According to AP reports yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court has "recessed for summer without acting on his latest appeal, likely delaying any developments in his case until fall".
While this is likely a de facto stay of execution, it is by no means certain.
What is certain, that the elected officials who influence the outcome of this case are moved towards justice by appealing to their self-preservation instincts as incumbents.
What does this mean?
It means that Larry Chisolm who was elected in 2008 as first Black district attorney of Chatham County (which encompasses Savannah, Georgia) presumably wants to get re-elected. A campaign plank of his during his campaign centered on fairness.
Now, with our help on a national level, we can help his constituents keep him accountable to that pledge. Clearly, if he chooses to look the other way, Black voter turn-out the next time around may not be what he'll need to stay in office.
Let's help Troy Davis by signing this petition to DA Chisolm requesting that he reopen Troy's case.
For more information on Troy's case, please visit the AmnestyUSA site.
For more great info on this subject and racial justice more broadly, Afro-Netizen highly recommends checking out the Applied Research Center's ground-breaking blog, RaceWire!
H/T to Media Matters for America for capturing this gem from the post-racial world of conservative talk radio . . .
Ever heard (or uttered) the trite expression, "Don't hate the player; hate the game"? Well, in this instance, the player is grand wizard Jim Quinn and the game is media consolidation.
So, if you're feathers are the least bit ruffled over Jim Quinn's racism, you'll know that whatever you're top issue is, your second issue must be media justice.
Afro-Netizen supports boycotting Clear Channel and other serial offenders. But the roots of these democracy-strangling weeds must be yanked from their deeply burrowed home on Capitol Hill that are left untouched by bipartisan complacency and self-preservation.
Media consolidation is anti-democratic and runs against the founding principles of our nation.
If we express righteous indignation about the Iranian government's crackdown on its citizens, journalists and media outlets, then we should have a much better understanding of the paucity of media democracy that exists on a practical, government-sanctioned level in our own country.
Martina Correia, a 42-year-old African American from Savannah, Georgia, is a “warrior woman,” inspiring death penalty abolitionists as well as women like her struggling with breast cancer.
Correia’s brother is Troy Anthony Davis, convicted in 1991 for the shooting death of white police officer Mark MacPhail. There is no physical evidence linking Davis to the crime. No murder weapon was produced. Seven of nine witnesses who initially implicated Davis have since recanted, stating in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into naming him. Davis’ attorneys are appealing his case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court will determine whether or not to review Davis’ habeas petition on June 25, and make its decision public on June 26 or June 29. If the appeal is rejected, Davis will be executed.
The case has generated global attention. Former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, the NAACP, and human rights organization Amnesty International, have called for Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue to grant Davis clemency. Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, former FBI Director William Sessions, and several former prosecutors and judges, have filed an amicus brief supporting Davis’ plea.
Long before her brother’s involvement in the criminal justice system, Correia opposed the death penalty. An Amnesty International member since age 13, she resigned her U.S. Army nurse position when told she couldn’t express “political opinions” against capital punishment. Since her brother’s conviction, “I speak at universities, high schools and before community groups. I talk about the injustices that lead to arrests of innocent people, why so many people of color get the death penalty, and how and why prosecutors select people for death sentences. I don’t just talk about my brother on death row, but the system that put him there.”
She didn’t know what to expect when Davis was tried. “I anticipated that my brother would get his day in court,” she explains. “But our judicial system is fraught with biases. Until my brother was accused of killing a white police officer, I didn’t realize just how black I was.”
Watching Davis’ trial, “I felt like people were angry that my brother had attorneys from out of town,” says Correia. “I thought he would have more time in the courtroom to argue his case, but he only got 20 minutes, and then a bell rang when he ran out of time.” Alarmed, Correia stepped up her fight for Davis’ exoneration.
Then in 2001, Correia was diagnosed with breast cancer. When chemotherapy treatments resulted in hair loss, she shaved her head and wore hats or scarves. The prison initially barred Correia from wearing head coverings during visits with Davis for “security reasons”; weapons could be hidden in headgear. Davis intervened. Correia was made an exception, “but whenever I wore a scarf the prison guards made me take it off to search it.”
Determinedly working through exhaustion, Correia’s only concession to debilitating chemotherapy is to request airfare from sponsors of appearances located more than five hours from her home. Otherwise, she drives herself, although chemotherapy makes her sleepy. “I have to try to stay awake while driving. When a speaking engagement’s over, I go home and rest, ”she says.
Correia serves on the boards of death penalty abolition organizations like Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty and New Hope House. She also participates in efforts to increase federal funding for breast cancer research. She is a lobby delegation team leader in the National Breast Cancer Coalition. She teaches health maintenance classes to women with cancer in Savannah’s St. Joseph’s/Candler Health System.
Somehow Correia balances her advocacy with raising her 14-year-old son Antone, an Honor Roll middle school student, whose winning social studies project in a state competition last year was entitled: “How Does the Troy Anthony Davis Death Penalty Case Impact Georgia?” Antone, who considers “Uncle Troy” a role model, wants to be a medical researcher when he grows up, and find the cure for breast cancer that has stricken his mother and thousands of women.
Correia says her brother’s confinement on death row and her illness are difficult for her and their family but “I trust God, I have faith. It’s like Troy said when he was minutes away from execution (before the current U.S. Supreme Court appeal), ‘God didn’t take me this far to leave me.’ I pray for Troy and for Mark MacPhail’s family. I ask God to let me live to see my brother freed and my son graduate from school. My biggest prayer is that my mother doesn’t continue to suffer. If Troy is executed it will break her heart.
“I’m going to fight this system until somebody says, ‘We made a mistake,’ she adds. “I know that the name Troy Anthony Davis is a name known all over the world by people who believe in truth, justice and fairness. That’s all I’m asking for, fairness.”
The NAACP and Amnesty International U.S.A. are co-sponsoring a “Week of Witness” for Troy Anthony Davis, June 19-26 2009. Faith communities are asked to pray for the Davis and MacPhail families during that week, sign a petition, ask their religious leaders to sign a clergy letter, or discuss Davis’ case during regular weekend worship services. Additional information, please visit the “Week of Witness”.
Aside from young Jonathan E. McCoy's exemplary oratory and critical/analytical skills, what did you like about the content of his address in Baltimore, MD and what would you have changed?
[H/T to Linda Yudin for bringing this to our attention!]
After thirteen years and countless hours by lawyers, community members, and activists around the world, Royal Dutch Shell finally settled the Wiwa v Shell case in a New York court for $15.5 million.
Plaintiffs in the case, which included Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., and the families of other Ogoni men hanged in November 1995, charged that the Royal Dutch/Shell company, its Nigerian subsidiary, and the former chief of its Nigerian operation, Brian Anderson, with complicity in the torture, killing, and other abuses of Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa and other non-violent Nigerian activists in the mid-1990s in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta.
Shell says they settled the case as a "humanitarian gesture" to the Ogoni. Does anyone really believe that after fighting for more than a decade to keep this out of court, Shell suddenly woke up and felt great compassion for the Ogoni? Please.
Shell settled because they were scared, and they knew the evidence against them was overwhelming. They publicly say they had nothing to do with the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni, and yet there were documents and video that they fought hard to keep out of the public eye.
Evidence that was to be introduced in the case included an internal Shell memo where the head of Shell Nigeria offered to intervene on Saro-Wiwa's behalf, if only Saro-Wiwa and others would stop claiming that Shell had made payments to the military.
Then there was this memo, requesting payment to the Nigerian military for an incident in which at least one Ogoni man died.
Witness were set to testify that they saw Shell vehicles transporting Nigerian soldiers, that they saw Shell employees conferring with the military, that they saw money being exchanged between Shell employees and military officers, and that they heard military officers, including the brutal Major Okuntimo of the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force, make admissions regarding the work they were doing on behalf of Shell.
We have known some of Shell's involvement in this tragedy for a long time. In early May of 1994, Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. faxed me a memo authored by Major Okuntimo which read "Shell operations still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken for smooth economic activities to commence" and further called for "pressure on oil companies for prompt regular inputs".
I received that fax and immediately called Ken. He said "this is it. They're going to kill us all. All for Shell." It was the last time I talked with him. Several weeks later he was arrested on the trumped up charges for which he was ultimately hanged.
In the last day, lots of people have asked me if $15.5 million is enough to compensate for the hanging of nine men, the death of thousands more, and for the destruction of an ecosystem. No of course not. But was it on par with what a jury would have awarded in this case? Yes, lawyers tell me, for sure.
More importantly, does the settlement bring relief to Ken Wiwa jr and the families of the other men who were executed? If you read Ken's thoughtful and moving piece in the Guardian , the answer is clearly yes. That alone should be cause for celebration.
Ken Sr.'s famous last words from the gallows were "lord take my soul but the struggle continues". In this moment, perhaps more than ever before, we need to heed that call to action. The settlement in this case brings satisfaction to the plaintiffs for an event that happened 14 years ago. It in no way, shape or form excuses or absolves Shell of their ongoing destruction of the Niger Delta environment
One of the central complaints of Niger Delta communities for forty years has been gas flaring, which sends plumes of toxic pollutants into the air and water of the Niger Delta. Gas flaring endangers human health, harms local ecosystems, emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases, wastes vast quantities of natural gas, and is against Nigerian law. Shell does it nowhere else in the world in volumes that are even remotely comparable to what they flare in the Delta.
But Shell is still flaring gas in Nigeria.
While there is no doubt that the settlement represented a significant victory for the plaintiffs' in this one human rights case against Shell, true justice will not be served as long as the people of Nigeria continue to suffer the terrible impact of Shell's operations. Shell estimates it would cost about $3 billion -- only 10% of just their last year's profits -- to end Shell's gas flaring in Nigeria once and for all.
But instead of putting their great "humanitarian concern" into action, Shell points the finger at the Nigerian government and demands that they pay to end this practice.
Send a message to Shell's CEO Jeroen van der Veer, and let him know that if he really wants to prove his great concern for the Ogoni people, he'll end gas flaring once and for all.
“God sent the shooter,” the signs wielded by anti-abortion protestors at the funeral of slain doctor George Tiller proclaimed. Last week’s assassination of abortion provider and feminist George Tiller in a Kansas church on the so-called holy seventh day was not only a barbaric act of religious cowardice but a terrorist assault on the rights of women. Tragically similar to the 1998 murder of New York doctor Bernard Slepian, Tiller’s murder was the culmination of years of attempted murders, death threats, bombings and arson attacks waged against abortion providers by white Christian terrorists.
Despite the scope of this orchestrated campaign mainstream media rarely identify these acts or those who commit them as “terrorist.” Those who invoke Christian fundamentalism as justification for their barbaric incursions against women and their allies are dismissed as aberrations, even though the profiles of the killers are always the same, the suspects—generally disaffected white middle aged males, aligned with a crackpot anti-government militia and/or fundamentalist ethos steeped in the bloody retribution of the Old Testament—virtually plucked from central casting.
These spasms of Christian fundamentalist violence are largely peculiar to the United States. Anti-abortion activism in Western European countries such as Great Britain, France and Italy doesn’t inspire anywhere near the level of militant resistance seen here. This virulent strain of fundamentalism was nourished by three theocratic Republican administrations that dismembered the Constitution and effectively sanctioned criminal campaigns against abortion providers. So while the U.S. condemns Muslim religious fundamentalism and trumpets itself as a beacon for individual and civil liberties unbridled by theocratic intolerance it has become a breeding ground for the most dangerous Christian fundamentalist terrorist movement in the world.
Christian fundamentalism has always objectified women’s bodies as patriarchal property and territory for reproductive control. It’s no surprise then that white men deem themselves to be Christian soldiers in the war over the wombs of Middle American and Southern white women. It’s also no surprise that the Bible Belt, fount of hyper-religious public policy that demonizes sex education and contraception, has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.
Christian fundamentalist dogma is about keeping ‘em barefoot, knocked up and in obeisance to a God that would rather see an impoverished 12 year-old incest victim carry her rapist father’s baby to term and suffer lifelong psychological trauma than undergo a safe legal abortion and have a reasonable expectation for a future. And it is immoral, radically anti-woman positions like these which make the “pro-life” misnomer appropriated by the anti-abortion movement so infuriating.
In the militant anti-choice universe the lives of real babies living in poverty and their real mothers and real families are of no consequence next to protection of the religiously decreed “rights” of the unborn. White male anti-abortion terrorists can’t get similarly exorcised about cuts to women’s health care benefits and pre- and post-natal care to mothers in real time because it would mean ceding control to flesh and blood women.
Tiller’s assassination also dovetails with a dangerous shift in public opinion regarding the future of choice for American women imperiled by unwanted pregnancies. Influenced by a decade of unrelenting right wing propaganda that equates abortion with murder and abortion providers with Nazi eugenicists, polls indicate that a growing majority of the American public has adopted a “pro-life” stance and is willfully ignorant about the life-giving and life-saving potential of legal abortion. Dispatching shooters from “God,” the anti-abortion movement must accept responsibility for the murderous religious rhetoric that led to the assassination of George Tiller and the terrorist assault on the rights and lives of American women.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and a commentator for KPFK 90.7FM.
“God sent the shooter,” the signs wielded by anti-abortion protestors at the funeral of slain doctor George Tiller proclaimed. Last week’s assassination of abortion provider and feminist George Tiller in a Kansas church on the so-called holy seventh day was not only a barbaric act of religious cowardice but a terrorist assault on the rights of women. Tragically similar to the 1998 murder of New York doctor Bernard Slepian, Tiller’s murder was the culmination of years of attempted murders, death threats, bombings and arson attacks waged against abortion providers by white Christian terrorists.
Despite the scope of this orchestrated campaign mainstream media rarely identify these acts or those who commit them as “terrorist.” Those who invoke Christian fundamentalism as justification for their barbaric incursions against women and their allies are dismissed as aberrations, even though the profiles of the killers are always the same, the suspects—generally disaffected white middle aged males, aligned with a crackpot anti-government militia and/or fundamentalist ethos steeped in the bloody retribution of the Old Testament—virtually plucked from central casting.
These spasms of Christian fundamentalist violence are largely peculiar to the United States. Anti-abortion activism in Western European countries such as Great Britain, France and Italy doesn’t inspire anywhere near the level of militant resistance seen here. This virulent strain of fundamentalism was nourished by three theocratic Republican administrations that dismembered the Constitution and effectively sanctioned criminal campaigns against abortion providers. So while the U.S. condemns Muslim religious fundamentalism and trumpets itself as a beacon for individual and civil liberties unbridled by theocratic intolerance it has become a breeding ground for the most dangerous Christian fundamentalist terrorist movement in the world.
Christian fundamentalism has always objectified women’s bodies as patriarchal property and territory for reproductive control. It’s no surprise then that white men deem themselves to be Christian soldiers in the war over the wombs of Middle American and Southern white women. It’s also no surprise that the Bible Belt, fount of hyper-religious public policy that demonizes sex education and contraception, has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.
Christian fundamentalist dogma is about keeping ‘em barefoot, knocked up and in obeisance to a God that would rather see an impoverished 12 year-old incest victim carry her rapist father’s baby to term and suffer lifelong psychological trauma than undergo a safe legal abortion and have a reasonable expectation for a future. And it is immoral, radically anti-woman positions like these which make the “pro-life” misnomer appropriated by the anti-abortion movement so infuriating.
In the militant anti-choice universe the lives of real babies living in poverty and their real mothers and real families are of no consequence next to protection of the religiously decreed “rights” of the unborn. White male anti-abortion terrorists can’t get similarly exorcised about cuts to women’s health care benefits and pre- and post-natal care to mothers in real time because it would mean ceding control to flesh and blood women.
Tiller’s assassination also dovetails with a dangerous shift in public opinion regarding the future of choice for American women imperiled by unwanted pregnancies. Influenced by a decade of unrelenting right wing propaganda that equates abortion with murder and abortion providers with Nazi eugenicists, polls indicate that a growing majority of the American public has adopted a “pro-life” stance and is willfully ignorant about the life-giving and life-saving potential of legal abortion. Dispatching shooters from “God,” the anti-abortion movement must accept responsibility for the murderous religious rhetoric that led to the assassination of George Tiller and the terrorist assault on the rights and lives of American women.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and a commentator for KPFK 90.7FM.
The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has stirred up another round of debate about race in America. Clearly we have not yet achieved a post-racial society. But we could take some steps in that direction by acknowledging historic wrong-doings and making sure future policy making promotes racial equity.
President Barack Obama meets with Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and Vice President Joseph Biden prior to an announcement in the East Room, May 26, 2009. Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Latino Supreme Court justice. Official White House photo.
In his historic Philadelphia speech on race, then candidate Barack Obama genuinely tried to unify us in facing our failures. Many people hoped that President Obama would be our racial savior, single-handedly bringing an end to centuries of struggle against discrimination. Some were quick to declare that racism, as we knew it, is over.
Yet familiar patterns and headlines persist: A spike in racial hate crimes and hate groups. More police killings of people of color. Skyrocketing unemployment rates among Blacks and Latinos. Crackdowns on immigrants. An historic loss of wealth for people of color forced into foreclosure. And racist speech all over the Internet.
Although the delusion of “post-racialism” was clearly preposterous, since President Obama took office, we’ve heard hardly a mention of the structural racism that permeates our economic, political, and cultural institutions.
The good news is that sensible solutions exist. Two especially promising solutions are public reconciliation processes, like the one made famous in South Africa, and proactive racial impact planning and analysis now being employed widely in the United Kingdom.
Truth and Reconciliation—Then and Now
South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission; provided a forum for constructive and candid conversation about historic racial inequalities. The court-like commission, chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, held hearings around the country to investigate human rights abuses, restore victims’ dignity, formulate rehabilitation proposals, and consider individuals’ applications for amnesty. The public airing of the ongoing harm caused by abuses of justice and human rights transformed the country. And the commission sparked nationwide discussion of appropriate responses, ranging from amnesty to reparations.
