Home Blog Page 247

If Discrimination Had a Yearbook, SCOTUS Would Win ‘Most Likely to Succeed’

We live in interesting times. Not necessarily good times, but definitely interesting ones.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in universities, and for my home state of Texas, that is not good at all. The court’s ruling will change admissions practices nationwide, and at Texas’ only large public university that considers race —  the University of Texas at Austin.

What’s most interesting to me is how this came about and how the same old tactics of grievance over facts were used to great effect. It’s actually despicable how the court is now a political arm and plays the partisan politics game so shamelessly.

Especially seeing as how Clarence Thomas, the only Black male member —  who is also seemingly on the payroll of Harlan Crow —  owes his career to affirmative action.

It’s actually despicable how the court is now a political arm and plays the partisan politics game so shamelessly.

It’s not surprising, however, that John Roberts, the conservative judge that won’t comment on the scandals within the court (all of which are right-leaning) — has in the past previewed this moment with his opinions on, let’s say, the Voting Rights Act. Roberts seems to have some unsubstantiated faith in the white majority to do the right thing. It’s laughable and sad at the same damn time.

So for my state, Texas — which is known for denying slavery happened, denying immigration to asylum seekers, not believing in climate change while we all burn up in the now Sahara Desert-level heat, stripping women of autonomy, supporting weapons of war, and honestly too much to name — this is just another failure and regression of progress for the state and its citizens.

Before the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, UT Austin had a 10% rule, which made it automatic that graduating high school seniors in the top 10% of their class could attend the school. Now, I have no hope that that rule will be in effect for too much longer.

This rule was the “safeguard” against historic exclusionary practices — practices that had been somewhat eroded due to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Now, since any mini Karen with a social media account can claim discrimination and get national news coverage, and apparently support from the Supreme Court, this doesn’t bode well for the future of Black students.

Since any mini Karen with a social media account can claim discrimination and get national news coverage, and apparently support from the Supreme Court, this doesn’t bode well for the future of Black students.

I am not a betting man, but I would bet good money that next on the chopping block is the 10% rule. I’m sure some upper middle class white family will claim that, somehow, their average child is being discriminated against, and it will be out the window. With our corrupt political “leadership,” and I’m sure the backing of some Daughters of the Confederacy-esque group, they can and will push ending the 10% policy through the system as soon as possible — not to mention furthering the potential defunding of diverse campuses in the state.

The glaring issue to me is how this will affect where, or even if, students apply to college and how those colleges will accept them. We are not far removed from the days of Jim Crow. Its subtle influence over modern behavior and attitudes is still very present in Texas. Don’t believe me? Ask Houston how that school district is doing right now.

A crack in progress can bring back the deluge of discrimination that Texas has been so well known for. Not to mention the ripple effect this can potentially have on post-graduates’ ability to move into the workforce. Most, if not all, industries and fields of labor are just as in need of some regulation or standard to help maintain an equitable workplace and hiring practices.

We are not far removed from the days of Jim Crow. Its subtle influence over modern behavior and attitudes is still very present in Texas.

As we know, the type of name you have can lead to your resume being dismissed without cause. Derailing the diversity at this level would probably mean justification for continuing the practice.

I only hope that there is a silver lining here somewhere. Maybe HBCUs will have the resurgence that we’ve been hoping for. Maybe… but with the brazen efforts of right-wing extremists and Jim Crow nostalgia, our already underfunded HBCUs are under enormous pressure, and support on any level is stripped, as well.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but this ain’t good for anyone.


Bradley Beal Enters his 30s With the Suns, says He’s Ready to ‘Chase this Ring’

PHOENIX (AP) — Bradley Beal was drafted on his 19th birthday and spent his entire 20s with the Washington Wizards, where he scored a lot of points, enjoyed a little team success, but also suffered through plenty of painful losses.

On Wednesday, he turned 30. Not a bad time for a new chapter in the three-time All-Star's life and basketball career.

Beal was introduced as a member of the Phoenix Suns on Thursday at the Footprint Center, more than a week after he waived a no-trade clause that allowed him to be sent to the desert in exchange for Chris Paul, Landry Shamet and a package of future draft picks.

“I feel refreshed, I feel rejuvenated,” Beal said. “This is an exciting moment for me. This is an awesome team.”

