visit was largely a Public Relations stop wherein he spoke to a number of audiences and forums about various issues affecting Sudan and the Region, but most specifically about the crisis in Darfur.

His visit followed by some months, previous visits and forums led by Simon Deng and former "Lost Boys" of the Sudan. And while Ambassador Ukec's version of events was significantly different than those of Simon Deng and others, it was still valuable to hear another perspective on the crisis and on what things could be done to bring about resolution.

On Sunday, I was a part of a small gathering of about 25 people where Ambassador Ukec spoke for more than an hour (uninterrupted) and dealt with Darfur, the 50-year North-South war that preceded the current crisis, the role of diminishing resources, China's involvement, the Janjiweed, the faltering peace treaties, tribalism, and the 23 competing factions that splintered from the SLM. Afterwards we had a brief question and answer session, and I must admit that I left with a greater appreciation for the many of the complexities of the current situation.

I was able to videotape the discussion and I will edit it down and start posting it to YouTube as soon as I get a free weekend.

Now, while I am completely clear on the fact that "Governments lie", his talk has definitely motivated me to intensify my research into the conflict. In fact, at one point he even offered to assist those of us who were willing, to come to Sudan to "see for ourselves".

...The more I think about the offer, the more I am inclined to take him up on it...


I'll keep you all posted on this one.



Pictured: Ambassador Ukec & Wichita NAACP President Kevin Myles
You'll have to forgive the fuzzy photo; it was taken by my
12-year old son Isaiah who couldn't seem to stand still



Monday, May 5, 2008

Election 08: Showing up is half the Battle

Last Thursday, I was invited to speak to the Sedgwick County Pachyderm Club. The Pachyderm club is a Republican group which meets to discuss policies and issues affecting the people of Kansas. And while I personally am not a Republican, I was pleased to accept their invitation and I took the opportunity to speak for an hour about the issues and concerns facing our community and constituency.

This was the second time I had addressed the group, having been invited to do so about a year and a half ago. One of the points that I made during my talk was that I was certain that we would not agree on everything, however, as activists, and personally as someone who is loyal to the interests of the community and not to a Political Party, I would hope that we could work together on those issues wherein we were able to find common ground. And that message seemed to have resonance with the group. And while I have no illusions that a couple speeches here and there could somehow transform the relationship between the African American community and the Republican Party, I commend the Pachyderm club for their willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and their willingness to look for common ground.

In light of that, I thought I'd share a few thoughts I have about this coming election cycle with particular emphasis on Kansas races. There is no time of year when the phrase "Under-served" is more befitting our community than during an election cycle. Because during election cycles, we are visited by candidates and would be politicians, who share platitudes and platforms that they developed to speak to the needs of others. We hear stump speeches, which may poll well, but are often devoid of any real consideration or understanding of the issues affecting our lives. And as we prepare to elect a new slate of City Council Members, County Commissioners, School Board members, State Legislators, and Congressional Representatives, I'd like to offer you a few points to consider...
.
For those candidates who seek our support, we want to hear your thoughts and plans about *TIFF districts, STAR bonds, economic development initiatives, and your plans to create a climate where small businesses can develop and be successful within our communities. We want to hear your thoughts and plans about *education financing, charter schools, the educational achievement gap, suspension and expulsion rates, and what can be done to address our drop-out crisis. We want to hear your thoughts and plans about *health disparities, rising food prices, senior care, and the rates of "excess death" in our community as a result of preventable disease. We want to hear your thoughts and plans about *racial profiling, excessive force, and the unacceptable incarceration rates for African American teens also referred to as DMC (Disproportionate Minority Contact) We want to hear your thoughts and plans about *predatory lending, Yield Spread premiums on home loans, and the proliferation of payday lending and title lending establishments in our community. We want to hear your thoughts on *the lack of inpatient drug treatment facilities in our community and how that affects the jail population... We want to hear your thoughts on *SRS and the unacceptable numbers of children who are removed from their homes in Sedgwick county and never reunited with family... We want to hear your thoughts on *cultural arts funding and how too many worthwhile organizations within our community are still funding themselves with Fish Frys and donations, while annual fund disbursements are made in support of uptown and downtown projects... We want to hear your thoughts about *rising gas prices and efforts you could initiate to offer some relief... We want to hear your thoughts about *the multitude of municipal taxing agencies in Kansas and Sedgwick county which have led to the spiraling property tax rates and the escalating costs of home ownership... And we want to hear your thoughts on *diversifying our local economy so we are not so heavily dependent on aerospace manufacturing...