South African emphasized a restorative, rather than retributive system of justice, where individual offenders and society as a whole were obligated to officially acknowledge and take responsibility for the harms done to victims and communities. “Revealing is healing” was not simply a slogan, but a cornerstone for conciliatory power.
Archbishop Tutu wrote in the commission’s final report: “There were others who urged that the past should be forgotten—glibly declaring that we should 'let bygones be bygones'. This option was rightly rejected because such amnesia would have resulted in further victimisation of victims by denying their awful experiences… The other reason amnesia simply will not do is that the past refuses to lie down quietly. It has an uncanny habit of returning to haunt one."
Amnesty International, which advocates for effective truth commissions, reported in 2007 that truth commissions had been established in 28 countries and others were being considered, with more than half of them created in the previous ten years. Functions may include investigating past abuses, holding perpetrators accountable, fostering reconciliation, developing a historical record, memorializing past events, recommending reparations, and proposing institutional reforms to prevent future problems.
Surfacing the truth, of course, does not by itself remedy past injustices or change unfair institutions and policies. But it’s a necessary first step.
If the U.S were to follow suit by establishing an officially sanctioned process for acknowledging our racialized history, it could help build deep understanding across communities and reveal new transformative possibilities. The scope of a truth commission here would certainly have to be negotiated since the legacy of racial inequality in our country has both longstanding roots and current manifestations.
Even a scope limited to racially inequitable policies and institutional practices that have occurred in our lifetime could offer many lessons for today. For example, a thorough airing of practices ranging from redlining and blockbusting to exclusionary covenants and public contracting would shed light on our enduring racial wealth divide. Such an examination could also help us understand how the prevalence of predatory lending in communities of color has resulted in a multi-billion dollar loss of wealth for people of color who are forced into foreclosure.
Indeed, some individual states and locales have adopted or are promoting variations on the truth commission model. The Oklahoma Legislature created the Tulsa Race Riot Commission to investigate a 1921 incident where a white lynch mob went on a two-day rampage where they killed as many as 300 African Americans, burned homes and churches and destroyed the “Black Wall Street” business district. In its final report issued in 2001, the Commission recommended direct payments to survivors and descendants, a memorial to the dead, and scholarships and economic development funding for the affected community. Later that year, the state legislature passed a Race Riot Reconciliation Act, approving some, but not all of the commission’s recommendations.
Other cities have created race riot commissions to examine particular historical events such as Greensboro, North Carolina, and Wilmington, North Carolina. And there’s a grassroots effort underway towards establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the state of Mississippi.
Preventing Future Discrimination
While truth commissions have a largely retrospective focus, another model for addressing structural racism from a more prospective standpoint is one that has been adopted in the United Kingdom, known as the “Race Equality Duty.” This is a far-reaching government commitment and legal responsibility to eliminate discrimination, promote racial equality and foster good race relations.
Public agencies from federal authorities to local police departments and schools are required to create strategic plans to advance racial equality. And major policy proposals must undergo Race Equality Impact Assessments, a systematic review aimed at anticipating and preventing adverse impacts for any racial group.
Since 2001, when the law was adopted, public entities across the U.K. have developed racial equality plans. At their best, they attract public engagement and vigorous debate, which informs and improves collective decisions. But, like any government task, if political leadership is lacking, the plans can also become bureaucratic paperwork with minimal public input or impact.
The U.K. is refining its process to make it more effective and better aligned with other interests, including human rights, gender equity, and disability rights. The government is now developing a new Equality Bill to clarify and unify its framework, with enforcement to be largely overseen by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The U.K. model places government at the forefront of not only eliminating racial discrimination, but of actually promoting equality, opportunity, and inclusion across society. Instead of waiting for discrimination to occur before taking action, government authorities are charged with the duty of preventing potential adverse impacts.
In Northern Ireland, the Department of Transport and Industry introduced a national minimum wage. The Department’s racial equality impact assessment found that the minimum wage would benefit 130,000 ethnic minority workers in the U.K. The government conducted public awareness campaigns in multiple languages, resulting in a significant increase in complaints of underpayment. Through proactive research and action, the government was able to address racial disparities in wages and income.
There’s no magic bullet for eliminating structural racism, and each country has its unique racial history and dynamics. The United States does not, yet, have this sort of national legislation, but a handful of states, cities, and counties are moving ahead with their own forms of racial impact assessments:
Last year, Iowa—which ranked worst in the nation in its ratio of incarceration rates between African Americans and whites—enacted the nation’s first law requiring policymakers to prepare racial impact statements for proposals affecting sentencing and probation. Iowa Governor Chet Culver, upon signing the bill, said “I am committed to making sure state government at all levels reflects our shared values of fairness and justice.”
Connecticut has since passed a similar law. Illinois, Oregon, and Wisconsin are also considering adopting racial impact statements for criminal justice policies, much like environmental impact statements are used to minimize adverse impacts.
The city of Seattle directs all its departments to use a Racial Equity Analysis to guide policy development and budget making. This is helping the city make improvements in areas such as hiring and promotions, public contracts, and immigrant and refugee access to city services.
King County, Washington, uses an Equity Impact Review Tool to assess key policies, programs and funding decisions. This new tool is part of a broader county-wide Equity and Social Justice Initiative, which has resulted in culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach materials for early childhood intervention services for Somali-, Vietnamese-, and Spanish-speaking families.
A coalition of community groups in St. Paul, Minnesota is proposing a new policy requiring city staff and developers to compile a Racial Equity Impact Report for all development projects that receive a public subsidy of $100,000 or more.
These initiatives recognize that racism is far more than personal prejudice—it’s a historically rooted system of bias that continues to manifest itself in our laws and institutions. Conscious consideration of racial equity is one of the best ways to prevent the unconscious replication of systemic racism.
Jump Start Racial Justice
Instead of embracing the empty rhetoric of “post-racialism” and “color-blindness” where systemic problems are ignored, we can build a modern racial justice movement. There’s no lack of solutions. We just need leadership and action from the grassroots up, and the political will to think bigger and act boldly.
We can’t pin all our hopes on President Obama, but there’s certainly no need to remain in our racial rut. Instead, we can jump start racial justice. There’s a path forward. Let's take it. Together. Today.
Terry Keleher wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Terry is the Midwest Director of the Applied Research Center and a contributing writer to RaceWire, the blog of ColorLines, the national newsmagazine on race and politics (Racewire.org).
Funny how he refers to her selection as an "affirmative action pick" -- as if that was an objectively bad thing. The connotation, of course, is that individuals who benefited from affirmative action were not qualified for the opportunities they received.
According to poll results released today, the majority of American voters are not in favor of affirmative action on the basis of race or gender.
In an article on this poll, Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, stated that "the public clearly opposes the idea that such programs are justified
as a way of increasing diversity, which has become the rationale in
recent years as opposed to compensating for past discrimination which
was the reason when they first began."
Mr. Brown, of course, is factually wrong. Nowhere in either executive orders laying the groundwork for affirmative action mentions these policies in the context of past discrimination. And on a more common sense basis, one doesn't need to be a historian to know that in 1961, when the first executive order was signed by President John F. Kennedy, that current discrimination was what kept (over)qualified people of color and white women from even entry-level positions in corporate and government jobs -- let alone admission to college or graduate school.
And if indeed past discrimination were in fact the basis of affirmative action policy, wouldn't it stand to reason that the only thing that would make this controversial public policy obsolete the comprehensive and proportional representation of people of color and white women in previously white and/or male-dominated spheres (i.e., "increasing diversity")?
If that were the case, affirmative action can be expected to be around a looooooooong time!
Today is a day of contrasts. President Obama nominated 2nd circuit appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. If Sotomayor is confirmed she will be the first Latina/o on the nations highest court. This is unquestionably a sign of progress for our nation. A Nuyorican product of the Bronx who was raised in public housing she is a noteworthy representative of the brilliance and potential that exists in the most neglected sectors of our society.
Also today, the state of California upheld Proposition 8, a ballot measure that changed the California state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thereby withdrawing the right of same sex couples to marry, a right the court had affirmed just last year. This is obviously a step backward in the march towards inclusion and equality that Obama’s election symbolized for millions of people here and abroad.
One thing is clear: the culture wars that marked American political and social life in the 1990s are not dead. But something about them has changed. In the 90s, it was the political left who were identified as those who had identity politics, who talked about race, class, gender, and sexual orientation as framing their experiences and perspectives. This attention to identity was useful for expanding our ideas about everything from housing and education to reproductive rights and criminal law.
Nowadays, the right wing has become experts at identity politics too. They talk about their religion and regional cultures, and how those things shape their values. Think, for example, about how much more you know about the ethnicity, culture and religion of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court as compared to their liberal counterparts. Moreover, the conservative justices identities clearly frame how they interpret the Constitution. And more broadly, for the right wing, religious beliefs and cultural practices have become central to their political and legal ideals.
The difference between the left and right on this score, however, is whereas identity politics on the left has been used to argue for an expansion of rights and opportunities, on the right they are used to narrow the scope of rights and opportunities, and exclude citizens and residents of our nation from many of its benefits.
The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a fundamental right. It is a right, therefore, that all citizens theoretically possess. In constitutional law, when a state denies a fundamental right, and that denial comes before the Supreme Court, it is automatically subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny the court applies to state action. In order for the state’s action to be considered constitutional, and therefore upheld, it must be “narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.”
As someone who has spent the better part of my adult life studying the Constitution and issues of inequality, among other things, I cannot understand how in good conscience anyone could argue that denying same sex couples to marry is a compelling STATE interest. It may be an expression of a particular religious or cultural perspective, and a given denomination or congregation has the First Amendment right to express their disapproval of same sex marriage now just as they did (and some still do) of interracial marriage. But denying one group of citizens access to their fundamental rights and justifying it by citing the religious and cultural beliefs of another group of citizens is plainly unconstitutional.
If we want to successfully work together while embracing our diverse cultures, religions, politics, and many other identity markers, it has to be done with a respect for some basics of human and constitutional rights. Our Constitution at best operates as a common ground for citizens, cutting across difference to clearly define what it means to belong to a nation. We share rights and responsibilities.
Culture and ideology, whether it be the tyranny of the majority or the power plays of elites, should not ever be used to desecrate that common ground. When guaranteed rights are denied it is the hallmark of such desecration.
Eventually the Supreme Court will find itself addressing the issue of same sex marriage, likely over the issue of whether one state, which denies same sex marriage, must recognize the same sex marriage of another state. At this point, it is worth noting that the parallels to the history of interracial marriage are significant. During Reconstruction, several southern states allowed interracial marriage for a few years only to withdraw that right when southern white majorities recovered power during an era they called Redemption. “Redemption” was dedicated to reestablishing white supremacy through law, policy, violence, and social norms. The California Supreme Court’s decision to snatch away a right so recently granted and so hard fought for is eerily similar. It is to our national disgrace that we are allowing the kind of practice that marked one of our darkest historical moments to be repeated just as we began to hope.
I believe that if Sotomayor joins the Court, a woman who not only benefited from the expansion of opportunity created by social justice movements, but who used that opportunity to build a remarkable career as a jurist, she will aid us in turning the tide away from contraction and exclusion, and towards expansion and inclusion in American law.
Pray that we’ll find ourselves with such a smart and accomplished judge to tend to our precious common ground.
Below is the full transcript of President Obama's speech announcing his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor followed by Judge Sotomayor's moving remarks.
Afro-Netizen congratulates both Judge Sotomayor on becoming the first Latina to be select as a Supreme Court nominee and President Obama for his sage decision to nominate her. This pick speaks highly of our President and of our nation. It also should be one more shining example of the positive impact of the imperfect, highly controversial, but still necessary set of policies collectively known as Affirmative Action.
Had Judge Sotomayor had the same character, experiences, intellect and academic credentials, but was born a generation earlier, odds are she would not have been accepted to Princeton University or Yale Law School. The same is true of our President and Secretary of State Clinton (to name just a few highly competent public servants without this policy would most certainly have had far less opportunity than they had which in no small part facilitated their historic rise to prominence.)
The following transcript is republished here courtesy of CQ Transcriptswire:
Of
the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution,
few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme
Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life
tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And
they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to
paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult
questions of our time.
So I don’t take this decision lightly. I’ve made it only after deep reflection and careful deliberation.
And
while there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the
spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee,
there are a few that stand out that I just want to mention.
First
and foremost is a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, an ability
to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal
questions.
Second is a recognition of the limits of the
judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not
make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or
agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for
precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts
at hand.
These
two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our
nation’s highest court. And yet these qualities alone are insufficient.
We need something more.
For as Supreme Court Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the life of the law has not been
logic, it has been experience; experience being tested by obstacles and
barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting,
and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can
give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an
understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.
OBAMA: And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.
Now,
the process of reviewing and selecting a successor to Justice Souter
has been rigorous and comprehensive, not least because of the standard
that Justice Souter himself has set with his informidable (ph)
intellect and fairmindedness and decency.
I’ve sought the
advice of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including
every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My team has reached out
to constitutional scholars, advocacy organizations and bar associations
representing an array of interests and opinions.
And I
want to thank members of my staff and the administration who have
worked so hard and given so much of their time as part of this effort.
After
completing this exhaustive process, I’ve decided to nominate an
inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice, Judge Sonia
Sotomayor of the great state of New York.
(APPLAUSE)
Over
a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has
worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with
a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be
invaluable as a Supreme Court justice.
It’s a measure of
her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated
to the U.S. District Court by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush,
and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill
Clinton.
OBAMA: Walking in the door, she would bring
more experience on the bench and more varied experience on the bench
than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had
when they were appointed.
Judge Sotomayor is a
distinguished graduate of two of America’s leading universities. She’s
been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. She spend six
years as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and would replace
Justice Souter as the only justice with experience as a trial judge --
a perspective that would enrich the judgments of the court.
For
the past 11 years, she has been a judge on the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit of New York, one of the most demanding circuits in the
country. There, she has handed down decisions on a range of
constitutional and legal questions that are notable for their careful
reasoning, earning the respect of colleagues on the bench, the
admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court, and the
adoration of her clerks, who look to her as a mentor.
During
her tenure on the district court, she presided over roughly 450 cases.
One case in particular involved a matter of enormous concern to many
Americans, including me: the baseball strike of 1994 and ‘95.
(LAUGHTER)
In
a decision that reportedly took her just 15 minutes to announce -- a
swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere...
(LAUGHTER)
... she issued an injunction that helped end the strike. Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA:
Justice Sotomayor came to the district court from a law firm where she
was a partner focused on complex commercial litigation, gaining insight
in the workings of a global economy.
Before that, she was
a prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.’s office, serving under the
legendary Robert Morgenthau, an early mentor of Sonia’s who still sings
her praises today. There, Sonia learned what crime can do to a family
and a community, and what it takes to fight it.
It’s a
career that has given her not only a sweeping overview of the American
judicial system, but a practical understanding of how the law works in
the everyday lives of the American people.
But as
impressive and meaningful as Judge Sotomayor’s sterling credentials in
the law is her own extraordinary journey. Born in the South Bronx, she
was raised in a housing project not far from Yankee Stadium, making her
a lifelong Yankee’s fan. I hope this will not disqualify her...
(LAUGHTER)
... in the eyes of the New Englanders in the Senate.
(LAUGHTER)
Sonia’s
parents came to New York from Puerto Rico during Second World War. Her
mother is part of the Women’s Army Corps. And, in fact, her mother’s
here today, and I’d like us all to acknowledge Sonia’s mom.
(APPLAUSE)
Sonia’s mom has been a little choked up.
(LAUGHTER)
But she -- Sonia’s mother began a family tradition of giving back to this country.
Sonia’s father was a factory worker with a third-grade education who didn’t speak English.
OBAMA: But like Sonia’s mother, he had a willingness to work hard, a strong sense of family, and a belief in the American dream.
When
Sonia was 9, her father passed away, and her mother worked six days a
week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother -- who’s also here
today, is a doctor, and a terrific success in his own right -- but
Sonia’s mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood,
sent her children to a Catholic school called Cardinal Spellman, out of
the belief that with a good education here in America all things are
possible.
With the support of family, friends and
teachers, Sonia earned scholarships to Princeton, where she graduated
at the top of her class, and Yale Law School, where she was an editor
of the Yale Law Journal, stepping onto the path that led her here
today.
Along the way, she’s faced down barriers,
overcome the odds, and lived out the American dream that brought her
parents here so long ago. And even as she has accomplished so much in
her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch
with the community that supported her.
What Sonia will
bring to the court, then, is not only the knowledge and experience
acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom
accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.
It’s my understanding that Judge Sotomayor’s interest in the law was sparked as a young girl by reading the Nancy Drew series.
(LAUGHTER)
And
that when she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8, she was
informed that people with diabetes can’t grow up to be police officers
or private investigators like Nancy Drew. In essence she was told she’d
have to scale back her dreams.
Well, Sonia, what you’ve
shown in your life is that it doesn’t matter where you come from, what
you look like or what challenges life throws your way, no dream is
beyond reach in the United States of America.
OBAMA: And
when Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on
the highest court in the land, America will have taken another
important step toward realizing the ideal that is etched about its
entrance: Equal justice under the law.
I hope the Senate
acts in a bipartisan fashion, as it has in confirming Judge Sotomayor
twice before, and as swiftly as possible, so that she can take her seat
on the court in September and participate in deliberations as the court
chooses which cases it will hear this coming year.
And with that, I’d like all of you to give a warm greeting, as I invite Judge Sotomayor to say a few words.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: I think they like you.
(APPLAUSE)
SOTOMAYOR: I was just counseled not to be nervous.
(LAUGHTER)
That’s almost impossible.
Thank
you, Mr. President, for the most humbling honor of my life. You have
nominated me to serve on the country’s highest court, and I am deeply
moved.
I could not, in the few minutes I have today,
mention the names of the many friends and family who have guided and
supported me throughout my life, and who have been instrumental in
helping me realize my dreams.