Beal is now part of one of the NBA's most star-packed starting lineups, including 13-time All-Star Kevin Durant, three-time All-Star Devin Booker and former No. 1 draft pick Deandre Ayton. They've also got a new coach in Frank Vogel, who led the Los Angeles Lakers to a title in 2020.

“Bradley Beal is one of the best players in the NBA,” Vogel said. “We’re thrilled to have him be a Phoenix Sun with KD and Book. That forms a trio of three of the most prolific scorers in the game. A great two-way center, one of the best two-way centers in the game.

"These pieces are a great foundation for what we hope will be a championship run for this franchise.”

Beal's arrival marks the latest big move for new owner Mat Ishbia, who has had an extremely eventful tenure since purchasing the franchise from the embattled Robert Sarver in February. Almost immediately after he was introduced, he approved the team's big deal to land Durant at the trade deadline.

A few months later, he got into a brief sideline spat with Nuggets star Nikola Jokic during a playoff game. (The two have since made up.)

Now Ishbia and general manager James Jones have swung a deal that brings Beal and his big scoring numbers across the country. The three-time All-Star has averaged at least 20 points per game in each of the past seven seasons, including a career-high 31.3 points per game during the 2020-21 season.

Beal never got past the second round of the playoffs with the Wizards, but still has plenty of fond memories of his tenure in the nation's capital.

“I have a lot of emotional ties to that city, my family was established there,” Beal said. “So I just want to take a moment to thank the city of D.C., thank the organization for allowing this partnership to happen.”

But Beal also admits he's excited about his new challenge. The sharpshooting guard was often the Wizards' main scoring option, but in Phoenix, he'll be sharing the load with several other stars.

The Suns are trying to win their first championship since coming to the NBA in 1968. They've lost in the Finals three times — in 1976, 1993 and 2021.

“I'm excited to play with two Hall of Famers, I've never done that,” Beal said. “I'm excited what that brings. They'll push me in ways I've never been pushed and hopefully I'll do the same.”

Beal's arrival also means the Suns will have to engage in some salary cap gymnastics to fill out their roster. The foursome of Durant, Beal, Booker and Ayton will make more than $160 million next season.

A summer of bargain hunting on the free agent market awaits, but that's a problem to worry about another day.

For now, Beal and the Suns are relishing a roster that looks like it will be among the very best in the league during the upcoming season.

“Hopefully, we can chase this ring,” Beal said.


Affirmative Action is out in Higher Education. What Comes Next for College Admissions?

Colleges across the country will be forced to stop considering race in admissions under Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, ending affirmative action policies that date back decades.

Schools that have relied on race-conscious admissions policies to build diversity will have to rethink how they admit students. It's expected to result in campuses that have more white and Asian American students and fewer Black and Hispanic students.

The impact of the decision will be felt most strongly at the nation’s most selective colleges, which have been more likely to consider race as one of many factors in admissions. But some less selective universities also consider race, and hundreds of colleges may need to adjust their admissions systems in response to the decision.

Colleges say they're still analyzing the decision, but it's sure to have a dramatic impact nationwide. Here's what we know so far.

WHEN WILL THE RULING TAKE EFFECT?

Today's incoming high school seniors will be the first to see any change. Many of them will be applying for college over the next year as colleges remove race from admissions decisions. The process probably won't look much different for students — maybe there will be another question or two about their life experiences — but behind the scenes, there could be big changes in the way colleges evaluate applications.

At Northeastern University, President Joseph E. Aoun said in a campus message the decision “will dramatically alter the use of race as a factor in college admissions.”

HOW MANY COLLEGES CONSIDER RACE?

No one knows for sure. Colleges aren’t required to disclose whether they consider race, and the federal government doesn’t track it. A survey of about 200 colleges in 2019 found that roughly four in 10 colleges said race had at least limited influence in admissions decisions. The practice is most common at highly selective institutions, while many less selective schools don’t consider race.

Nine states have separately banned affirmative action at private universities, including California, Michigan, Florida and Washington.

In states that already banned affirmative action, colleges responded by recruiting more low-income students, hoping that wealth would act as a proxy for race. Some colleges also started “percentage” plans that offer admission to top students at every high school in their state. Such approaches have had mixed results. But expect to see more colleges trying alternate approaches.

HOW ARE COLLEGES GOING TO CHANGE ADMISSIONS?