Now let me tell you, I am an Political Independent. And I don't say that "tongue-in-cheek"; I am independent in the truest sense of the word because I will support anyone who is willing to support the positions and aspirations of my community. Conversely, I will work to withhold support from any candidate who is unwilling or unable to speak to these same issues Regardless of Relationship or Party. And as the Kansas State Political Action Chairman of the NAACP, I intend to hold us accountable to that same degree of political independence.

Now what does this mean to you...

It means that any candidate or would be candidate who seeks the support of this community must speak to the issues of this community. Any candidate that hopes to coast by on the strength of party allegiances is making a gross miscalculation. Throughout the State, the Kansas Branches of the NAACP will host candidate forums, listening sessions, and town hall meetings. We will provide the microphones; you must provide your positions... We encourage all parties and candidates to come and be a part of this great dialogue and to offer your insight and solutions to the problems we face throughout the State. Election day is just around the corner; now is the time for us all to get acquainted. So to all of the candidates and would-be candidates for office, please take another look at your schedule... because we're looking forward to hearing from you...




Thursday, May 1, 2008

Representative Russell Pearce Proposes Ban on Student Groups Based on Race at Arizona Campuses

Russell Pearce, a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives, has introduced legislation that would bar students at state-operated universities from forming groups or associations based in whole or in part on racial classifications.

Under the proposal, groups such as the Black Law Students Association, the Black and African Coalition, the Black Business Student Association, the National Society of Black Engineers, the NAACP, or other groups based on race, would not be permitted on the campuses of the University of Arizona or Arizona State University.

The bill authorizes the state to withhold public funding from colleges and universities that do not comply with the provision.

What is Most bizarre is that the provision was not introduced as a stand-alone bill but rather was amended onto a routine Homeland Security bill. That his amendment was not germane to the original bill was apparently not enough to stop the Arizona House Appropriations Committee from passing it on Wednesday. It still awaits a vote by the state’s full House and Senate.

The Complete text of Representative Pearce's proposed amendment to SB 1108 can be found by clicking [HERE].
.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. This is the same Legislator that introduced HCR 2041 - the companion bill to Ward Connerly's attempt to eliminate Affirmative Action. Only Representative Pearce takes Ward Connerly's stance a step further by introducing this 'gem'. Representative Pearce's bill contains a provision that:
Requires that an injured party’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin are not to be considered when seeking remedy for violations of anti-discrimination law.

Now tell me, if you can't consider the race of an injured party in a discrimination case, then how can you ever prove racial discrimination? The Answer? You CANT... Pearce's bill would "end" racial discrimination in Arizona by making it illegal to investigate the claims... This would be funny if it weren't so sad...
.
.
Rep. Russell Pearce (R) Distr 18
House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington
Room 114
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone Number: (602) 926-5760
Fax Number: (602) 417-3118
Email Address: mailto:rpearce@azleg.gov


.
... somebody ought to give Representative Pearce a call...
Arizona NAACP'ers, let me know if there's anything we can do to help...




Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The Senate stalls the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act with a procedural maneuver!


It was supposed to be a victory of both symbol and substance. Today, on Equal Pay Day, the Senate would take up HR2831/S1843 - the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This bill, which has already passed the House, would re-align the language and intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with regard to ending discrimination in payments and salaries.