I see many of those faces in
this room. Each of you, whom I love deeply, will know that my heart
today is bursting with gratitude for all you have done for me.
SOTOMAYOR:
The president has said to you that I bring my family. In the audience
is my brother Juan Sotomayor -- he’s a physician in Syracuse, New York;
my sister-in-law, Tracy (ph); my niece Kiley -- she looks like me.
(LAUGHTER)
My twin nephews, Conner and Corey.
I
stand on the shoulders of countless people, yet there is one
extraordinary person who is my life aspiration. That person is my
mother, Celina Sotomayor.
(APPLAUSE)
My
mother has devoted her life to my brother and me. And as the president
mentioned, she worked often two jobs to help support us after dad died.
I have often said that I am all I am because of her, and I am only half
the woman she is.
Sitting next to her is Omar Lopez
(ph), my mom’s husband and a man whom I have grown to adore. I thank
you for all that you have given me and continue to give me. I love you.
(APPLAUSE)
I
chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless
challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule
of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.
SOTOMAYOR:
For as long as I can remember, I have been inspired by the achievement
of our founding fathers. They set forth principles that have endured
for than more two centuries. Those principles are as meaningful and
relevant in each generation as the generation before.
It
would be a profound privilege for me to play a role in applying those
principles to the questions and controversies we face today.
Although
I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my
life to be immeasurably rich. I was raised in a Bronx public housing
project, but studied at two of the nation’s finest universities.
I
did work as an assistant district attorney, prosecuting violent crimes
that devastate our communities. But then I joined a private law firm
and worked with international corporations doing business in the United
States.
I have had the privilege of serving as a federal
district court trial judge, and am now serving as a federal appellate
circuit court judge.
This wealth of experiences,
personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of
perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has
helped me to understand, respect and respond to the concerns and
arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the
views of my colleagues on the bench.
I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government.
SOTOMAYOR:
It is a daunting feeling to be here. Eleven years ago, during my
confirmation process for appointment to the Second Circuit, I was given
a private tour of the White House. It was an overwhelming experience
for a kid from the South Bronx.
Yet, never in my wildest
childhood imaginings did I ever envision that moment, let alone did I
ever dream that I would live this moment.
Mr. President, I
greatly appreciate the honor you are giving me, and I look forward to
working with the Senate in the confirmation process. I hope that as the
Senate and American people learn more about me, they will see that I am
an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary
opportunities and experiences. Today is one of those experiences.
Charles Bolden, Obama's NASA Chief Pick Republished courtesy of HuffingtonPost.com
HOUSTON — The nation's turbulent space program will be run by one of
its own, a calming well-liked former space shuttle commander.
President Barack Obama on Saturday chose retired astronaut Gen.
Charles Bolden to lead NASA. He also named former NASA associate
administrator Lori Garver as the agency's No. 2. If confirmed, Bolden,
who has flown in space four times and was an assistant deputy
administrator at one point, would be the agency's first black
administrator.
Bolden would also be only the second
astronaut to run NASA in its 50-year history. Adm. Richard Truly was
the first. In 2002, then-President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried
to appoint Bolden as the space agency's deputy administrator. The
Pentagon said it needed to keep Bolden, who was a Marine general at the
time and a pilot who flew more than 100 sorties in Vietnam.
"Charlie knows NASA and the people know Charlie; there's a level of
comfort," especially given the uncertainty the space agency faces, said
retired astronaut Steve Hawley, who flew twice in space with Bolden.
Bolden likely will bring "more balance" to NASA, increasing spending
on aeronautics and environment missions, working more with other
nations in space, and emphasizing education, which the president often
talks about when it comes to space, said former Johnson Space Center
Director George Abbey, a longtime friend.
"He's a real leader," Abbey said Saturday. "NASA has been looking for a leader like this that they could have confidence in."
Bolden's appointment came during the tail end of the space shuttle
Atlantis' mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope one final time.
He was the pilot on the flight that sent Hubble into orbit in 1990.
Bolden, 62, would inherit a NASA that doesn't look much like the
still-somewhat-fresh-from-the-moon agency he joined as an astronaut in
1980. NASA now "is faced with a lot of uncertainty," Abbey said.
Bush set in motion a plan to retire the space shuttle fleet at the
end of next year and return astronauts to the moon and then head out to
Mars in a series of rockets and capsules that borrows heavily from the
1960s Apollo program. The shuttle's replacement won't be ready until at
least 2015, so for five years the only way Americans will be able to
get in space is by hitching a ride on a Russian space capsule. And some
of NASA's biggest science programs are over budget.
Earlier this month, the White House ordered a complete outside
examination of the manned space program. The Obama administration
hasn't been explicit about its space policy, with White House science
adviser John Holdren saying the policy would come after a NASA chief
was named.
"These talented individuals will help put NASA on course to boldly
push the boundaries of science, aeronautics and exploration in the 21st
century and ensure the long-term vibrancy of America's space program,"
Obama said of Bolden and Garver in a statement.
Bolden, a native of Columbia, S.C., and his wife donated $750 to the Obama campaign in 2008.
At NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, where Bolden spent about
a decade, his impending appointment was quietly cheered on all week
long.
The diminutive salt-and-pepper haired Bolden, who lives only a few
miles from the space center, on Saturday morning said he couldn't talk
until after Senate confirmation. He was busy answering congratulatory
e-mails from home. He has his own consulting firm in Houston and sits
on corporate boards.
Those who have flown or worked with Bolden can't praise him enough.
Retired astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz interviewed to become an
astronaut the same week as Bolden, was picked at the same time, and
they flew together on their first flights.
Soon after that much-delayed launch of the space shuttle Columbia in
January 1986, Chang-Diaz looked at his friend Bolden and saw that the
shuttle pilot had a "big, big smile... we were kind of like kids in a
candy store."
Hawley and then-U.S. Rep. Bill Nelson were also aboard that 1986
flight. Nelson, now the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on space
that will oversee Bolden's nomination and one of the people pushing
Bolden's nomination to the White House, commented: "I trusted Charlie
with my life - and would do so again."
Kathryn Sullivan was the payload commander on the 1992 flight of
Atlantis, which was Bolden's first of two shuttle commands. She said
Bolden has all the aspects of leadership that a good chief requires.
That includes experience, wisdom and the ability to listen to all
sides. She called him "one of the finest people I've ever known."
"Charlie's a great leader," Chang-Diaz agreed. "He takes care of his team."
Text of President Barack Obama's commencement address Sunday as the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., as delivered, as transcribed by the White House. The Rev. John Jenkins is the school's president. The Rev. Theodore Hesburgh is Jenkins' predecessor. Brennan Bollman is the class valedictorian.
___
Well,
first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. Congratulations to all
the parents, the cousins — the aunts, the uncles — all the people who
helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so
much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though
you said what I want to say much more elegantly. You are doing an
extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. Your
continued and courageous — and contagious — commitment to honest,
thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.
Good
afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to
family: I am honored to be here today. And I am grateful to all of you
for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.
And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I dont know if youre aware of this, but these honorary degrees
are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as
President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.
I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame ...
(Speech is interrupted by anti-abortion protesters.)
We're
fine, everybody. We're following Brennans adage that we dont do things
easily. We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable
sometimes.
Now, since this is Notre Dame I think
we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom,
but also in the competitive arena. No, dont worry, I'm not going to
talk about that. We all know about this university's proud and storied
football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest
outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world — Bookstore Basketball.
Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah
Holla Back." Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am
personally disappointed that the "Barack OBallers" did not pull it out
this year. So next year, if you need a 6-2 forward with a decent
jumper, you know where I live.
Every one of you
should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One
hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where
you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the
next without much notice or fanfare — periods of relative peace and
prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.
You,
however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your
class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation
and for the world — a rare inflection point in history where the size
and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world
to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments
to the demands of a new age. It's a privilege and a responsibility
afforded to few generations — and a task that youre now called to
fulfill.
This generation, your generation is the
one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond
to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most
recent crisis hit — an economy where greed and short-term thinking were
too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an
honest day's work.
Your generation must decide
how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to
destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are
those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the
hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to
reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity —
diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.
In
short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. And
it's this last challenge that Id like to talk about today, despite the
fact that Father John stole all my best lines. For the major threats we
face in the 21st century
— whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of
nuclear weapons or pandemic disease — these things do not discriminate.
They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not
target specific ethnic groups.
Moreover, no one
person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our
very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater
understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in
history.
Unfortunately, finding that common
ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a
"single garment of destiny" — is not easy. And part of the problem, of
course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride,
our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all
the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition
understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage
over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are
unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate
self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily
a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many
of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification
for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so,
for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this
country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would
seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
We
know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful
education that you've received here at Notre Dame is that you've had
time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses
in yourself that you want to leave behind. You've grown determined,
each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things
for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and
cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together
persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and
purpose — even accomplishing that can be difficult.
The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with
equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific
steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the
evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find
themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their
efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted
in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the
parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their
son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.
The question, then — the question then is how do we work
through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common
effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage
in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles,
and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said,
demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other
side?
And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.
As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was
reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I
describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope."
A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail
from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois
primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting
for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who
was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him
potentially from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff
had posted on my Web site — an entry that said I would fight
"right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to
choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he
supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our
educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life
individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on
women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this
point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in
fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I
thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell
my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that
night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others
that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we
open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely
like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that's when we
discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion,
but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman
is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking
abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption
more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry
their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who
disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and
make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in
sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.
Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the
debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter
how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views
of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory —
the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are
irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public
with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing
those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life
that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long
spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A
lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic
tradition, while the crossroads is where "differences of culture and
religion and conviction can coexist with friendship, civility,
hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father
John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility
with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's
ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about.
This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago — also with the help of the Catholic Church.
You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household,
but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that
eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated
college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an
organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked
to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.
And it was quite an eclectic crew — Catholic and Protestant churches,
Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and
Hispanic residents — all of us with different experiences, all of us
with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side
because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who
needed our help — to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound
together in the service of others.
And something else happened during the time I spent in these
neighborhoods — perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so
welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their
services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was
really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the
good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn
not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church.
It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.
And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago.
For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a
kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him
speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the
South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads — unafraid
to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS
and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was
congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people
together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a
reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin
about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get
on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched hearts and minds."
My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the
words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes
across Chicago. And Id like to think that we touched the hearts and
minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For
this, I believe, is our highest calling.
Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of
your life at a time of great uncertainty. You'll be called to help
restore a free market that's also fair to all who are willing to work.
You'll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our
planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to
receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to
public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active
citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast
through more means of communication than ever existed before. You'll
hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim
definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know
what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great
fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do
know what they're talking about — by well-intentioned people with
brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some
of you will be among those brightest stars.
And in this world of competing claims about what is right and
what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been
raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values
are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your
journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.
But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too,
that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt.
It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human
beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He
asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is
greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should
humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too
much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious
and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so
many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast
democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to
persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal
rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding
example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves
hearts and minds.
For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is
the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no
coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule
— the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to
love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the
lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.
So many of you at Notre Dame
— by the last count, upwards of 80 percent — have lived this law of
love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals;
international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one
example of what your class has accomplished. That's incredibly
impressive, a powerful testament to this institution.
Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of
life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community,
it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters
cooperation. And when that happens — when people set aside their
differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a
common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and
learn from one another — then all things are possible.
After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the
"separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and
a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights
for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters
and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed
by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this
commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and
one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern
governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame.
So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to
intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would
serve the black and white members of the commission together. And
finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew
them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land O Lakes, Wisconsin — where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.
And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he
was able to broker an agreement between men of such different
backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their
first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And
so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They
fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.
I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or
that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and
divisions will fade happily away — because life is not that simple. It
never has been. But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin,
of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small.
Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all
children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another;
to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same
fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way
we are all fishermen.
If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that
through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness
to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious
journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of
2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
In some Black communities it’s akin to donning a white sheet and a Confederate Flag. In others it’s ostensibly tolerated yet whispered about, branded culturally incorrect and bad form if not outright sacrilege.
For Black atheists like myself, proclaiming one’s non-belief amidst genial wishes to “have a blessed day” is never easy in the seemingly innocuous context of casual chit chat between Black folk. Yet, according to the New York Times, a small but growing segment of the American population, galvanized by the hyper-evangelical climate of the Republican Pleistocene, have begun organizing nationwide and becoming more vocal about their atheism.
Although African Americans are not visible in the “movement” some are easing away from religion. For Black atheists, actively breaking with religious tradition is an even graver rejection than that of white intellectuals electrified by the “pew-storming” rhetoric of atheist gurus like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. This is partly due to the fact that the history of African American civil and human rights resistance is heavily steeped in Judeo-Christian religious dogma. Despite the White Anglo Saxon Protestant religious justification for slavery and domestic terrorism,
African Americans converted to Christianity and utilized it as a source of succor, community and spiritual redemption. No matter one’s actual deeds, life path or personal mores, to be unquestioningly religious in some quarters is to be inoculated from criticism. Noting this historical irony in his blog, The Black Atheist, Wrath James White states, “In these (black) communities you find more tolerance towards gangbangers, drug addicts, and prostitutes, who pray to God for forgiveness than for honest productive citizens who deny the existence of God.” For Wright, this “is one of the most embarrassing elements of Black culture, our zealous embrace of the God of our kidnappers, murderers, slave masters and oppressors.”
While there have been critical appraisals of African American adoption of Christianity within the context of European conquest and racial slavery, few propose atheism as a corrective. Indeed, atheism would seem to fly in the face of a cultural ethos that frames earthly pain and suffering as a crucible for achieving rewards in the afterlife. In the midst of extreme brutality religious faith can either be seen as a means to mental health, or, as Karl Marx put it more bluntly, an opiate.
In this sense contemporary Black religiosity is the legacy of a culturally specific survival strategy. Many black secular community-based organizations still look to the Black church as a coalition partner and resource. Disturbingly, the church is often uncritically perceived as the “backbone” of the Black community. However, as the debate over California’s Proposition 8 demonstrated, the notion that there is a monolithic “marching in lockstep” Black community is terminally outdated.
On issues of gender and sexual orientation, the overwhelming opposition of many prominent Black churches to granting civil rights to partnered African American gays and lesbians is morally indefensible. When it comes to attitudes about traditional gender roles, gender-based assumptions about Black female religiosity are double-edged. While Black male non-believers are given more leeway to be heretics, Black women who openly profess atheist views are deemed especially traitorous, having abandoned their family role as purveyors of cultural and religious tradition. Images of Black women faithfully shuttling their children to church and socializing them into Christianity are a prominent part of mainstream black culture.
If being black and being Christian are synonymous, then being Black, female and religious (whatever the denomination) is practically compulsory. Black women with children who don’t fall in line, who raise their children as atheists, may find their race credentials revoked.
On the national level the contradictions between American secularism and religion have produced a schizoid tension in the U.S., whereby religious fundamentalism and intolerance for secular thought have become the norm. When it’s practiced in the non-Western world Americans routinely brand this kind of propaganda as backward and extremist. Yet, in this, the most swaggeringly “liberal humanist” of all nations, “coming out” as an atheist in a culture that parades religious dogma as a substitute for true morality may be one of the final ideological frontiers for African Americans.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of BlackFemLens.org and a commentator for KPFK 90.7 FM.
Actor Jeffrey Wright reads Walt Whitman's "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" from the Walt Whitman Houses Ft. Greene, Brooklyn, on Open Book, a new weekly television series created and hosted by Ina Howard Parker.
Open Book, created, produced and hosted by Ina Howard-Parker, premiered May 11th at 8:30pm EST and May 13th at 11:30pm EST, nationally on LinkTV (DirectTV ch. 375, Dish Network ch. 9410, and cable channels nationally. Click here to find where Link broadcasts on your dial.
Open Book is a new show about books, focusing on a single spot on Earth in each episode to introduce you to the writers and other storytellers-- musicians, actors, poets and more-- whose work reminds us we're all connected through the stories we have to tell and the communities we inhabit.
In the premiere episode, we visit Ft. Greene, Brooklyn, a neighborhood with a rich cultural heritage, to meet some of the writers and artists who live there including former child soldier Ishmael Beah, award-winning novelist Jennifer Egan, legendary jazz musician Bill Lee, Walt Whitman devotee Daryl Blaine Ford, creative genius Carl Hancock Rux, Def Jam poet Suheir Hammad, singer Nucomme, and star of stage and screen, actor Jeffrey Wright.
Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights is a step in the right direction, but what can consumers do now to restore and build their credit score?
By T. Shawn Taylor Guest Contributor
A new federal law that cracks down on “any-time, any-reason fee hikes and late fee traps” by credit card companies is good news for consumers struggling to pay down debt. But the Credit Card Holders’ Bill of Rights will not, on its own, help consumers raise poor credit scores, a necessity as credit markets tighten.
This new legislation, H.B. 627, passed two weeks ago in the U.S. House of Representatives, fulfills a campaign promise by President Barack Obama to call for more accountability and transparency on documents that describe credit card terms and conditions. It has the potential to positively impact wealth creation and raise overall household incomes for African Americans who carry a higher debt-to-income ratio than whites, as much as 42 percent, according to the Federal Reserve.
Still, consumers will have to take proactive steps to boost their credit score, which is more important now that America’s financial crisis has led banks to clamp down on who they will lend money to.
“Even if your credit report shows a zero balance, you still have to establish good credit in addition to paying off your credit card,” said Irvin Bennett, CEO of Credit Utopia, a credit restoration and credit building firm based in Chicago. “A lot of people don’t realize that paying off and then canceling a credit card can actually lower their credit score. They have to take steps to become better consumers, save money and establish a good payment track record.”
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), requires credit card companies to give consumers 45 days notice before raising interest rates. That provision takes effect 90 days after the bill’s passage. Provisions that prohibit double-cycle billing and retroactive rate hikes, and that prevents companies from issuing credit cards to anyone under 18 will not take effect until next year.