An alternate approach floated by some would put greater emphasis on students who overcome adversity. President Joe Biden endorsed that approach Thursday, saying adversity should be a “new standard” in college admissions, rewarding those who overcome challenges related to income, race or other factors.

The court's decision appears to allow such an approach. The conservative majority wrote that “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life," as long as it's tied to a particular quality the applicant brings to campus.

Applicants may see more colleges add questions about adversity or other life experiences. But the decision also warns about going too far, saying colleges can't simply use essays to revive “the regime we hold unlawful today.”

What's clear is that any direct consideration of race in admission decisions will have to end, meaning colleges will no longer be able to give an edge to underrepresented minorities simply because of their race.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR LEGACY ADMISSIONS?

With affirmative action off the table, colleges face mounting pressure to end other admission practices that disproportionately benefit white and wealthy students. Chief among those are legacy preferences, the practice of giving an admission boost to the children of alumni.

Within hours of the decision, activists and some Democrats in Congress were urging colleges to abandon the policy. Biden took a shot at it too, saying he's asking the Education Department to examine legacy preferences and other practices that “expand privilege instead of opportunity." A small but notable group of colleges have dropped the practice in recent years, including Johns Hopkins University and Amherst College, but it continues at many others, including Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

Activists are also taking aim at other policies seen as barriers for underrepresented students, including donor preferences and standardized tests like the SAT and ACT. Hundreds of colleges made entrance exams optional during the pandemic, and there's a growing push to make the change permanent.

WHAT ARE COLLEGES SAYING?

Colleges across the country said they're committed to campus diversity no matter what the court says. Campus leaders say they're still sorting how the decision will affect them, but many expressed optimism that they will legally find other ways to bring a diverse mix of students to campus.

In Texas, Rice University's president said he's “greatly disappointed” but also “more resolute than ever” to pursue diversity. “The law may change, but Rice’s commitment to diversity will not,” President Reginald DesRoches said. At Union College in New York, President David Harris said students of color will continue to feel welcome — “but make no mistake this Supreme Court decision will make our work more challenging,” he said.

Colleges are sending a welcoming message in hopes of avoiding the type of drop-off among Black and Hispanic students that have been seen in some states that outlawed affirmative action.

WHY WERE COLLEGES C
ONSIDERING RACE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

In several decisions dating to the 1970s, the Supreme Court had upheld affirmative action in college admissions. Past rulings found that colleges have a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity because of the benefits it provides. They say it exposes students to differing viewpoints and helps prepare future leaders, among other benefits. Colleges say race has been a small factor, sometimes giving an edge to underrepresented students. Opponents dispute that notion, citing research finding a boost for Black applicants equivalent to 310 points on the SAT exam.

Thursday's decision reversed course on the earlier decisions. The court found that while the benefits cited by universities are “commendable,” they don't pass legal muster because they aren't concrete enough to be measured and they don't have a clear end goal. “The universities’ main response to these criticisms is, essentially, 'trust us,'” the court wrote.


In Wake of Conservative Court Striking Down Affirmative Action, Justice Jackson and Civil Rights Leaders Agree: ‘America has never been Colorblind’

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

As she watched her conservative majority colleagues on the high court issue the death knell to affirmative action on Thursday, June 29, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote another masterpiece to express her dissent.
Jackson’s disapproval could easily be summed up in a single and precise sentence: “Our country has never been colorblind.”
“The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism,” Jackson wrote in blasting the six-member majority.

“But if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain. If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us.”

In the majority ruling, the conservative justices declared that the admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, which consider race a factor, were unconstitutional.

Students for Fair Admissions had presented two cases for consideration against Harvard and UNC, representing private and public universities.
They argued that the practice violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and put white and Asian-American applicants at a disadvantage.

Harvard and UNC maintained that affirmative action should be upheld, contending that their admissions policies align with previous court decisions.
They argued that considering race ensures a diverse student body. They denied any discrimination in their practices.
However, the Court ruled that affirmative action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The justices stated that the universities’ policies do not conform to the limited exceptions for equal rights without regard to race, color, or nationality.
The justices determined that the universities failed to provide sufficient justification for using race in admissions.

Further, they claimed that affirmative action programs do not comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s requirement that race not be used negatively or as a stereotype.
The Court noted that affirmative action resulted in a lower acceptance rate for Asian American applicants at Harvard.