Under current law, Equal Pay protections are only enforceable if an individual files a complaint of discrimination within 180 days of the original discriminatory decision or act. Meaning, if you were to start a new job today, and I as your employer decided to pay you a lower salary because of your age, gender, race, or some other irrelevant factor, you would have to file a complaint within 180 days of your hiring or the statute of limitations would expire and you would lose your legal standing. Notwithstanding the fact that at the time of your hiring, you would have absolutely no way of knowing the relationship between your salary and the salaries of your co-workers.
.
That is precisely what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. The bill bearing her name (HR2831) was written in response to a lawsuit she filed against the Goodyear Tire Company and the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber for 15 years. After discovering that for many years her pay had been 15 percent less than what the lowest-paid male employee in her position had been making, she filed suit. The Court rejected her lawsuit, noting that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission procedures require claims to be filed within 180 days of when the original act of discrimination took place. HR2831 would change the law that was the basis for the Court’s ruling. The bill would make sure that companies can be sued for wage discrimination whenever they issue a paycheck. The bill clarifies for the courts that every paycheck issued at a discriminatory rate shall be considered an individual act of discrimination. Therefore, the 180 day limitation would be recalculated from the date of any check issued at a discriminatory wage.

But when the bill came before the Senate, it was anything but simple.

The Senate version of the bill (S1843) introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy, clearly had the support of a majority of the Senate. However, when the motion was made to consider the bill, the legislators who opposed the bill utilized a procedural maneuver to require a Supermajority or 60+ vote. this was done through the employment of filibuster and cloture.

The filibuster is a Senate practice whereby a single Senator, or his minority party, can block full Senate consideration of a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely. The resulting "filibuster" can ordinarily be stopped only by a "cloture" (or closure) vote, which requires 60 of the 100 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate, and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote.

The Senators who opposed the bill knew that it had the support of the majority of the Senate, but they also know that they had enough votes to block a Cloture vote. So the motion to consider was made, the filibuster began, followed by a motion for Cloture which subsequently failed. What all of that means is that the bill has now been relegated once more to the proverbial 'back burner'. The Bill didn't actually "fail", rather, the filibuster/cloture maneuvers are 'sleight of hand tricks' whereby Legislators can deliberately block bills, resolutions, & legislation without it showing up on their voting record. In Cleveland where I grew up, we would call that a 'Hustle'. Since they never actually voted yay or nay (because they didn't allow the vote to take place) they are able to secure the interests of big business, yet still offer a 'truthy' assurance that they care about the issues of fairness and equality.

While I was greatly disturbed by the actions of this Senate, I do applaud the efforts of Senator Ted Kennedy and the other 43 co-sponsors of the bill, and I hope that you will continue to push for its eventual passage.

Below, I've posted the published votes on the Cloture motion:

Position YEAs ---56
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Position NAYs ---42
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Hagel (R-NE)
McCain (R-AZ)



Thursday, April 3, 2008

The Aaron Patterson Racial Profiling case is finally set for trial - Case could set a precedent on the legality of "Pretext Stops"

Shortly after the Kansas Racial Profiling bill was signed into law, our office had the distinction of receiving and filing the first official complaint under the new statute. The case involved a gentleman by the name of Aaron Patterson.
.
Aaron Patterson's racial profiling claim was thoroughly investigated by the Kansas Human Rights commission and it was sustained in his favor. The KHRC issued a ruling that there was probable cause to believe that the Wichita Police Department had in fact racially profiled Mr. Patterson.
.
This created a firestorm: Prior to that ruling, the Wichita Police Department had investigated more than 40 racial Profiling complaints for that year and had exonerated the officers in all cases. In fact, the Wichita Police Department had never found for a citizen in a Racial Profiling case.

Later that week, the City Attorney held a press conference in his office to discuss the ruling. I had been tipped off that the press conference was going to happen so I took an early lunch and attended. The City attorney asserted that the ruling would not stand up to scrutiny because he believed that the law itself was unconstitutional. He cited the fact that while the law made profiling an 'unlawful act' it did not delineate what the sanctions should be for commission of the act. After the City's Press Conference ended, I held an additional Ad-Hoc press conference in the lobby of the City Attorney's office where I pointed out to the press the fact that the sanctions for commission of the act had been in our draft of the bill, but the legislators removed them in a last minute compromise with Law Enforcement - to include representatives of the Wichita Police Department.