The proposal faced stiffed resistance by some Republicans and lobbyists in the financial sector but wasn’t enough to counter heavy lobbying by the president, who met with 14 credit card companies last month. The new law stands to provide much-needed relief for consumers held captive for years by debt. For African Americans, the change has the potential to narrow the black-white income gap and increase the overall economic power of the African American community.
Overall, African Americans and Latinos have lower credit scores than whites and struggle longer to pay down debt. As a result, they are charged higher interest rates, creating a vicious cycle it can take years to escape.
“High interest rates are a killer,” Bennett said. “Until now, credit card companies have been able to pretty much do whatever they wanted. Now, Washington is holding their feet to the fire, which is good news for the consumer.”
At the end of 2008, 78 percent of households in the United States used credit cards. Arguably, credit cards have become woven into America’s culture, but Bennett says consumers don’t have to become slaves to debt. He offers practical advice for ways consumers can fight back starting now and better manage their incomes.
Negotiate a settlement with the credit card company. Stressed banks are more willing to settle for less than the balance due. Take advantage. “It will show as a zero balance on your credit report but you still have to establish good credit in order to boost your score.”
Dispute interest rate increases. Call the credit card company and explain that you are a valued customer. “They will adjust if they value your business.”
Ask for a reduction in the minimum monthly payment. If you have lost your job, for instance, it isn’t unreasonable to ask that your payments be cut in half. Pay more than the minimum due once you start doing better financially.
Save, save, save. “Whatever nickel or dime you get, save it and focus on maintaining your credit. If I were a consumer, I would just save my money until this thing blows over.”
For more information about the consumer credit crisis, please click here or for an analysis of the racial debt gap, please click here.
T. Shawn Taylor is a writer and media consultant in the Chicago area. She can be reached at tshawntaylor at yahoo dot com.
Last month, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) sponsored a bill, S. 673, that would extend tax-exempt status to newspapers.
While seemingly innocuous and supportive of the many faltering dailies that abound these days, the legislation has serious defects stemming in part from a set of inaccurate and incomplete assumptions about the news media industry and the state of journalism -- two highly interrelated, but separate considerations.
Interestingly, there appears to be little to no substantive consideration for the struggling Black press and media produced for and by marginalized communities whose daily newspapers begun to die out shortly after desegregation some 40 years ago.
Perhaps if the editorial boards, newsrooms and press pools reflected the increasingly diverse demography of our nation the role of "ethnic media" in this discussion would not be so critical. However, in the years following the Civil Rights Movement, mass media have chosen not to recruit, retain and promote talent from communities of color at the level justice, quality and progress demand.
Fortunately, there exist a growing band of entrepreneurial, civic-minded folks within and beyond Black America who represent the increasingly power netroots community of journalists, artists, technologists, educators, activists, students and others who choosing to be the authors of our own collective fate.
We afro-netizens are leveraging the power of social media for civic advancement as did our abolitionist forbearers who were the proto-journalists of the early 19th Century.
This issue of the future of journalism is a red herring. Journalism is not in crisis; the commercial business model that has sustained modern print journalism is what these senators are most concerned about -- not necessarily about protecting and expanding representative voices of our society in furtherance of democracy.
Our cause must be to hold them (and ourselves) accountable for representing the interests of the people and communities served (poorly or otherwise) by media moguls, too many of whom became over-burdened by debt to remain viable in a fickle, evolving economy and industry.
Print publications will be around for awhile. Blogs and other web-based newspapers and such will continue to grow in popularity. But what matters most how well and quickly our news media represent the diverse demography and perspectives of the American people. If that's not part of their business model going forward, they deserve to wither on the vine, while those with more enlightened and sustainable models continue to flourish.
Afro-Netizen has joined several other leading bloggers in supporting the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's online initiative to determine the how interested the progressive netroots is in Pennsylvania and nationally for fielding a Democratic challenger to Sen. Arlen Specter.
We encourage you to PCCC's straw poll at its newly launched website.
Click here to read Politico's take on this bold netroots campaign or here to read what the Philadelphia Inquirer has to say.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com makes a concise, 10-minute presentation at TED last month on matters of race, voting & geography.
What I wouldn't give to put Nate in the room with the good folks at the Applied Research Center and see what happens! While I like the intent of Silver's presentation, it a revised version could be made that much more compelling if he understood and borrowed from ARC's Compact for Racial Justice. (Disclosure: Afro-Netizen founder, Chris Rabb, is an ARC board member.)
Growing up in Chicago’s Southside in the 1960s, the saying went around that when America sneezed, the Black community caught a cold. Today, as our country endures what most economists expect to end up as the worst crisis since the Great Depression, Black families can brace themselves for the economic equivalent of a life-threatening bout of pneumonia.
That gloomy outlook is evidenced by February jobless figures for the U.S. that show 8.2 percent of whites were officially unemployed; for Blacks, the figure was 13.8 percent.
Many actions need to be taken to address this economic inequity. One very important step is the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.
This legislation will help to increase workers’ ability to bargain with their employer for better wages, and that’s especially important for Black workers, whose economic problems started long ago.
During the 27 years after World War II, median incomes for Black families rose by 131 percent after inflation, reflecting the migration of Blacks away from the rural South, the gains from the Civil Rights Movement, effective public policies such as the minimum wage laws, and the presence of a strong union movement.
In contrast, between 1973 and 2007 median Black family incomes rose by only 33 percent. This anemic growth rate (mirrored for workers of all races) reflected greater global economic competition, the rise to dominance of the conservative movement whose aim was to weaken pro-worker social and economic policies, and the diminished strength of unions in the face of these transformations.
But for Black working families, it meant adults often were forced to work multiple jobs, high school and college-age youth were forced to sacrifice schooling opportunities in order to earn money for their families, and some household members had to find employment in the underground economy.
When our current recession began, the Black community faced a two-dimensional job crisis: all-too-familiar unemployment and a ghettoization into primarily low-wage work. Two years ago 8.3 percent of Blacks were officially unemployed; at the same time, close to half of all full-time Black workers earned less than $30,000 – which is just under twice the federal poverty level for a family of three.
For the Black community, the Employee Free Choice Act will enhance the chances of earning better pay and benefits by removing some of the current barriers to workers forming a union. And that’s important.
Workers in unions receive 14.1 percent higher wages overall than their counterparts who are not in unions. For Black workers, the advantage to joining a union is even greater – by 18.3 percent. Black workers in unions also have a higher likelihood of enjoying employer-based health care and a pension, compared to their non-union counterparts. These are the type of wage and benefit gains that move people into the middle class.
Maybe this is why Blacks strongly favor passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. A December 2008 poll by Peter Hart and Associates found that 88 percent of African Americans favor the legislation.
Throughout our country’s history, laws have been passed to establish new processes to radically improve the lives of everyday people. For example, in 1935, the Wagner Act set up procedures to help workers organizing unions and helped to develop the blue-collar middle-class. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act opened doors for Blacks to elect thousands of officials who better represented their interests.
Similarly, the Employee Free Choice Act will help a new generation of low-wage workers forge a proud pathway toward economic security.
As we seek solutions for our recession, we must not allow ourselves to simply return to a pre-crisis economy which did not serve any workers well, particularly Black workers. We can seize the moment to build an economy that really works -- for everyone. The Employee Free Choice Act is one crucial tool for that construction.
Steven Pitts, Ph.D. is a labor policy specialist at UC Berkeley and the author of numerous reports on job quality and Black workers.
Throughout Barack Obama’s campaign and swearing-in as president of the
United States, the shadow of Martin Luther King Jr. loomed large. But
the foundation of Obama’s success was laid 20 years before King told
the nation about his “dream.”
In the 1940s, A. Philip Randolph led the charge of activists pushing the government to give opportunity to
all of its citizens, regardless of race. And it is worth noting around
the 120th anniversary of Randolph’s birth on April 15, 1889, how his
contributions planted the seeds of Obama’s election.
Most Americans are very familiar with the 1963 March on Washington,
where King delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech to pressure
President John F. Kennedy. But in 1943, Randolph organized the
Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters as the first African-American labor
union and threatened an earlier president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with
another march.
Instead of allowing the 1943 march to go forward, FDR agreed to sign
Executive Order 8802, or the Fair Employment Practices Act, to
desegregate war industries, allowing African-Americans to partake in
the economic benefits of the buildup in manufacturing industries
supplying material for World War II.
After World War II ended, Randolph kept up the pressure on President
Harry S. Truman, who in 1948 agreed to desegregate the armed forces
with Executive Order 9980 and the federal civil service with Executive
Order 9981.
It is this trio of executive orders that laid the economic foundation
for black participation in American life that King and his band of
activists built upon with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which outlawed racial and gender segregation, and the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, which gave black Americans full voting rights.
By desegregating the Arsenal of Democracy in American factories,
Randolph and Roosevelt expanded the economic benefits of the
manufacturing boom to African-Americans. As Center for Economic and
Policy Research senior economist John Schmitt said in 2008,
“manufacturing jobs, particularly unionized jobs in the auto industry,
were an important part of what built the black middle class after World
War II.”
Meanwhile, many African-Americans also had successful careers as government workers. At 12.6 percent of the population of the United States, blacks make up 17.9 percent of the federal work force and
only 10 percent of the civilian workers, according to the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Fiscal Year 2008 annual report.
These civil service and manufacturing jobs helped generations of African-Americans take part in the American dream by buying homes and sending their children to college. Undoubtedly, these doctors, lawyers, newscasters, business consultants and other professionals who have moved into every aspect of American life have helped make white Americans more comfortable with people of color in positions of responsibility over the past 40 years.
Take the case of former Sen. Larry Craig, who was arrested in a Minneapolis airport for disorderly conduct. Craig, a white Republican from Idaho, chose as his lawyer Billy Martin, an African-American from Washington, D.C. There surely was no concern about the racial makeup of a Minneapolis jury to explain this choice, as the city is more than 65 percent white. It appears he chose Martin, who had represented him in an earlier harassment case, because he was the best lawyer for the case.
Cases like this are apparent all over America because of the educational and social advancements made possible by the actions of Randolph, Roosevelt and Truman, followed by King, Kennedy and Johnson.
Finally, the appointment of Colin Powell as national security adviser by President Ronald Reagan and his success during the first Persian Gulf War as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush established that a Black man could be trusted with America’s security, erasing the last barrier to Black leadership of the nation.
Certainly, there is not one individual or singular action that led to Obama’s election. Instead, it was the cumulative effect of generations of Americans, Black and White, to erase the barriers to the American dream for every citizen. We rightly recognize Martin Luther King Jr. and his contemporaries for the work they did in the 1950s and 60s, but we should not let the light from those stars blind us to the contributions of those like A. Philip Randolph who came before them.
Jamal Simmons was a Clinton administration political appointee and an adviser to the Democratic National Committee and the Obama-Biden campaign in 2008.
By Aisha Brown & Dedrick Muhammad Guest Contributors
"Usted quien es ... Gánese el baloto para que se cambie el color."
"Who do you think you are?...Go win the lottery and change your color," a metro policeman whispered to Afro-Colombian leader Carlos Rosero, founding member of the Black Community Process (PCN). Rather than just being an isolated incident of racism in Latin America, this incident gives us a mirror, an insight as to how white privilege prevails in Latin America.
Latin America has a long history of white privilege and white supremecy, including: is colored with white privilege, from its political roots: U.S. implementation of Jim Crow in the Panama Canal, brutal Dominican dictatorship that erased African presence from its history and its culture, the massacre of hundreds of thousands indigenous Mayans in Guatemala, and blancismento (whitetification) in Argentina (South America) in which governments actively recruited Europeans to emigrate to their nations in order to "whiten" the society of its heavily indigenous and African populations.
To its social implications, white privilege has permeated Latin America's everyday language: "pelo malo" versus "pelo bueno" (good hair vs. bad hair), negrita used as both an insult and "term of endearment" for Latinos with "darker features," and referring to one another by our race or complexion morena, trigueña, indio, zambo.
On March 31, 2009, Grupo Afro Descendiente sponsored a discussion entitled, "White Privilege in Latin America: Myths and Realities" as part of White Privilege Awareness Week. The panel featured indigenous persons from Peru and Guatemala, an afro descendant from Cuba, a mestiza from Mexico, and an African immigrant from Cote d'Ivoire. Each panelist shared personal accounts, reflections on their experience with white privilege in Latin America.
What we found was that white privilege began and has been reinforced in society through socio-economic manipulation, cultural jokes/stereotypes, and paternalism often implemented by the Catholic Church and more recently the Evangelical movement. In every country in Latin America one will find that people of color are often the poorest, least educated, and least empowered/politically engaged in the society.
Even though there are high levels of integration in Latin America, intense segregation still exists. Often indigenous and Afro descendant populations live apart in communities that are somewhat isolated from the mainstream. This is prevalent throughout Central and South America among the garifuna and other indigenous Latin Americans. The country of Nicaragua for example is virtually divided into two countries by the rainforest: the West mostly inhabited by whites and the East populated mostly by people of color.
This segregation is highlighted by the lack of Afro and indigenous presence on Latin American television. There are very few reflections of people of color in the Latino media. Sabado Gigante, the most popular variety program throughout all of Latin America is the greatest example of this phenomenon. With the exception of the occasional reggaeton or bachata artist and/or a futbol player, people of color are largely excluded as members of the cast and even in the audience of the popular program. Internalized racism of Latin Americans has led our community to deny or reject their African and/or indigenous heritage. This practice further reinforces the idealization of whites in our society.
Further complicating the issue of white privilege for Latinos is living in a nation who has a different type of racial hierarchy than our homelands. The identity of Latino has practically become a racial category in this country. If you do not fit in the U.S. perceptions of Black or white or Asian (yes there are Asian Latinos) you are designated as "Latino." In the United States white supremacy followed the one drop rule, one drop of Black or Indigenous blood or any visible signs of these ancestries would exclude individuals of white privilege and condemn one to racialized disenfranchisement. The "one drop" of blood was almost in reverse in Latin America; one drop of European blood or visible characteristics of European ancestry granted one access to some degree of white privilege and wealth, helping open the door for some people of color in Latin America to become part of the white elite of the country.
Like in many capitalist societies, money can buy privilege, but in Latin America it can also buy your whiteness. For generations Latin Americans have paid to change their race on their identification cards. Purchasing one's whiteness has historically been a common practice for many Latinos of African descent. Yet this practice did not challenge white supremacy rather it found a loophole to gain access to white privilege.
Our discussion of white privilege and the diverse racial characteristics of our communities allowed us to see that though the white supremacist socio-economic orders of our homelands are different than the ones found in the U.S. the deconstruction of white privilege is something that is needed throughout the Americas.
ATLANTA - I applaud your recent creation of the White House Council on Women and Girls to help ensure we are treated equally in public policies, by employers and in every other aspect of American society. I must also urge, however, that you place a similar emphasis on men and boys, particularly young men of color, who face some of the steepest hurdles in American society.
The reasons cited in forming the new council are just – throughout our nation’s history women have often been treated as second-class citizens when it comes to earning a livelihood, climbing the corporate ladder and even exercising the delayed right to vote. Let us not forget that the Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted in 1923—and has yet to be ratified.
To be sure, the new council will focus attention on continuing the progress that has been made through the decades as women have crashed through the glass ceiling.
But I would argue that young men of color face even more daunting circumstances. Young men of color face challenges ranging from a justice system that disproportionately incarcerates them to media and entertainment industries quick to portray them as worthless, violent and criminal. Even before the recession, our young men of color faced a bleak job market where discrimination, globalization and structural change made it difficult for them to find good jobs and succeed in life. With the nation’s economy in a tailspin, the unemployment of young men of color has been spiraling out of control. Consider this sampling of data:
· High school graduation rates for males of color –African Americans (42.8 percent), Native American/Alaska Natives (47 percent) and Hispanics (48 percent)—are far lower than for whites (70.8 percent).
· Minority youths are disproportionately in the juvenile justice system: African Americans (1,004 per 100,000), American Indians (632 per 100,000) and Latinos (485 per 100,000) compared with whites (212 per 100,000).
· More than 29 percent of African-American boys who are 15-years-old today are likely to go to prison at some point in their lives, compared with 4.4 percent of white boys the same age.
· The mortality rate from homicide for African-American boys ages 15-17 is 34.4 per 100,000, compared with 2.4 per 100,000 for non-Hispanic white boys.
Let’s face the reality. It can be a gritty and dangerous world on the streets of urban America, on the impoverished Native American reservations and in the camps of migrant workers. In many cases, government and much of our society turn their back to these conditions and ignore their existence—rather than seek to allocate resources and develop policies to redress the conditions that threaten the survival of young men of color.
An array of public policies enforced by the schools, police and courts has helped put young men of color at such a disadvantage. These policies range from mandatory-minimum sentences to zero tolerance of behavioral offenses in schools to minimum wages that do not afford a young adult an opportunity to support himself, let alone a family. These public policies have often been popular with the public, but collectively have built many of the barriers to young men of color leading productive lives.
Moreover, the media and entertainment industries have also contributed greatly to raising these hurdles.
Clearly, a disproportionate number of young men of color have dropped out of school, been arrested and been left jobless. Still, there are countless others who go to college, succeed in their jobs, are good fathers and make outstanding accomplishments in their lives. Unfortunately, however, very little information is shared about their achievements or successes. Rarely are young men of color projected or viewed as positive role models.
While there has been a growing angst over the misdeeds of some, there has been little attention paid to what public policies or social determinants have contributed to the plight of young men of color.
Certainly, some of the responsibility lies with the child or teenager who made wrong decisions, as well as with family members who failed to help youngsters overcome critical obstacles and to guide them to a more productive course. But we cannot underestimate the powerful negative impact of the stereotypical portrayals, the glorification of criminal and violent behavior in movies and television, and the lack of good news stories about young men of color on the airwaves.
Mr. President, what you can do is create a council that looks into how public policies can be amended and how portrayals of this demographic can be changed. As others have stated, the women and girls that you want to help prosper need male counterparts to build strong families.