The Court further stated that basing admissions on race leads to stereotyping and assumes that individuals of a particular race think alike, which it said it found offensive and demeaning.

The justices did acknowledge that race can still be considered if it is directly tied to an applicant’s character or unique abilities that they can contribute to the university.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, emphasized that students should be evaluated based on their experiences rather than their race.
He criticized universities that he said had wrongly prioritized skin color, stating that America’s constitutional history does not support such a choice.
Jackson lambasted that opinion.
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces, ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” Jackson forcefully dissented.

“But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems,” Jackson asserted.
“No one benefits from ignorance. Race matters in the lived experience of Americans, even if legal barriers are gone.”

Casting aside decades of precedent, the Court’s “anti-opportunity majority further undermines its own legitimacy by gutting race-conscious university admissions, which will benefit the wealthy and well-connected most,” the Chairs of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Congressional Black Caucus Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nevada), and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) offered in a joint statement.

“We know that not all students are afforded equal opportunity in our education systems, and we know that diversity on college campuses benefits the entire student body by enriching their college experiences and better preparing them to enter our workforce,” the statement continued.

“Holistic, race-conscious admissions policies allow all students, regardless of their race or ethnicity, to be able to tell the full story of who they are and participate in a thriving, multiracial democracy. Importantly, though, this decision should not be viewed to impact race-conscious processes outside the scope of university admissions.”
President Biden, former President Barack Obama, and a host of civil rights activists also condemned the Court’s decision.
Civil Rights Attorney Ben Crump said the ruling “reeks of the intellectual justification of discrimination.”

“As we have recently witnessed in politics, this is a coordinated effort to undo much of the progress made to turn America into a land of equal opportunity,” Crump stated.
“The truth is, Black Americans do not have equal opportunity because our starting line is miles behind that of our white peers. It’s obvious that social inequities and systematic discrimination create a more difficult and treacherous path for Black and Brown people to achieve stability and success, blocking their ability to accumulate generational wealth and get their families to a place of financial security. Affirmative action opened doors for bright, young people that were closed to them for generations.”


American Frances Tiafoe Heads to Wimbledon with a Career-High Ranking and High Hopes

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) — There is a behind-the-scenes moment captured during a recently released episode of the Netflix docuseries “Break Point” where Frances Tiafoe is warming up in a nearly empty Arthur Ashe Stadium hours before his fourth-round U.S. Open match against 22-time Grand Slam champion Rafael Nadal.

“I’m so pumped up for today,” Tiafoe tells his coach, Wayne Ferreira, between practice serves. “I’m coming after this (expletive), bro.”

To which Ferreira responds: “I wouldn’t see any reason why you wouldn’t.”

Tiafoe would, indeed, go after Nadal that September night while producing what was undoubtedly the biggest victory of the American’s career so far, a step along the way to his debut in a Grand Slam semifinal in New York.

It also was part of a surge by Tiafoe that has continued this season. He heads into Wimbledon, which starts on Monday, ranked in the Top 10 for the first time on the heels of winning a grass-court tournament for the first time.

“I knew I was capable on grass, but winning a title helps. Winning on a Sunday just gives you confidence, in general. Since the U.S. Open, any time I’m on a hard or grass court, I feel like I’m at my best and one of the best players in the world and have a chance against anybody,” Tiafoe said in an interview with The Associated Press. “So I have high hopes for Wimbledon.”

Hard to see a reason why he wouldn't. Consider the way Tiafoe has performed lately: Since entering 2023 with one career ATP title and a .517 winning percentage, the 25-year-old from Maryland has claimed a pair of trophies while winning at a .737 clip.

It’s part of what Tiafoe called “this revamp,” a renewed resolve and dedication that came about after he made it into the Top 100 as a teenager in early 2017 and rose to the Top 30 two years later, but dropped all the way down to No. 84 in 2020.

On June 19, the day following his title at Stuttgart, Germany, Tiafoe got to No. 10.

“It's a testament to all of the sacrifices I've made for the game," Tiafoe said. "I’ve done it my own way, and I’m here now — and planning to stay for a while.”

He joined Taylor Fritz as the first pair of American men simultaneously in the Top 10 since Mardy Fish and John Isner in May 2012. Tiafoe is also the first African-American man to be among the ATP’s best 10 players since James Blake in January 2009 — and just the third in the half-century of computerized rankings, along with Arthur Ashe in the 1970s.