Despite the City's protestations, the case continued. The Wichita Police Chief would later appear on the evening news and boldly state, "Aaron Patterson is lying". Strange and untrue rumors started floating around that Aaron had been visiting a crack house, that he was a criminal, and that he had been seen with a drug dealer. And the City went on to file two separate motions to dismiss the case, both of which were denied. and now finally, at long last Aaron Patterson will have his day in court!
.
Here's why YOU should care about this case:
Police Departments around the Country liberally utilize a practice referred to as a "pretext stop". this occurs when an Officer sees a vehicle that they decide they'd like to stop and search. They pull behind and follow the vehicle, sometimes for as much as 10 miles, until the driver commits a minor traffic infraction, then they pull them over and request to search the vehicle. The most frequent reasons given for the stop are:

1. Wide turn
2. Failure to signal a turn 100 feet from the corner
3. Tires crossing the center line

These reasons 'legitimize' the stop and they are also items that can not be disproven by the driver. However, just as the name implies, they are merely the 'pretext' to effectuate the stop - the decision to stop the vehicle was made before the infraction took place...

Most Police Departments will tell you (WPD included) that pretext stops are legal, and that the Supreme Court has upheld that fact. However, that is not quite true. The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for items found as a result of a pretext stop, but they have never ruled on the legality of the practice itself.

When we were drafting the language the went into the Kansas Racial Profiling bill, our specific intent was to define pretext stops as Racial Profiling. Our reasoning was simple: At the moment that an Officer decides that he or she wants to stop and search a specific vehicle, the driver of that vehicle has broken no law, committed no infraction, or done anything that would warrant Police investigatory activity. (If there were a legitimate reason to stop the vehicle, they would simply stop them on that basis; they wouldn't need to use a minor traffic infraction as a pretext) So if the deciding Officer has no legitimate reason to stop the vehicle outright, upon what then is he or she basing the decision to effectuate the stop? All that CAN be known at the time is the appearance of the car and the appearance of the driver. And as I've stated within the Racial Profiling Task Force meetings, if the Police are not looking for someone who fits my description, then my description should not cause me to be stopped and investigated.

This case will be the first where the Court is specifically asked to rule on the legality or illegality of pretext stops. The City is almost certainly going to argue that the courts should interpret the law to closely follow or mirror Federal law. But that was not our intent when we drafted the bill. We did not write a mere companion bill that would mimic the Federal Statute; our intent was to place this onerous practice under scrutiny. Subsequently, this ruling could be a watershed moment for organizations and communities who are dealing with this issue.

Lawrence Williamson Esq. & Uzo Ohaebosim Esq.


I have been subpoenaed to testify in this case on the 29th of this month. Aaron's case is being handled by Attorney's Lawrence Williamson and Uzo Ohaebosim - two young, strong, civil rights attorneys in whom I have a lot of confidence. I will update you all on this case in the coming weeks. In the interim, keep these guys in your prayers - a victory here could be a real step in eliminating this insidious issue from all of our respective cities.


Wednesday, April 2, 2008

New National Graduation Rate study is released - How did we rate??

The Editorial Projects in Education Research foundation has released a 16 page comprehensive report on the Graduation Rates within the Nation's 50 largest cities. The report is significant because School Districts typically develop their own formulas for calculating their graduation rates. Because the formulas are determined locally and based on self-determined variables, they are generally of little comparative value. But this study used a simple and uniform formula to determine and compare the likelihood that a student who enters 9th grade in a given year, will graduate with their class on time - without dropping out or failing...
.

[click HERE for the full report]

The report lists the Wichita Graduation rate as 59.6% and shows a 21.2% gap between the Graduation rates of Urban and Suburban Wichita Schools. This is in stark contrast to the district's numbers. USD259 reported a graduation rate of 68.7% for the same period covered by the report and they say that the rate has since climbed to 76.4%.
.
We recognize that there are enumerable formulas that could be applied to determine graduation rates and that different formulas would almost certainly result in different numbers. But that being said, this report is invaluable because it provides a single consistent measure by which we can view our progress on this issue relative to other comparably sized districts. This report highlights the fact that we as parents, advocates, and concerned community members must maintain a healthy skepticism whenever any agency writes own report card. We must continue to constructively challenge the district to innovate and reach beyond previous paradigms as we seek to improve these numbers. When as many as 4 of every 10 of our youth are projected to drop out or fail before they reach the 12th grade, it's clear that we've all (schools, parents, and community) got a lot of work to do...



Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Full Transcript of Barack Obama's speech on Race in America



"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well. And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:



"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.