You can take a huge step by creating a council that helps men, particularly young men of color, be successful in American society. Right now, they often face insurmountable challenges. Men need your help, too.
Dr. Henrie M. Treadwell is director of Morehouse School of Medicine’s Community Voices, a non-profit working to improve health services, and health-care access, for all Americans.
With white male patriarchy fully dissolved domestically and abroad
upon the historic inauguration of U.S. President Barack Obama, the
remaining vestiges of intolerance will most certainly be wiped out by year's end.
Race still matters if we are to rebuild our economy on a strong and fair foundation. Our elected officials have failed to include racial equity in the stimulus package. This is shortsighted and counterproductive.
Our struggling economy is hitting communities of color the hardest. Housing costs, mortgage foreclosures and job losses are disproportionately affecting them. A recent report on race and opportunity in the New York City area, published by the Center for Social Inclusion (where I work), illustrates the problem.
New York neighborhoods where foreclosure rates top 20 percent are predominantly black and Latino. About 35 percent of these households were eligible for prime loans, yet received subprime rates instead. Isolated from good jobs and schools, people of color typically earn just over half as much as white New Yorkers, and are much more likely to work in unstable service sector jobs with no benefits.
We cannot perpetuate this neglect, in good times and in bad, and still expect a meaningful revival of our economy. Communities of color are a growing and vital element in our economy. According to the Commerce Department, up to 32 percent of total purchasing power may come from minority consumers by 2045, accounting for up to $6.1 trillion of disposable income.
Enabling black, Latino, Asian and Native-American peoples to get loans, become business owners and gain access to products and services could bring powerful new streams of economic growth into the economy as a whole.
Yet despite all the talk of stimulating the economy, neighborhoods that need it the most and that hold the most potential are being relegated to opportunity deserts, devoid of jobs or transit and burdened with underfunded and overcrowded schools.
The economy is like a living animal. If one vital organ fails, it doesn’t matter that the others are working. Communities of color represent a vital organ in our economy. When our government neglects them, it damages the economy’s health.
A stimulus package that does not take race into consideration is likely to perpetuate this neglect.
If banks weren’t offering prime loans to creditworthy people of color in good times, simply telling them to make loans won’t address this irrationality.
If construction jobs weren’t going equally to black men and women of all races before, stimulating construction jobs won’t ensure that communities with the highest unemployment rates also get some of those jobs.
We should demand that construction projects fairly represent who we are. State and local governments should make such fairness goals a part of the bidding process.
And the federal government should collect and make public the data on whether the jobs created by the stimulus program were fairly distributed and whether communities that benefited were amongst those hardest hit by the crisis.
Factoring race into the stimulus program is not only the moral thing to do. It is also the prudent thing to do. Bolstering communities of color is a shrewd investment in our economic future.
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission finally took a major step toward accurately assessing the number of broadcast stations owned by people of color and women in this country.
This is a critical — and long overdue — boost for U.S. media diversity. The FCC is revamping a broadcast ownership form to include much greater detail on the racial and ethnic makeup of station owners. Broadcast stations must submit the form to the commission every two years.
A few tweaks to a form may not sound like a big deal, but it is. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
In 2006 and 2007, Free Press released two studies — Out of the Picture and Off the Dial — on the state of minority and female ownership of TV and radio stations. In the process of conducting these studies, we learned that the commission had collected inaccurate date on minority and female ownership since 1998. Many stations had filled out their ownership forms incorrectly – omitting key diversity data — but the FCC had failed to monitor or verify the accuracy of the submitted information. Instead, the agency released ownership figures that were simply wrong.
In conducting our own research, Free Press took a different tack. Prior to publishing our reports, we verified the ownership figures for every broadcast station in the United States, with the result that our reports are widely believed to include the most accurate ownership figures compiled to date.
Free Press research found that people of color make up 33 percent of the U.S. population, but own just 7 percent of all radio and TV stations. Women own just 6 percent of all outlets, despite making up 51 percent of the population.
In addition, the reports concluded that people of color own more stations in less concentrated markets and that the number of minority-owned stations has declined because of media consolidation.
Yet even after the publication of the Free Press reports, the FCC once again released inaccurate data in 2007 when it considered allowing for greater consolidation of our country’s media outlets. In fact, the agency-sponsored studies failed to identify 69 percent of all minority TV owners and 75 percent of female owners.
That’s just unacceptable. It is simply outrageous that a government agency with a public mandate would continue to adopt critical broadcast regulations without having accurate data to determine the impact of its rule changes on minority and female ownership.
“The sad truth is that we simply do not know the precise state of minority and female ownership in this country,” said FCC Acting Chairman Michael Copps. “The official term for it is, ‘We don’t have a clue.’ We will never get to where we need to go unless we know where we are. Try getting driving directions on MapQuest without entering a starting location and you’ll see what I mean.”
Last week’s action by the Copps-led FCC will help to ensure the commission and the public have the right directions to bolster minority and female media ownership.
Joe Torres is government relations manager for Free Press in Washington, DC, a a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media.
As Washington policymakers screamed bloody murder last month over bonus payments for a few hundred AIG employees, another much larger scandal flew virtually unnoticed on Capitol Hill: The divide between the wealth of blacks and whites — already gaping — grew again. Now, as Congress prepares to consider a series of consumer-friendly finance reforms, some minority advocates, researchers and lawmakers are pointing to that startling trend as another reason the reforms are urgently needed.
“We need to work together to begin to attack the institutional and structural reasons why communities of color continue to lag so far behind white families,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus.
The concerns were justified last month. According to the Federal Reserve, the net worth of the typical African American family in 2007 was just 10 percent of the net worth of the typical white family — down from 12 percent in 2004. Put another way: For every $1 held by whites five years ago, blacks had 12 cents. Three years later, they had a dime.
The staggering statistic has taken some powerful lawmakers by surprise. Participants in a wealth gap summit on Capitol Hill last month said that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who attended the event, was shocked to learn the extent of the disparity.
But incredulity is one thing; closing the gap is another. And congressional lawmakers with that goal in mind face a series of barriers to getting the job done. Not only is there little recognition that such a divide exists, but the causes, according to reform advocates, are so rooted in history and engrained in policy that they’re tough to iron out. Furthermore, the solutions reside largely in tax code reforms — among the thorniest issues to tackle on Capitol Hill. Advocates for closing the wealth gap say that congressional lawmakers are well behind the curve.
“In terms of them really grappling with it,” Lui said Friday, “I don’t think they’ve done that yet. There’s plenty of room for them to address this further.”
It won’t be easy. Advocates are pushing to reverse the Bush-era tax cuts, like those slashing the capital gains and estate taxes, which provide handsome benefits to those with accumulated wealth, but do almost nothing to help Americans of color, whose assets are a fraction of those held by whites.
“People aren’t thinking in terms of wealth, it’s always about income,” Lui said of the public policy focus. “But income alone won’t do it.”
Thomas Shapiro, professor of law and social policy at Brandeis University, said additional tax reforms could include a shift in the mortgage interest deduction to benefit lower-valued homes and the creation of another deduction for renters — controversial ideas that “no one’s really talking about,” he said. “When the issue is something like the racial wealth gap,” he said, “it’s very difficult to think of policy levers [as solutions].”
That the wealth disparity is so wide is largely attributable to prejudiced policies both public and private. Advocates and academics point out that some of the largest federal benefit programs of the last century propped up whites but largely excluded minorities. The G.I. Bill, for example, provided $120 billion in low-interest mortgage loans to servicemen after World War II, yet less than 2 percent went to minorities before 1962, Liu found. And the Depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, created to modify mortgages to prevent foreclosures, benefited no minorities whatsoever, she said.
More recently, Harvard University discovered that, among blacks and whites of similar incomes, lenders targeted blacks more often for sub-prime loans, even when those minority borrowers were eligible for less risky arrangements.
To combat that trend, advocates and some Democrats are pushing for the creation of a Financial Products Safety Commission, a concept championed by Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the congressional panel created to oversee the Wall Street bailout. A Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) would do just that. The commission would regulate financial products, like mortgage loans and credit cards, much the same way the Consumer Products Safety Commission protects buyers from faulty coffee makers and lawn chairs. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) have also sponsored the bill.
The release of the Fed’s latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial assessment of American financial trends, reveals that a focus on policy through a racial lens could come none too soon. The report found that, as a group, people of color held roughly 16 cents for every $1 held by whites in 2007. For Hispanics, the figure was 12 cents. For blacks, a dime. And those figures were crunched before the collapse of the economy. Advocates fear that the gap probably widened since then because, while fewer minorities than whites own their homes, minority homeowners tend to have a higher percentage of their wealth wrapped up in their homes.
Similarly, blacks and Hispanics have fewer credit cards, but tend to drive up higher debts per card. As a result, said Jose Garcia, associate director for research and policy at Demos, a liberal policy group, “more of [minorities'] income goes to pay debt, and less goes to buy assets.”
Minority advocates are also wary of payday lenders, who tend to charge exorbitant rates and target minority communities where traditional banks are often scarce. “Billions of dollars are being taken out of low- and moderate-income communities as a result of these alternative financing schemes,” Shapiro said. Not that Congress isn’t doing anything at all. Legislation to help homeowners by empowering bankruptcy judges to alter mortgage terms passed the House last month, though it’s since stalled in the Senate.
Democratic leaders are also preparing to take up bills tackling predatory lending and credit card abuses. Another proposal to rein in payday lenders is also on the Democrats’ radar screen.
Speaking at the wealth gap summit last month, Lee said that reforming these industries to protect minority communities is long overdue. “Too many communities do not have access to traditional banks and rely too heavily on payday lenders and check cashing stores that charge uncontrolled fees and out of sight interest rates,” Lee said. “We must work together to use this financial storm to demand the institutional reforms that will begin to lift all American families out of this crisis.”
Reform advocates say they’re heartened by such statements coming from Capitol Hill, but many remain wary that few lawmakers are sticking their necks out to close the wealth gap.
“They were very friendly and very encouraging,” Shapiro said of the congressional participants at the summit, “but nobody was stepping up and saying, ‘I want to be the champion of this.’”
Ron Mallett went to sleep at his home in the Bronx to the sounds of laughter and conversation. It was May 1955, and his parents were celebrating their 11th wedding anniversary. He awoke to the sound of his mother crying. His father, Boyd Mallett — an electronic technician who had helped wire the new United Nations building — had died of a heart attack at age 33.
Ron had adored his father. Even though Boyd Mallett worked two jobs, he had always taken the time to answer his son’s questions and teach him the value of an education.
At age 10, “I was completely crushed. I went from being a very happy, outgoing kid to totally into myself,” Ron Mallett recalls. “The family plunged into poverty. I OD'ed on science fiction. Even though I was not in class, I was usually in the library or at home reading,” he says.
Ron bought the Classics Illustrated comics series of “The Time Machine” by H.G. Wells, when he was 11, and he read it repeatedly. The story gave him an idea that became his passion for almost 50 years. He would build a time machine, so he could go back in time and save his father’s life. But he kept his plan secret. . He tried to make the machine pictured in the comic book, spending hours in his basement. When it didn’t work, he read the original book, with a dictionary at his side. Then, about two years after his father’s death, he spotted a paperback book cover that had a picture of Albert Einstein standing next to a huge hourglass. He read that Einstein’s breakthrough was to treat time as a fourth dimension. Young Ron was hooked. He realized he’d have to return to school so he could understand math, physics and Einstein’s theories.
Eureka Moment
Today, Ronald L. Mallett, Ph.D. is a theoretical physicist and full professor at the University of Connecticut. He was advisor of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) chapter there from 1978 to 1982. Through the many challenges, twists and turns of his life — watching his mother struggle to provide for her family; dealing with a stepfather who didn’t value education; facing racism; a career in the Air Force; divorce; remarriage — he never stopped seeking a formula for time travel.
And incredibly, one day in 1999, while studying gravity, Einstein’s theory of relativity and the work of other noted physicists, Dr. Mallett had his “Eureka!” moment. He concluded that a circulating light cylinder can penetrate space and twist time, the way a spoon stirred in coffee can create a swirl in the center. Then, just as a coffee bean would swirl around as the spoon stirred the coffee, a subatomic particle, a neutron, could travel through this space.
In 2000, Dr. Mallett published a paper outlining his theory. In 2001, he presented his time travel theory at a physics department colloquium at the University of Michigan. New Science magazine ran a cover story on it later that year. He got calls and e-mails from all over the world.
The spotlight shined on. National Public Radio’s “This American Life” did a segment on Dr. Mallett in 2007. Two of Spike Lee’s graduate students heard it and told the film director about the physicist. Lee read Dr. Mallett’s memoir, “Time Traveler: A Scientist’s Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality.” The two met, and Lee decided to make a movie about Dr. Mallett’s life. The screenplay is being written.
In the meantime, Dr. Mallett is working with a colleague at the University of Connecticut, experimental physicist Chandra Roychoudhuri, to create a machine that tests his theory. They need $10 million for the work. He’s hoping the publicity generated by Lee’s film will help bring in funding.
And if science proves his theory?
“He’ll get the Nobel Prize,” says Tepper L. Gill, Ph. D., a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Howard University. He saw Dr. Mallett’s presentation at an international conference at Howard in 2002, with 50 of the world’s leading physicists.
Passion Remains
But Nobel Prize or no, he will not be able to see his father, Dr. Mallett says. According to his theory, the machine would only be able to travel to the point where a time machine existed. So, if the machine became operational in 2020, for example, people from 2090 would be able to travel “back” in time, but only to 2020.
This realization saddened him, but he has become philosophical about it, Dr. Mallett says. His dream of seeing his father carried him through countless obstacles. Also, his machine could be used to travel to the future. Dr. Mallett thinks of all of the lives that could be saved if physicists could create an early warning, time-travel device to warn people about earthquakes and hurricanes.
So, at age 63, the youthful Dr. Mallett continues his work with passion, welcoming opportunities to speak to younger people, telling them to follow their dreams.
“Even though my original goal of being able to travel back to the 1950s has morphed into something else entirely,” he says, “I am still motivated to complete the project, out of sheer curiosity and the science of seeing it work.”
In 2001 I traveled to Durban, South Africa, to join the tens of thousands of people who came to participate in the United Nations-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. More than 2,000 came from the United States, a rainbow of people crossing all lines--racial, ethnic, national, language, immigration status, religious and much more--joining an equally diverse crowd from across the globe. It was an extraordinary opportunity to meet, discuss, argue and strategize over how to rid the world of these longstanding evils.
Our participation paralleled that of the official US delegation. And that's where we faced a huge challenge. The Bush administration team, having only grudgingly agreed to participate at all, made clear they had no real commitment to fighting racism or offering leadership on other challenging issues of discrimination. When they didn't like a few small parts of the sixty-one-page text, they packed up and walked out of the conference. It was a sad but hardly surprising moment, exposing once again the history of US failures to take seriously the consequences of its own legacy of racism, a point most recently made by Attorney General Eric Holder.
The 2001 Declaration expressed powerful truths. It stated: "We acknowledge and profoundly regret the massive human suffering and the tragic plight of millions of men, women and children caused by slavery, the slave trade, the transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide, and call upon States concerned to honor the memory of the victims of past tragedies and affirm that, wherever and whenever these occurred, they must be condemned and their recurrence prevented." Another part declared, "We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion."
Now, eight years later, the United Nations is convening the Durban Review Conference in Geneva April 20 to 24 to review and assess the progress since 2001. Member nations have toiled for two years to craft an outcome document that assesses the current analysis and challenges. This document--which called for particular measures to provide support and reparations to all the victims both of long-ago histories, like the descendants of the European-Atlantic slave trade, and those facing contemporary forms of discrimination and apartheid policies, such as the Roma, the Dalits (India's "untouchables") and the Palestinians--was rejected by the Obama administration.
This year we thought things would be different. Our country has taken a huge step in our long struggle against racism: we have elected our first African-American president. And perhaps more important, the mobilization of people who made Barack Obama's election possible brought more young people of color into political action, with others of various ethnic and political backgrounds, than perhaps any campaign before. It is a moment not to sit on our laurels; certainly, we have much farther to go. But it is certainly a moment for our nation's political leadership to acknowledge a new marker in the long and painful struggle for justice, and a time to offer global leadership in the United Nations forum organized to combat bigotry and injustice.
In an effort to address the administration's concerns, the United Nations has released a new "outcome document," stripped of all language deemed offensive or controversial. Yet we face the sad reality that our president, the first African-American to lead this country, who has galvanized hope among victims of injustice around the world and encouraged them to stand up with dignity for their rights, has yet to indicate if he will send an official delegation or continue to abstain from the entire process.
Our historical struggle against racism can claim great progress as a legacy of the civil rights movement led by the likes of Fanny Lou Hamer and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but this 2009 review of the 2001 Durban conference against racism should still be a moment in which the administration of President Obama returns to the world stage to join deliberations aimed at making even further progress against injustice.
For twenty years, Congressman John Conyers, dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, has annually introduced a bill urging the United States to form a commission to study whether reparations are an appropriate response to the continuing legacy of slavery in our country. Would not the Durban Review Conference be a perfect venue to the administration to support the remedies recommended by the global community of nations to overcome the impacts of racism, slavery, anti-Semitism, apartheid and other forms of discrimination?
Would this United Nations conference not be exactly the right place for our new president to show the world that his administration's commitment to "change we can believe in" means rejecting our country's tarnished legacy of violating international law, undermining the United Nations and using American exceptionalism to justify walking away from the leadership responsibility many in the world expect of the United States?
To make that change clear, wouldn't this be a great opportunity to remind the world that even if the final document does not call out the name of every perpetrator government, the United States at least believes that every group of victims facing discrimination or worse based on their identity, especially the most vulnerable, and those who are stateless and thus in need of special attention by the international community, should be named and promised assistance?