Tiafoe and Blake traded text messages about the accomplishment.

“Told him, ‘I always wanted to be like you, growing up,’” Tiafoe recounted.

“I’m so proud of him and the hard work he has put in,” Blake told the AP. “Top 10 is something that can never be taken away and it doesn’t come without hard work and determination. He has put in the hours and followed up on his breakout performance last year at the Open. I’m looking forward to his continued success and watching him inspire the next generation.”

Providing an example and being an inspiration to others are things Tiafoe talks about, too.

His “Cinderella story,” as he puts it, is unique and, by now, well-known: His parents emigrated to the United States from Sierra Leone in West Africa amid its civil war in the 1990s; they ended up in Maryland, where his father helped construct a tennis training center for juniors, then became a maintenance man there; his mother was a nurse working two jobs; Frances and his twin brother, Franklin, picked up tennis where dad’s job was.

“The U.S. Open was my big, obviously, breakout moment. All the hype around it in New York. You can’t imagine,” Tiafoe said. “An American story. My story.”

The Netflix episode that focused on his Flushing Meadows experience — the hugs and laughter after beating Nadal; the tears after losing to eventual champion Carlos Alcaraz — “got me emotional,” he said.

“To be able to relive those little moments — the car rides after certain things or my reaction to winning a big match. The people around me. You can only relive the actual moment of what happened, which is the match, not everything outside of it," Tiafoe said. "Ten years from now, I’m not going to remember what I said in that particular moment. All those things are so cool, man.”


What Does the End of Affirmative Action Mean for Black Students?

In a long-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action in higher education.

For decades, affirmative action, or race-conscious admissions in higher education, has served as a buffer for structural and passive racism that can occur in the admissions process, especially toward Black and Brown students.

In a 6-3 decision, the conservative-leaning court ruled that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

As a reminder of the country’s long history of systematic racism, Justice Jackson noted the universities’ attempts to balance the scale of the admissions process with the help of affirmative action.

“It is that inequality that admissions programs such as UNC’s help to address, to the benefit of us all. Because the majority’s judgment stunts that progress without any basis in law, history, logic, or justice,” Jackson wrote.

In May, Sara Clarke Kaplan, the executive director of the Antiracist Research & Policy Center at American University, pointed out that white women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.

“What we actually know,” Kaplan told Word In Black, “is that most of the forms of preference in higher education admission benefit precisely the people who are now claiming that they are being discriminated against and excluded.”

And in a statement, former first lady Michelle Obama wrote that “So often, we just accept that money, power, and privilege are perfectly justifiable forms of affirmative action, while kids growing up like I did are expected to compete when the ground is anything but level.”

Using the 1867 Cummings v. Missouri case as precedent, the court ruled that universities may consider an applicant’s “discussion of how race affected his or her life” so long as they are “treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”

What exactly does this mean for the future generations of Black students applying to institutions of higher education? It’s too early to tell, but we can guess from what’s happened in the nine states that have already eliminated affirmative action.

For starters, there’s a possibility that the already low acceptance rates of Black students into top schools will simply get lower.

In 1996, California became the first state to ax affirmative action after voters approved a proposition banning it, and the number of Black students at the state’s public universities plummeted.

As EdSource noted, in the California State University system, Black students” were 8% of the freshman class in 1997 but have fallen almost in half to 4%. At the same time, the number of Black high school graduates has increased from about 21,000 in 1997 to 25,000 in 2018.”

And in 2006 when Michigan eliminated affirmative action, Black students were 7% of college students in the state. In 2021, they were only 4%.

No wonder experts Uma Mazyck Jayakumar and Ibram X. Kendi wrote in The Atlantic that “History repeats sometimes without rhyming. ‘Race neutral’ is the new ‘separate but equal.'”

However, affirmative action wasn’t a perfect solution. Data shows the underrepresentation of Black students in universities continued to be prevalent across the country, based on a 2017 New York Times analysis. Black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at top colleges now than they were more than three decades ago.

But what continues to be true is that higher education is not just about getting into a school and receiving a degree. Rather, it’s an entry point for opportunities and other life outcomes.

It’s a reminder, as Bernice King wrote on Twitter, “We should not need #AffirmativeAction. But we do. Because racism, particularly anti-Black racism, persists in our systems, policies, and institutions.”