This should be a moment for the United States to rejoin the global struggle against racism, the struggle that the Bush administration so arrogantly abandoned. I hope President Obama will agree that the United States must participate with other nations in figuring out the tough issues of how to overcome racism and other forms of discrimination and intolerance, and how to provide repair to victims. Our country certainly has much to learn; and maybe, for the first time in a long time, we have something by way of leadership to share with the rest of the world in continuing our long struggle to overcome.
Over the past few decades the universe has been very good for American religious zealotry. While right wing conservatives were busy propagandizing on the global sway of so-called Muslim jihadists, they ripped secular liberal humanism and the Constitution to shreds. Under poster child George W. Bush the separation between church and state has all but evaporated, eroded by faith-based initiative subsidies that sucked up millions of federal dollars with virtually zero accountability. The scientific community became the stepchild of health public policy and global warming was ridiculed as leftist fiction.
Abstinence-only sex education became the standard in many middle and high school health curricula, defying research-based evidence that it was a dangerous sham. Christian evangelical “mega-churches” flaunted their tax-exempt status, raking in thousands in contributions on money pits like the Orange County-based Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), dubbed the largest Christian network in the country. And a New York Times poll indicated that it would be easier to elect an African American male than an atheist of any extraction.
The election of Barack Obama seemed to signal a potential shift in this Christian fundamentalist flat earth regime. Yet although Obama has lifted the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, his “new” spin on the faith-based initiative swindle is yet another egregious concession to faith-based bigotry. Obama of course, rode into office courting evangelicals, infamously appointing noted homophobe Rick Warren to give his inaugural convocation.
Ever the political triangulator, Obama shrewdly reached out to fundamentalist America in an attempt to improve the abysmal showing of Democrats among Christian fundamentalists in 2000 and 2004. Obama has apparently recanted one of his campaign pledges to rescind the most objectionable feature of Bush’s faith-based policy—the provision that religious organizations can actively discriminate in hiring those who don’t subscribe or conform to their faith. His capitulation to the most noxious elements of the religious right has elicited widespread criticism from secular-progressive factions of the coalition that elected him.
Secular activists have long tried to reclaim public discourse from the Christian lobby and challenge federal entitlements to so-called mega-churches that have become cottage industries for products, marketing, cushy jobs and other perks to well-connected donors and congregants. In contemporary politics, the influence of religious special interests on public policy and national discourse has its roots in the Reagan-Bush administration’s calculated overtures to far right propagandists such as the Moral Majority, the anti-abortion terrorist organization Operation Rescue and Ralph Reed’s Christian Coalition.
Consequently, the notion that faith-based organizations—primarily those that are Christian and Jewish, as it is doubtful that Buddhist and Hindu denominations, or even Wiccan and Santeria faith-based organizations for that matter, are dining so gluttonously at the public trough—should drive public policy on social welfare and be entitled to tons of federal funding was one of the Bush administration’s signature policy issues and calling cards to the religious right. Now Obama has signaled that he is willing to further undermine the separation of church and state and give religious organizations a free pass to outlaw gays, non-believers and other heretics from their employment.
In the same vein, the Orange County Board of Supervisors’ recent rejection of Planned Parenthood’s contract to provide services for health education is indicative of yet another dangerous incursion of religious dogma into public policy. After giving Planned Parenthood the boot, the O.C. Supervisors voted instead to award the contract to a faith-based family services outfit that counsels pregnant women not to have abortions. Rising teen pregnancy rates, HIV/AIDS and STD contraction rates and sexual assault rates illustrate the critical need for secular health services for an Orange County population that is now predominantly Latino and Asian.
The denial of the Planned Parenthood contract comes on the heels of a national poll from the Program of Public Values which concluded that more Americans are moving away from organized religion in general and Christianity in particular. If this welcome trend continues it may precipitate an urgently needed backlash against the flat earth regime; which has put a Medieval stranglehold on democracy, twenty first century innovation and public health and wellness long enough.
Sikivu Hutchinson is a commentator for KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles, and is the editor of BlackFemLens.org, an online a journal of progressive commentary and literature.
It began on May 23, 1996. A searing pain shot through my right hip as I stepped into a car. The pain spread into the other hip and my knees by nightfall.
The day before I had completed a year of intensive study by taking (and passing) comprehensive exams, a critical point in my path toward earning my Ph.D. I was jubilant and exhausted. Normally, I might have shrugged off a little discomfort after a tiring semester, but this was different, deeper and more intense than anything I had felt before.
By August, right before I was to begin law school, I was diagnosed with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) or just lupus.
My diagnosis came so quickly due to the persistence of my mother with the doctors at my HMO (she insisted that they keep seeing me until I had an answer), my family history of the disease, and the fact that I presented with so many of the symptoms so quickly. I had the arthritis, fatigue, skin rashes, mouth sores, high positive ANA test, pleurisy, hair loss, and photo-sensitivity.
The diagnosis was a relief and also terrifying. I had watched a brave aunt struggle with the disease for many years. Through her example, I knew it was possible to accomplish much with SLE, but I was unsure whether I had the strength to do what she had done.
And also, lingering in the back of my mind, appearing mostly in my nightmares, was the story of my great aunt who had died from the disease prior to the use of life-saving steroids. It is an illness that is very treatable, but nevertheless holds real dangers.
Anyone who has lupus will tell you that it can also be a depressing diagnosis and condition. Both the disease and the treatments can make you feel crummy, look different, behave differently, fall into despair.
I have both gained 30 pounds in a couple of months and withered down to frailty, my afro-textured hair has turned straight, or fallen out. I have, at times, been barely able to speak because of the large ulcers in my mouth.
I spent most of my first year of law school in bed, barely able to move and devastated when not a single “friend” in my section would share his or her class notes with me.
But I made some critical decisions early in my diagnosis. I decided I was going to learn everything I could about my disease from books and articles. I decided I was never going to assume that any rheumatologist knew my body better than I did. And finally, I was going to always listen carefully to those who had something to teach me about the disease -- either because they’d had it, or they knew about it. Not all the input I got was useful. But some was golden.
An elderly woman with SLE told me “The best way to live a long life is to get a chronic disease and take care of yourself.” I have lived by that piece of advice ever since. What I took from what she said was that an autoimmune disease is a constant reminder. Every time you fall off the wagon of ample sleep, good nutrition and stress management your body will give you a signal to get back on track and you’d better heed it.
Within six months of my diagnosis I began acupuncture and vitamin infusions. At various points in the past 13 years I have also used massage, craniosacral therapy, yoga, dietary supplements, Chinese medicine, thoughtful nutrition (using a modified version of the Okinawa diet), and meditation as ways to treat my illness. I would never replace conventional medicine. It is absolutely necessary to go to a physician on a regular basis when you have been diagnosed with lupus. But I will always credit complementary health care for allowing me to maintain a high quality of life with Lupus. It has kept my body as strong as possible in order to fight the disease, and it eases symptoms phenomenally.
About 10 months ago, my doctor, who blends conventional and holistic medicine, had me do IgG food hyper-sensitivity testing. After eliminating foods to which the tests shows I had hypersensitivity to, I have seen at least a 75-80% reduction in arthritic pain.
But it is not just health care practitioners and eating habits that have allowed me to live well with Lupus. It has also been a product of understanding and working on the relationships in my life. Lupus is one of those diseases that can breed insensitivity very easily. Often a person with SLE does not “look” sick, and therefore people around him or her will expect that they have no impediments. On the other hand, some people will assume that you are incapable of living a normal life. You can often live a normal life with SLE, with some modifications. But you have to remember not to try to meet the expectations of those who assume you are able join in any and all activities as long as you are not flaring, nor can you allow anyone to put you into a little “sick box.”
I continue to learn my limit. But by now I know that I sometimes have to disappoint my friends and family.
I cannot talk on the phone at all hours of the night because I have to rise early to care for my kids. I cannot jet set across the country non-stop because the air pressure changes on airplanes usually leave me with a day or two of arthritic pain. I can’t be around a lot of toxic people. Nastiness, mean-spiritedness and cattiness are not part of my healthy living plan. I was astonished by the number of people who said really mean things to me once they learned about my disease. But I consider myself fortunate to have learned their true colors.
I also had to make some very difficult decisions about curbing relationships with people who I genuinely like but who drain my spirit. And I haven’t yet fully recovered from the friends who decided not to be my friends anymore after I got sick, but I know it is for the better that they aren’t in my life.
It is hard to disappoint and be disappointed by others. But that is all part of life anyway, right?
It has been my great fortune to have parents, a spouse, extended family and friends who will listen and accept what I tell them about what I need and what my limits are. This is not easy for them, I know. It is painful to watch a loved one suffer and sometimes there is a tendency is to lash out at the very person who is suffering.
For those of you who have loved ones with SLE, I urge you to do whatever you can to restrain yourself from expressing anger, frustration and insensitivity towards that person and instead seek their assistance in figuring out how you can provide support to him or her. Also, you must find your own support network if you are caring for someone with SLE.
In the 13 years since I was diagnosed I completed a Ph.D. and a law degree.
I have pursued a successful career as a professor. I got married, had two beautiful sons, and am living in a vibrant and nurturing neighborhood in Philadelphia. This was possible because of my efforts and those of the people who have had to courage to continue loving me well through this disease.
Recently, a family friend who is a physician told me, “All disease is a metaphor.” When I think of SLE, it seems to be a metaphor for all of the things that all of us do in our lives to attack ourselves- we run ourselves ragged, we internalize others’ meanness, we put ourselves down, thinking we aren’t ever good enough. When SLE and the other autoimmune diseases allow for your immune system to attack your body, it can seem as though everything is stacked against you.
But I believe that those of us with SLE bear a special gift because we have the opportunity to devote ourselves to being models for undoing the self-attack by practicing self-care.
Not everyone with SLE is able to follow his or her dreams. It is an unpredictable disease. It is not enough to plan, you have to be flexible enough to change the plan when your body demands it.
On those days when I flare, and yes they come occasionally, I push back against the disease with hot cups of tea, lots of anti-inflammatory fruits and vegetables, long hot baths in lavender scented water and sleep. I do not feel perfect when I wake up, but I feel very good about who I am.
I am living well with lupus.
Imani Perry is a professor of law at the Rutgers School of Law-Camden, and is a regular contributor to Afro-Netizen on issues of race, gender, identity, popular culture and the law.
Afro-Netizen recommends visiting the following sites:
Ad Council press release on lupus: http://www.adcouncil.org/newsDetail.aspx?id=265
http://www.adcouncil.org/newsDetail.aspx?id=265 Ad Council commercials on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=adcouncil&view=videos&query=lupus
"Boxing has fallen into disfavor. . . The reason is clear: Jack Johnson . . . has
out-sparred an Irishman. He did it with little brutality, the utmost fairness
and great good nature. He did not "knock" his opponent senseless. . . Neither he
nor his race invented prize fighting or particularly like it. Why then this
thrill of national disgust? Because Johnson is black. Of course some pretend to
object to Johnson's character. But we have yet to hear, in the case of White
America, that marital troubles have disqualified prize fighters or ball players
or even statesmen. It comes down, then, after all to this unforgivable
blackness."
--W.E.B. DuBois, The Crisis (1914)
By David Whettstone
For the Afro-Netizen Newswire
March 31st was John Arthur Johnson's birthday.
Jack Johnson, the first African American to become Heavyweight Champion of the World, was born in Galveston, Texas in 1878. He held his title from 1908 to 1915. His ascendancy put an indelible mark on the landscape of American history and sport. It came with the great price of persecution, adversity, and violence -- some of it federally sanctioned.
Some skeptics would not initially assume that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Peter King (R-NY) would be part of the cause to right the wrongs the barrier-breaking boxer endured. However, they have together (as in previous sessions of Congress since 2004) introduced a resolution calling for the posthumous presidential pardon of the racially motivated conviction of Johnson in 1913 under the Mann Act.
They are both motivated to repair national reputation and by their life-long love for boxing. Representative King still works out in the ring.
They join the call of Mr. Johnson's family (grandneice Dorothy Cross, great grandniece Linda Haywood, and others) and filmmaker Ken Burns, director of the PBS documentary, Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson for justice. Burns has in the past petition Congress for such a resolution.
At the April 1, 2009 press conference, Ms. Haywood said, "For years our family was deeply shamed." She continues, "He simply wanted to live his life."
(Photo credit: David Whettstone. Pictured from l to r: Linda Haywood, Ken Burns, Dorothy Cross, Johnson's grand niece, seated)
In its early American history, boxing was established as the exclusive domain of White men. Black men were considered unworthy of competition. They were not permitted to vie for the title. In 1903, Johnson had defeated "Denver" Ed Martin to win the "Colored Heavyweight Championship". He then secured his world crown in 1908 by defeating Tommy Burns in Sydney, Australia and capturing an unmatched purse of $30,000 for the 14-round fight. The previous heavyweight champion, Jim Jeffries, had retired rather than fight Johnson.
With Johnson's new reign, and shock to the psyche of most White U.S. men, came the counter-punch of deeply embedded racism. Calls went out from media -- especially from writer Jack London -- and many sectors of society for a "Great White Hope." Jeffries was eventually coaxed to engage Johnson in "The Fight of the Century" in Reno, Nevada on July 4, 1910.
Before a crowd of 12,000 mostly White men, Jeffries met defeat in 15 rounds of brutal physical punishment. Johnson won a hefty record-breaking sum of $101,000. Race riots ensued, and numerous African Americans met with harm and death. And Congress acted.
It banned the interstate distribution of fight films which would not be lifted until 1940. "The Fight of the Century" became part of the National Film Registry in 2005.
Johnson's romantic engagement of White women and subsequent controversial marriages met with the consternation and alarm of many.
Earlier in June 1910, President Taft had signed into law the White Slave Traffic Act, also known as the Mann Act. The legislation was a result of the wave of social concern and hysteria. It prohibited the
interstate transportation of women "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose." The U.S. Department of Justice soon sought to apply the law to Johnson though no viable case was developed until 1912. By 1913 a conviction was gained.
Also in 1912, Georgia Congressman Seaborn A. Roddenberry introduced a constitutional amendment that would ban marriage
between whites and "any and all persons of African descent or having any trace
of African blood." The bill failed.
After being sentenced, Johnson fled the country, but voluntarily returned in 1920 to serve a year in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.
Forces of the established order were clearly against him. However, he continued to have an active life: he received a patent for an invention while incarcerated; established a nightclub in Chicago and sold another in Harlem which evolved into The Cotton Club; raced cars; and continued fighting into the 1930s. He met with a tragic auto accident near Raleigh, North Carolina in 1946.
Representative Peter King believes a pardon of Jack Johnson is long overdue and is part of fully restoring his reputation. "Despite the accusations, he became a heavyweight legend who inspired and paved the way for future African American athletes." He rightly understands the champion as a trailblazer.
"The resolution to pardon Jack Johnson would not right this
injustice, but would recognize it, and shed light on the achievements
of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice,
" said Sen. McCain. "Taking such actions would allow future
generations to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished against great
odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the
taint of his criminal conviction."
The senator believes that President Obama has the greatest
respect and admiration for Jack Johnson and plans to talk to him. He was fully confident that the President would sign the resolution into law.
When he released his documentary, Ken Burns said:
"Johnson in many ways is an embodiment of the African-American
struggle to be truly free in this country — economically, socially and
politically. He absolutely refused to play by the rules set by the
white establishment, or even those of the black community. In that
sense, he fought for freedom not just as a black man, but as an
individual."
Often Johnson has been quoted as stating he simply wanted to be respected as a man.
The embrace of Mr. Johnson in the heart and minds of many African Americans -- whether athlete or not -- is already well established. Undoubtedly, he foreshadowed Muhammad Ali. Both he and Joe Frazier have talked and agreed that Johnson was one of the greatest of all time. For folks like them, oppression and injustice have not marred Johnson's reputation. His representation and legacy are nothing short of iconic -- a mystical conveyance of unrelenting determination, unremitting power, and triumphant agency.
"He made us very proud," said Linda Haywood. "Out of all the people on the face of the earth, God gave him to us, our family."
David M. Whettstone is a Washington, DC-based public policy advocate and
writer, who works on national and local issues (including civil rights and
criminal justice) and with religious and community-based organizations.
For several months, the media has been pushing the fairy tale that the United States moved beyond racism with the election of President Obama. As untrue as that is, there are people who started acting on their post-racial fantasies years ago, eight years in fact, as the Bush Administration used that excuse to essentially stop enforcing the civil rights laws we already have. President Obama and his administration have the opportunity to take dramatic steps towards dismantling institutional racism and inequality by simply enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Rather than blindness or silence, taking this action requires us to live in reality so that we can change that reality.
On November 5th, 2008, we woke up in a nation where people of color are nearly twice as likely as Whites to live near toxic waste dumps. We woke up in a nation where healthcare inequities mean that a Black child is more than twice as likely as a White child to die before age one. We woke up in a nation where Black and Latino students are more than 20 percent less likely to graduate from school than their White classmates and more than twice as likely to be arrested when they are at school. All of these disparities exist with government support or permission.
Despite these glaring inequalities, for the past eight years the federal government did nothing, living in the comfort of the post-racial fairytale. Thus, our government largely pursued a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach to structural racism and injustice. The Supreme Court has refused to “hear” the evil of discrimination through decades of narrowing discrimination protections and taking away citizens’ rights to bring their complaints to the ears of the courts. In complicity with the Court, the Bush Administration willfully refused to “see” the discrimination around the country. Although the executive branch has broad power to intervene against structural racism and injustice, it turned a blind eye and stood idly as though nothing were wrong.
There is hope, however. As the Obama Administration opens its eyes and ears, we have a chance to reverse some of these terrible trends by enforcing laws we already have on the books. Let’s start with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which authorizes federal agencies to prevent discrimination by recipients of federal funding. That discrimination can be proven either by pointing to bad intentions or by revealing disparate outcomes.
This potent statute laid dormant for eight long years during which the Environmental Protection Agency could have stopped the disproportionate placement of toxic waste dumps in communities of color or construction of major highways through these communities. The Department of Education could have ended the school-to-prison pipeline that disproportionately affects children of color through racially discriminatory school discipline policies or discredited the academic tracking that puts youth of color on the road to dropping out rather than to college. The Department of Health and Human Services could have done its part to end health disparities by halting the closure of hospitals that serve communities of color. The list could go on for pages.
We didn’t achieve this new direction in the last decade for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court stripped citizens of the right to enforce this law, leaving it to the federal government to do the job. In turn, the Bush Administration shirked the federal government’s obligation to weed out such discrimination. Thus, significant structural racism did not stand a chance of being eradicated. President Obama has a chance to restore public faith in the government, and he can take no stronger step in that direction than by eliminating racial inequities and barriers to opportunity through enforcement of existing civil rights laws and regulations.
Simply enforcing the law will no more end racism than the election did. However, it can put us on a path toward eliminating structures that perpetuate mass inequities that contradict America’s promise. Just as Title VI would have prohibited funding of racially segregated schools and public swimming pools with our tax dollars decades ago, it should be used to weed out today’s federally-funded injustices. In 1970, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote that the enforcement of “Title VI had failed to match the law’s promise.” The time has come to write a new script. President Obama can initiate another chapter of history by vigorously enforcing Title VI and ensuring that government is no longer part of the disease but rather part of the cure. We have come too far to stop our progress toward equality for all.
Judith Browne-Dianis is Co-Director of Advancement Project, a policy, communications and legal action group founded by a team of veteran civil rights lawyers in 1998 that is committed to racial
justice.
Many rumors have persisted in recent weeks about Afro-Netizen's ownership and plans for the future.
In an effort to end such speculation, it is with great delight that we announce that of March 31, 2009, Afro-Netizen LLC has been acquired by the U.S. firm KBR for $47.3 million.
KBR is a Houston-based enterprise that was formed as the product of a merger between Brown & Root and the M.W. Kellogg Company, both beacons of American enterprise and staunch supporters of diversity, workers' rights and environmental stewardship.
While Afro-Netizen acknowledges KBR's former ties to Halliburton, its formal separation from this company in the spring of 2007 unequivocally disaggregates its future operations and corporate agenda from its past business affiliations.
In recognizing what for some may appear to be an incongruous alliance, KBR has generously offered to remit 0.10% of after-tax proceeds of select Afro-Netizen-related revenue streams (after 2013) to the KBR Foundation on whose board Afro-Netizen founder and former owner, Chris Rabb, will serve as its first African American director.
Afro-Netizen is honored to be KBR's newest asset under the purview of the firm's Community Relations division, and genuinely believes this move is in the best interests of the Afro-Netizen community.
With KBR's corporate leadership, institutional wisdom, long private sector experience and vast resources will be soundly applied to Afro-Netizen's advancement as a leading Black new media enterprise. With this historic acquisition, we believe our mission to inform, inspire and engage afro-netizens will be unmatched by any other competitor and will put us on a path to maximizing shareholder value, and, as a consequence, furthering social justice itself.
For more details on this historic deal, please click here.
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — John Hope Franklin, a towering scholar and
pioneer of African-American studies who wrote the seminal text on the
black experience in the U.S. and worked on the landmark Supreme Court
case that outlawed public school segregation, died Wednesday. He was 94.
David
Jarmul, a spokesman at Duke University, where Franklin taught for a
decade and was professor emeritus of history, said he died of
congestive heart failure at the school's hospital in Durham.
Born
and raised in an all-black community in Oklahoma where he was often
subjected to humiliating racism, Franklin was later instrumental in
bringing down the legal and historical validations of such a world.
As
an author, his book "From Slavery to Freedom" was a landmark
integration of black history into American history that remains
relevant more than 60 years after being published. As a scholar, his
research helped Thurgood Marshall and his team at the NAACP win Brown
v. Board of Education, the 1954 case that barred the doctrine of
"separate but equal" in the nation's public schools.
"It was
evident how much the lawyers appreciated what the historians could
offer," Franklin later wrote. "For me, and I suspect the same was true
for the others, it was exhilarating."
Franklin himself broke
numerous color barriers. He was the first black department chair at a
predominantly white institution, Brooklyn College; the first black
professor to hold an endowed chair at Duke; and the first black
president of the American Historical Association.
He often
regarded his country like an exasperated relative, frustrated by
racism's stubborn power, yet refusing to give up. "I want to be out
there on the firing line, helping, directing or doing something to try
to make this a better world, a better place to live," Franklin told The
Associated Press in 2005.
In November, after Barack Obama broke
the ultimate racial barrier in American politics, Franklin called his
ascension to the White House "one of the most historic moments, if not
the most historic moment, in the history of this country."
"Because
of the life John Hope Franklin lived, the public service he rendered,
and the scholarship that was the mark of his distinguished career, we
all have a richer understanding of who we are as Americans and our
journey as a people," Obama said in a statement. "Dr. Franklin will be
deeply missed, but his legacy is one that will surely endure."
Obama's
achievement fit with Franklin's mission as a historian, to document how
blacks lived and served alongside whites from the nation's birth. Black
patriots fought at Lexington and Concord, Franklin pointed out in "From
Slavery to Freedom," published in 1947. They crossed the Delaware with
Washington and explored with Lewis and Clark.
The book sold more
than 3.5 million copies and remains required reading in college
classrooms. It was based on research Franklin conducted in libraries
and archives that didn't allow him to eat lunch or use the bathroom
because he was black.
"He was working in a profession that more
or less banned him at the outset and ended up its leading
practitioner," said Tim Tyson, a history professor at Duke. "And yet,
he always managed to keep his grace and his sense of humor."
Late
in life, Franklin received more than 130 honorary degrees and the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Spingarn
Award. In 1993, President Bill Clinton honored Franklin with the
Charles Frankel Prize, recognizing scholarly contributions that give
"eloquence and meaning ... to our ideas, hopes and dreams as American
citizens."
Clinton awarded Franklin the Presidential Medal of
Freedom, the nation's highest civilian prize, two years later, and gave
him the role for which he was perhaps best known outside academia, as
chairman of Clinton's Initiative on Race. It was a job of which
Franklin said, "I am not sure this is an honor. It may be a burden."
"John
Hope Franklin was one of the most important American historians of the
20th century and one of the people I most admired," Clinton said in a
statement. "He graced our country with his life, his scholarship, and
his citizenship."
As he aged, Franklin spent more time in the
greenhouse behind his home, where he nursed orchids, than in libraries.
He fell in love with the flowers because "they're full of challenges,
mystery" — the same reasons he fell in love with history.
In
June, Franklin had a small role in the movie based on the book "Blood
Done Signed My Name," about the public slaying of black man in Oxford
in 1970. Tyson, the book's author, said at the time he wanted Franklin
in the movie "because of his dignity and his shining intelligence."
Franklin
attended historically black Fisk University, where he met Aurelia
Whittington, who would be his wife, editor, helpmate and rock for 58
years, until her death in 1999. He planned to follow his father into
law, but the lively lectures of a white professor, Ted Currier,
convinced him history was his field. Currier borrowed $500 to send
Franklin to Harvard University for graduate studies.
Franklin's
doctoral thesis was on free blacks in antebellum North Carolina. His
wife spent part of their honeymoon in Washington, D.C., at the Census
Bureau, helping him finish. The resulting work, "The Free Negro in
North Carolina, 1790-1860," earned Franklin his doctorate and, in 1943,
became his first published book. Four years later, he took a job at
Howard University. It was the same year "From Slavery to Freedom" was
published.
Some of his greatest moments of triumph were marred by bigotry.
His
joy at being offered the chair of the Brooklyn College history
department in 1956 was tempered by his difficulty getting a loan to buy
a house in a "white" neighborhood.
When he was to receive the
freedom medal, Franklin hosted a party for some friends at Washington's
Cosmos Club, of which he had long been a member. A white woman walked
up to him, handed him a slip of paper and demanded that he get her
coat. He politely told the woman that any of the uniformed attendants,
"and they were all in uniform," would be happy to assist her.
Franklin
was born Jan. 2, 1915, in the all-black town of Rentiesville, Okla.,
where his parents moved in the mistaken belief that separation from
whites would mean a better life for their young family. But his
father's law office was burned in the race riots in Tulsa, Okla., in
1921, along with the rest of the black section of town.
His
mother, Mollie, a teacher, began taking him to school with her when he
was 3. He could read and write by 5; by 6, he first became aware of the
"racial divide separating me from white America."
Franklin, his
mother and sister Anne were ejected from a train when his mother
refused the conductor's orders to move to the overcrowded "Negro"
coach. As they trudged through the woods back to Rentiesville, young
John Hope began to cry.
His mother pulled him aside and told him,
"There was not a white person on that train or anywhere else who was
any better than I was. She admonished me not to waste my energy by
fretting but to save it in order to prove that I was as good as any of
them."
The ax fell without sound or shadow: Tatiana Gallego was suddenly called into human resources and laid off from her job as an admissions counselor for a fashion college.
"The way people tried to explain it to me was, I was the last one hired so I was the first one out," said Gallego, 25, who had worked there for 17 months.
Last hired, first fired: This generations-old cliche rings bitterly true for millions of Latinos and blacks who are losing jobs at a faster rate than the general population during this punishing recession.
Much of the disparity is due to a concentration of Latinos and blacks in construction, blue-collar or service-industry jobs that have been decimated by the economic meltdown. And black unemployment has been about double the rate for whites since the government began tracking those categories in the early 1970s.
But this recession is cutting a swath through the professional classes as well, which can be devastating to people who recently arrived there.
Since the recession began in December 2007, Latino unemployment has risen 4.7 percentage points, to 10.9 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Black unemployment has risen 4.5 points, to 13.4 percent. White unemployment has risen 2.9 points, to 7.3 percent.
Gallego, whose parents were born in Colombia, graduated from the University of Rhode Island. Her mother is self-employed, and her stepfather works in construction.
She was stunned when she was told to pack up and leave by the end of the day because enrollment was down at her New York City school. She said she had recently received a positive performance review, and her bosses were planning to send her to a conference.
"Maybe I just don't know that much about the business world, because I felt like I did more, I went above and beyond more than other people in my office did," she said.
William Darity, a professor of economics and African-American studies at Duke University, said that "blacks and Latinos are relative latecomers to the professional world ... so they are necessarily the most vulnerable."
"We don't have those older roots to anchor us in the professional world," Darity said. "We don't have the same nexus of contacts, the same kind of seniority."
There are no recent government statistics that measure jobs lost by race and income. But Darity and others believe that professional Latinos and blacks are more likely to lose their jobs in the recession.
"Many times blacks and Latinos are the last to be hired, so naturally they are first to be fired," said Jerry Medley, who has been in the executive search business for 30 years.
"Not saying that it's racism," Medley said, "but if a manager or a senior executive is looking at a slate of individuals and has to let one of them go, chances are he or she will not let the person go that they spend a lot of time with at the country club or similar places."
The less wealth you have, the harder unemployment hits. Darity cited 2002 data that showed black households with a median net worth of $6,000, Latino households with a median of $8,000, and white households with a median of $90,000.
Philip Salter was creative director for a Chicago advertising firm where about 75 percent of the revenue came from a contract with a Fortune 500 company to create ads targeted at minorities. When the firm lost that contract plus two general-market accounts, Salter's job evaporated.
"When companies cut back their ad dollars, minority budgets are where they start," said Salter, 62, who is black. "Unfortunately in this business, most clients just view (minority advertising) as an overlay or meeting an obligation that social organizations might place on them."
His last day was in January 2008. With alimony payments and two kids in college, Salter moved from his four-bedroom house into an apartment and has scraped by on consulting gigs.
Salter's mother worked as a housekeeper, and his father was a custodian. Before his divorce, Salter's stepdaughter and her four children lived with him for many years.
Professional blacks "don't usually start out with an inheritance," he said. "On top of that, quite often things happen in our families to cause us stress. An unexpected child or grandchild, drug problems. When you try to set aside money to put your kids through college, all of a sudden you have to say, 'I can't let this family member fall and become homeless.'
To paraphrase Mark Twain, for the past decade, there
has been a lot of talk in Washington about broadband, but no one has
done much about it. That has now changed, as the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Communications Commission
will explain how the Obama administration intends to use the provisions
of the stimulus bill to ensure that broadband technologies are
available to, and affordable for, every American.
Although urban and suburban Americans generally have a choice of
broadband providers, millions of exurban and rural households —
possibly as many as 8 percent of American households — don’t have
access to affordable broadband. Equally troubling, millions of American
households have broadband networks passing right in front of their
doorsteps, but for reasons not entirely clear, have decided not to
subscribe.
Though private industry will always be the primary
investor in and builder of our nation’s broadband infrastructure, there
are important roles that government must play if every American is to
realize the benefits of broadband.
The stimulus bill reflects a
recognition that you can’t cure a condition until you have diagnosed
it. Appropriately, the administration and Congress provide funding for
“mapping” broadband networks across the United States. Within two
years, Americans will have a clear sense of where (and whether) the
market is effectively delivering broadband, but also where additional
government assistance to ensure broadband availability will be
necessary. Some states have undertaken mapping efforts on their own,
but currently there are no commonly accepted metrics for meaningful
comparison of broadband availability, adoption speeds or pricing. Thus,
there is no reliable way of measuring where our nation (or any
particular state) stands with regard to broadband: we simply don’t have
a meaningful or reliable grading system.
Virtually every analyst
agrees that rural Americans are the least likely to have available
access to broadband. Geography and economics conspire against
investment in broadband in America. It is simply not easy to recoup
broadband investment in states where cattle outnumber people and homes
are dispersed widely. Fiber optic and other broadband technologies are
expensive to deploy in these areas, and broadband wireless technologies
are just now becoming fully viable for deployment.
Just as this
nation brought electricity, telephones and Internet service to rural
America, we must make broadband networks ubiquitously available, as
well. Appropriately, the lion’s share of this funding will address
broadband in unserved areas through programs at the Departments of
Commerce and Agriculture. In addition, funding will be available for
improving broadband networks at libraries, community colleges,
community technology centers and other locations where low-income
families and the working poor are most likely to go for broadband
access. According to Morgan Stanley, the national residential broadband
penetration rate is currently about 56 percent of all households. For
those 40 million plus households who don’t have broadband at home, and
for those tens of millions of Americans without basic Internet access
who disproportionately are poor, recent immigrants, senior citizens or
other minorities, these community investments will make broadband more
available and more accessible.
The adoption issue will be more
difficult to solve. The problem is that even where broadband exists,
many Americans simply don’t or won’t subscribe. A recent study by the
Pew Internet & American Life Project suggests that many folks don’t
take broadband because of cost or because they don’t want it. We know,
for example, that Latinos and African Americans spend more than White
Americans for cellular, cable and satellite technologies and features.
Yet these same groups are less likely to be connected to broadband than
White or Asian Americans. Why? Is it cost? Is it value? Is it
availability? Is it a marketing failure? What are the best ways to
drive broadband adoption in these communities?
The culprit is more
likely that many non-subscribers don’t value broadband, because the
increased benefits to them and their families simply aren’t apparent.
Fundamentally, we need to more fully understand the value versus cost
equation. The stimulus package has significant funding to help shed
light on the adoption issue and to assist local governments and
organizations increase adoption of broadband, particularly among
underserved communities.
The Obama administration is taking the
right steps. They are beginning the task of identifying the gaps in
broadband coverage in the United States. In those areas where broadband
is not available, particularly in rural and exurban America, they are
putting people to work building broadband networks. They are bringing
community access points to libraries, community colleges and community
technology centers — to the neighborhoods of tens of millions of
Americans. And where broadband is available but adoption rates are low,
they are promoting adoption by finding community-specific solutions.
The broadband era in America began more than a decade ago. The
broadband era in Washington begins today.
As part of a deal announced last November, Magic Johnson is appearing in a marketing campaign throughout the 2009 tax season for Jackson Hewitt, the franchise tax preparer notorious for preying on low-income people.
Magic appears in television ads, radio spots on urban stations and billboards in communities of color endorsing the “Money Now Loan” —one of the largest sources of high-interest tax refund loans in the nation.
The ads, streamed on www.JacksonHewitt.com, feature Magic talking about how his teammates helped him to succeed, and how everyone needs a little help sometimes.
“It’s money like Magic,” is the commercial’s tagline.
Conveniently, the website also offers a 20 percent discount for customers who order Magic’s book, 32 Ways to be a Champion in Business.
The California Reinvestment Coalition began hearing about these ads earlier this year from our constituents. They’re hard to miss in urban neighborhoods and communities of color.
We wrote a letter to Magic Johnson Enterprises, expressing our concern and requesting that Magic withdraw these ads and his support from Jackson Hewitt’s tax refund loan. No response.
This week, we joined with the Woodstock Institute in Chicago, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project in New York and the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina to publicly call on Magic to stop promoting these loans and re-consider his partnership with Jackson Hewitt.
At this time of widespread economic crisis when many families are experiencing financial hardship, especially in low-income communities of color, Magic Johnson should not get in the business of tax refund loans. Magic’s developments have been positive for communities of color and low-income communities.
We admire him and hope he will stop this collaboration with predatory lenders.
Tax refund loans particularly target working poor families already being hurt by the economic crisis.
Two-thirds of refund borrowers are recipients of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), one of the few federal safety nets for the working poor.
Refund anticipation loans are secured by a taxpayer’s federal refund. Borrowers end up paying exorbitant interest (annual interest rates can range from 50% to nearly 500%) to receive what is billed as fast cash on their tax return.
Jackson Hewitt charges fees with an APR of either 134% or 140%.
“Refund anticipation loans are part of a spectrum of abusive, high-cost small loans that have plagued low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, draining hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth, too often through deceptive practices,” said Sarah Ludwig, co-director of Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project.
IRS data shows that 8.7 million taxpayers took out refund anticipation loans in 2007, costing them almost $1 billion in fees. Two-thirds of these borrowers are recipients of the EITC, which supplements the wages of low-income workers. An estimated 4.5 million people, including 2.4 million children, are lifted out of poverty as a result of EITC, making it the most effective government anti-poverty program. EITC recipients make up only 17% of all taxpayers, but are vastly overrepresented among tax refund borrowers.
Based on IRS data, consumer advocates estimate that about $523 million was drained from the EITC program by refund anticipation loan fees in 2007.
Jackson Hewitt, the second largest commercial preparation chain in the country, has been the target of several government lawsuits for its abusive practices.
In 2007, the California Attorney General won a $5 million settlement from the company for violating state and federal laws in marketing its tax refund loans to low-income customers. That same year, the Department of Justice sued five Jackson Hewitt franchises for preparing fraudulent tax returns that falsely claimed $70 million in refunds. When preparers inflate refunds, or if the IRS denies or delays the refund, the consumer still has to pay back the loan. On Feb. 20, Johnson announced another partnership with Rent-A-Center, another purveyor of high-cost lending whose rent-to-own stores can be found in low-income neighborhoods throughout the country.
“As a lifelong Laker and Magic Johnson fan, I am extremely concerned that Magic would endorse Jackson Hewitt and their Money Now Loan. These loans do exactly the opposite of what Magic has done and supported in minority communities—these loans bleed money out of these communities, they deprive families out of hard-earned income and they keep minorities out of the financial mainstream,” said Roberto Barragan, president of Valley Economic Development Center in Los Angeles, which also provides a free site for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA).
VITA sites have played a critical role in helping to process EITC refunds for low-income taxpayers so they can keep more of their hard-earned money. Tax filers with a total household income less than $38,000 can have their taxes prepared for free at these sites and then directly deposited into their bank accounts. The IRS can electronically deposit tax refunds into tax filers’ accounts in as little as five to 10 days for free.
Kimberly S. Jones is the Policy Advocate for California Reinvestment Coalition, a non-profit organization founded in 1992 to advocate for the right of low-income communities and communities of
color to have fair and equal access to banking and other financial
services.
Black homebuyers have been 3½ times more likely to receive a subprime loan than white borrowers, and six times more likely to get a subprime rate when refinancing, Tighe said. Blacks still were disproportionately steered into subprime loans when their credit scores, income and down payment were equal to those of white homebuyers, he said.
Melissa Murray, vice president of corporate communications for Wells Fargo & Co., called the lawsuit "totally unfounded and reckless." The bank is receiving federal bailout funds.
“We have never tolerated, and will never tolerate, discrimination in any way, shape or form in any of our business practices, products, or services," Murray said.
HSBC said it does not comment on litigation. "HSBC stands by its fair lending and consumer protection practices, and we are confident that we are treating our customers fairly and with integrity," said Neil Brazil, vice president for public affairs.
An NAACP member, Amara Weaver of Milwaukee, said she was one of the victims of predatory lending. She bought her first home in 1984, receiving a 6.25 percent fixed-rate mortgage. She says she had a steady job as a human resources director for a social services agency, never missed a mortgage payment and maintained excellent credit.
In 2004, she wanted to buy the house next door for her son to live in. She said the bank promised her a low fixed rate for a $40,000 loan, but at the closing, when reading the fine print, she noticed that the rate was actually 11 percent.
"I was blown away," said Weaver, an NAACP member. "I didn't have any choice (but to sign). ... It made me feel violated."
Similar NAACP lawsuits are pending against a dozen other subprime lenders.
"This is systematic, institutionalized racism," Tighe said. "Once you take out factors relative to income and credit risk, the only difference between the borrowers is the color of their skin."
Tighe estimated that "tens of thousands" of blacks had been forced into bad loans, but said it was difficult to gauge the scope of the problem because banks keep much of their internal data private. The lawsuits could force banks to divulge closely guarded information, such as how banks can determine the race of a loan applicant and how federal bailout funds are being spent.
The NAACP is seeking reforms from the banks such as increased transparency in the loan process, educational outreach and internal training.
In their landmark 1982 anthology on Black feminism, Gloria Hull, Barbara Smith and Patricia Bell Scott proclaimed that “all the women are white, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave.” Perhaps no pioneering activist more fervently embodied the spirit of this sentiment than Ida B. Wells. A giant of the independent black press and early media literacy educator, Wells’ leadership and uncompromising vision continue to reverberate for black women.
As we recognize International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month we can look to her life for lessons and inspiration; not only regarding her activism but on how she negotiated the double burden. In the era before daycare and leave time, Wells, like scores of other black women before her, was a caregiver navigating the divide between her domestic responsibilities and her life’s work as the greatest media watchdog of her time.
Accused of not knowing her place because she challenged the vacuum in male leadership around lynching, Wells struggled for recognition and compensation for her work. The constant juggling of her roles as writer, activist, orator and mother loomed large in both her public and private stance on women’s rights. Wells once boasted that she was perhaps the only nursing mother to travel nationwide to give political addresses. After the birth of her second child she announced that she was retiring from public activism to devote all her energies to motherhood, only to come blazing back onto the national stage three months later to protest the lynching of a Black postmaster and his family.
In her fearless defense of lynching victims and African Americans’ right to due process, Wells often bucked the backward conventional wisdom of the era. When she began her campaign against lynching in the late 19th century there wasn’t consensus among African Americans that lynching was worthy of a national social justice movement, nor was there agreement about the terroristic sexual politics that motivated white lynch mobs. Wells was perhaps the first journalist to speak out on the racist and sexist implications of lynching. In her editorials she consistently blasted the hypocrisy of white savagery against Black men accused of raping white women and exposed the long history of Black female sexual exploitation by white men.
Catapulted into twenty-first century America, Wells might not be surprised at the power that this legacy has had on contemporary media images of Black femininity. She might not be surprised that reconciling Black liberation struggle with feminism is still dicey. As an outspoken suffragist and defender of the Black female image she would have choice words for the young woman who told me recently that it’s okay when she’s addressed as a bitch or a ho because “I know I’m not one.” As a Chicago organizer ever skeptical of Black politicians, she might have initially celebrated the election of Barack Obama then used her bully pulpit to separate the rhetoric of post-racial inclusion from the reality of racial apartheid. And as an early critic of Western gunboat diplomacy she would have seen a clear connection between the U.S. government’s interventionist policies and its imperial relationship with over-incarcerated Black communities.
Despite her challenges to the American criminal justice system, her long record of publication at home and abroad, and her influence on Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. DuBois (both of whom were ambivalent if not threatened by her single-mindedness), Wells’ legacy remains undervalued. Eclipsed by the cult of charismatic masculinity that privileged the contributions of male leaders like Douglas and DuBois, her relative obscurity parallels her conflicts with a Black political establishment that deemed her too radical for her gender. Remarking that “the people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press,” Wells remains a beacon of justice and a testament to the radical power of Black feminist media literacy.
Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Address to Joint Session of Congress
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009
Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the First Lady of the United States:
I’ve come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and
women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the
men and women who sent us here.
I know that for many Americans watching right now, the state of our
economy is a concern that rises above all others. And rightly so. If
you haven’t been personally affected by this recession, you probably
know someone who has – a friend; a neighbor; a member of your family.
You don’t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our
economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It’s the worry
you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It’s the job you
thought you’d retire from but now have lost; the business you built
your dreams upon that’s now hanging by a thread; the college acceptance
letter your child had to put back in the envelope. The impact of this
recession is real, and it is everywhere.
But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken;
though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I
want every American to know this:
We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.
The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this
nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They
exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our
factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of
the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made
America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history
we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this
country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and
take responsibility for our future once more.
Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long,
we have not always met these responsibilities – as a government or as a
people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it
is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be
able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.
The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor
did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the
stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends
on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than
ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our
savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will
compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do
not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved,
we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as
individuals and through our government, than ever before.
In other words, we have lived through an era where too often,
short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed
to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next
election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy
instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were
gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy
market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks
and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while,
critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other
time on some other day.
Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.
Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this
economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is
the time to jump-start job creation, re-start lending, and invest in
areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our
economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That
is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like
to talk to you about tonight.
It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.
As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a
recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and
put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government
– I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve
inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so
would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a
failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring
weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action.
And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to
say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.
Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million
jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs
rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar
panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.
Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs
and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring
for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the
streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs
their department was about to make.
Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will
receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks
beginning on April 1st.
Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition
costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college.
And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able
to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care
coverage to help them weather this storm.
I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are
skeptical of whether this plan will work. I understand that
skepticism. Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good
intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And
with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.
That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough,
unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe. I
have told each member of my Cabinet as well as mayors and governors
across the country that they will be held accountable by me and the
American people for every dollar they spend. I have appointed a proven
and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of
waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called Recovery.gov
so that every American can find out how and where their money is being
spent.
So the recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our
economy back on track. But it is just the first step. Because even if
we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless
we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial
system.
I want to speak plainly and candidly about this issue tonight,
because every American should know that it directly affects you and
your family’s well-being. You should also know that the money you’ve
deposited in banks across the country is safe; your insurance is
secure; and you can rely on the continued operation of our financial
system. That is not the source of concern.
The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins.
You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The
ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything
from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their
shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.
But credit has stopped flowing the way it should. Too many bad
loans from the housing crisis have made their way onto the books of too
many banks. With so much debt and so little confidence, these banks
are now fearful of lending out any more money to households, to
businesses, or to each other. When there is no lending, families can’t
afford to buy homes or cars. So businesses are forced to make
layoffs. Our economy suffers even more, and credit dries up even
further.
That is why this administration is moving swiftly and aggressively
to break this destructive cycle, restore confidence, and re-start
lending.
We will do so in several ways. First, we are creating a new lending
fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto
loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and
entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.
Second, we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible
families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments
and re-finance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help
speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he
could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who
are struggling with declining home values – Americans who will now be
able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has
already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who
re-finances today can save nearly $2,000 per year on their mortgage.
Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to
ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough
confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And
when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold
accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide
the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity
of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our
economy.
I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more
comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings
attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless
decisions. But such an approach won’t solve the problem. And our goal
is to quicken the day when we re-start lending to the American people
and American business and end this crisis once and for all.
I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance
they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how
taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer.
This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their
paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those
days are over.
Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal
government – and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside. But
while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost
of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that
sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That
would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and
worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.
I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress
to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans
alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed.
So were the American taxpayers. So was I.
So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now,
especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad
decisions. I promise you – I get it.
But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern
out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job – our job
– is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of
responsibility. I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of
rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it
takes to help the small business that can’t pay its workers or the
family that has saved and still can’t get a mortgage.
That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks – it’s
about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that
young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will
hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to
spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally buy that
car, or open their own business. Investors will return to the market,
and American families will see their retirement secured once more.
Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will
recover.
So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves
necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended
recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens
again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally
reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place
tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market
rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse.
The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate
steps we’re taking to revive our economy in the short-term. But the
only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the
long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a
renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world. The only way
this century will be another American century is if we confront at last
the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care;
the schools that aren’t preparing our children and the mountain of debt
they stand to inherit. That is our responsibility.
In the next few days, I will submit a budget to Congress. So often,
we have come to view these documents as simply numbers on a page or
laundry lists of programs. I see this document differently. I see it
as a vision for America – as a blueprint for our future.
My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every
issue. It reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited – a
trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession.
Given these realities, everyone in this chamber – Democrats and
Republicans – will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which
there are no dollars. And that includes me.
But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term
challenges. I reject the view that says our problems will simply take
care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the
foundation for our common prosperity.
For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at
every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has
responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war,
we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce
and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a
system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new
age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation
to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a
twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American
on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our
world.
In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it
catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands
of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.
We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed
opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again. That is
why, even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I
submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to
our economic future: energy, health care, and education.
It begins with energy.
We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable
energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has
launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy
efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind
countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids
roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in
Korea.
Well, I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of
tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either.
It is time for America to lead again.
Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of
renewable energy in the next three years. We have also made the
largest investment in basic research funding in American history – an
investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but
breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology.
We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can
carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will
put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so
that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills.
But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save
our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately
make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask
this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on
carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in
America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen
billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and
solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient
cars and trucks built right here in America.
As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad
decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to
the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own
bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled,
re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs
depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the
nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.
None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this
is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move
this country forward.
For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.
This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty
seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans
to lose their homes. In the last eight years, premiums have grown four
times faster than wages. And in each of these years, one million more
Americans have lost their health insurance. It is one of the major
reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship
jobs overseas. And it’s one of the largest and fastest-growing parts
of our budget.
Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold.
Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care
reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade. When
it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect
health insurance for eleven million American children whose parents
work full-time. Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health
records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs,
ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer
a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking
a cure for cancer in our time. And it makes the largest investment
ever in preventive care, because that is one of the best ways to keep
our people healthy and our costs under control.
This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic
commitment to comprehensive health care reform – a down-payment on the
principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every
American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in
our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we
hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.
Now, there will be many different opinions and ideas about how to
achieve reform, and that is why I’m bringing together businesses and
workers, doctors and health care providers, Democrats and Republicans
to begin work on this issue next week.
I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be
hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt
first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down
our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there
be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it
will not wait another year.
The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America.
In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is
your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to
opportunity – it is a pre-requisite.
Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require
more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our
citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high
school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the
students who begin college never finish.
This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the
countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That
is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every
child has access to a complete and competitive education – from the day
they are born to the day they begin a career.
Already, we have made an historic investment in education through
the economic recovery plan. We have dramatically expanded early
childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because
we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of
life. We have made college affordable for nearly seven million more
students. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent
painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children’s
progress.
But we know that our schools don’t just need more resources. They
need more reform. That is why this budget creates new incentives for
teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for
success. We’ll invest in innovative programs that are already helping
schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will
expand our commitment to charter schools.
It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this
system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to
participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to
at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This
can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or
an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American
will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of
high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on
yourself, it’s quitting on your country – and this country needs and
values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the
support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by
2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college
graduates in the world.
I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why
if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to
your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can
afford a higher education. And to encourage a renewed spirit of
national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress
to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Senator
Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he
can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy.
These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our
children. But it is up to us to ensure they walk through them. In the
end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or
father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with
homework after dinner, or turn off the TV, put away the video games,
and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a President, but
as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education
must begin at home.
There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our
children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass
on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the
cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet,
it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy
recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down.
I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I
want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend
reflects only our most important national priorities.
Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit
in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has
also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to
eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this
is a process that will take some time. But we’re starting with the
biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in
savings over the next decade.
In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and
end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them.
We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq,
and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era
weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud, and
abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any
healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our
tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship
our jobs overseas.
In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also
end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me
perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that
rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the
American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you
will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one
single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut – that’s
right, a tax cut – for 95% of working families. And these checks are
on the way.
To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the
growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health
care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come.
And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social
Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all
Americans.
Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am
committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our
budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for
spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first
time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide
its price.
We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will
soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and
responsibly ends this war.
And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and
comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda
and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot
against the American people from safe havens half a world away.
As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch
abroad and more are readying to deploy. To each and every one of them,
and to the families who bear the quiet burden of their absence,
Americans are united in sending one message: we honor your service, we
are inspired by your sacrifice, and you have our unyielding support.
To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of
our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who
serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded
health care and benefits that they have earned.
To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the
values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more
powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the
closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift
and certain justice for captured terrorists – because living our values
doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.
And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or
equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.
In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of
engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats
of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.
We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces
that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the
sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.
To seek progress toward a secure and lasting peace between Israel
and her neighbors, we have appointed an envoy to sustain our effort.
To meet the challenges of the 21st century – from terrorism to nuclear
proliferation; from pandemic disease to cyber threats to crushing
poverty – we will strengthen old alliances, forge new ones, and use all
elements of our national power.
And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are
working with the nations of the G-20 to restore confidence in our
financial system, avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism,
and spur demand for American goods in markets across the globe. For
the world depends on us to have a strong economy, just as our economy
depends on the strength of the world’s.
As we stand at this crossroads of history, the eyes of all people in
all nations are once again upon us – watching to see what we do with
this moment; waiting for us to lead.
Those of us gathered here tonight have been called to govern in
extraordinary times. It is a tremendous burden, but also a great
privilege – one that has been entrusted to few generations of
Americans. For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for
good or for ill.
I know that it is easy to lose sight of this truth – to become
cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial.
But in my life, I have also learned that hope is found in unlikely
places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power
or celebrity, but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are
anything but ordinary.
I think about Leonard Abess, the bank president from Miami who
reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and
gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who
used to work for him. He didn’t tell anyone, but when the local
newspaper found out, he simply said, ''I knew some of these people
since I was 7 years old. I didn't feel right getting the money myself."
I think about Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely
destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a
global example of how clean energy can power an entire community – how
it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and
rubble once lay. "The tragedy was terrible," said one of the men who
helped them rebuild. "But the folks here know that it also provided an
incredible opportunity."
And I think about Ty’Sheoma Bethea, the young girl from that school
I visited in Dillon, South Carolina – a place where the ceilings leak,
the paint peels off the walls, and they have to stop teaching six times
a day because the train barrels by their classroom. She has been told
that her school is hopeless, but the other day after class she went to
the public library and typed up a letter to the people sitting in this
room. She even asked her principal for the money to buy a stamp. The
letter asks us for help, and says, "We are just students trying to
become lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day
president, so we can make a change to not just the state of South
Carolina but also the world. We are not quitters."
We are not quitters.
These words and these stories tell us something about the spirit of
the people who sent us here. They tell us that even in the most trying
times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a
resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a
willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity.
Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our
cause. And we must show them and all our people that we are equal to
the task before us.
I know that we haven’t agreed on every issue thus far, and there are
surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know
that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and
wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate
we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates
are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect
us to build common ground.
And if we do – if we come together and lift this nation from the
depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart
the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the
challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America
that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell
their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words
that are carved into this very chamber, "something worthy to be
remembered." Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United
States of America.