Indeed, “Society’s progress toward equality cannot be permanently halted. Diversity is now a fundamental American value, housed in our varied and multicultural American community that only continues to grow,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “The pursuit of racial diversity will go on. Although the Court has stripped out almost all uses of race in college admissions, universities can and should continue to use all available tools to meet society’s needs for diversity in education.”


The California Film Tax Credit Presents a Real Opportunity to Change Hollywood

By Dominique Ulloa and Lori Condinus, Special to California Black Media

As industry insiders, advocates for change, and social justice activists, we are joining forces in this Op-Ed to shed light on the critical need to strengthen California's Film Tax Credit program through community and stakeholder participation and oversight.

Thankfully, Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) have been spearheading this effort in the Legislature, calling for a Film Tax program that reflects the diverse landscape of the California workforce.

The motion picture industry is grappling with a multitude of challenges, including strikes, COVID-19 disruptions, and fierce competition from other states offering enticing tax incentives.

To address these issues and support the ever-evolving industry, California plans to extend the $1.2 billion film tax credit for another five years. While we applaud the commitment of Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature to retain jobs in our state, it is essential that we seize this opportunity to bring about real change for disadvantaged and underrepresented workers.

We can’t afford to settle for mere job retention or isolated success stories from underrepresented workers; this moment calls for us to strive for true accountability and inclusivity within the industry.

Looking to the future, the very essence of Hollywood as we know it may be at stake. Other states, including Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Missouri, have embraced film tax credit legislation, luring productions away from California.

According to McKinsey & Company's 2021 Study on Black representation in film and TV, addressing persistent racial inequities could unlock an additional $10 billion in annual revenues for the industry. This presents an incredible opportunity for California to not only lead by example in equitable representation, but also bolster our economy and help shield ourselves from recession.

Throughout history, the motion picture industry has lacked the necessary mechanisms to ensure diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in hiring practices. Version 4.0 of the California Film Tax Credit presents us with a fresh chance to make significant headway in this regard.

Previously, the industry operated mostly within the private sector, making it difficult for the state to evaluate compliance, progress, and enforce reporting requirements as it does with public sector jobs.

Under Version 3.0 of the California Film Tax Credit, the implementation of a Diversity Requirement aimed to increase employment opportunities for underrepresented workers. Unfortunately, this program fell short due to its lack of meaningful reporting requirements, community and stakeholder participation, and institutional support.


In Affirmative Action and Student Loan Cases, Advocates Fear Losses for Racial Equality

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a Black student who was raised by a single mother, Makia Green believes she benefited from a program that gave preference to students of color from economically disadvantaged backgrounds when she was admitted over a decade ago to the University of Rochester.

As a borrower who still owes just over $20,000 on her undergraduate student loans, she has been counting on President Joe Biden's promised debt relief to wipe nearly all of that away.

Now, the student loan cancellation plan could be dismantled by the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Thursday struck down affirmative action in college admissions. Both policies disproportionately help Black students. To Green and many other people of color, the efforts to roll them back reflect a larger backlash to racial progress in higher education.

“I feel like working people have been through enough — I have been through enough,” said Green, a community organizer. “From a pandemic, an uprising, a recession, the cost of living price going up. I deserved some relief.”

The rulings could also have political consequences among a generation of young voters of color who took Biden at his word when he promised to cancel debt, said Wisdom Cole, director of NAACP’s youth and college program.

“Year after year, we have elected officials, we have advocates, we have different politicos coming to our communities making promises. But now it’s time to deliver on those promises,” he said.

The president's plan forgives up to $10,000 in federal student debt for borrowers, and doubles the debt relief to $20,000 for borrowers who also received Pell Grants. About half of the average debt held by Black and Hispanic borrowers would be wiped out, according to the White House. Six Republican-led states filed a legal challenge questioning whether the president, a Democrat, has authority to forgive the debt.

In the affirmative action cases, the court was considering the use of race-conscious admissions policies that many selective colleges have used for decades to help build diversity on their campuses. The cases were brought by a conservative activist who argues the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions.

The Rev. Al Sharpton called the ruling against affirmative action “a dagger in the back of Black America.”

“The reality is race plays a factor in admissions, from pre-K to post-doctorate, and institutions just saw their best tool for fairness outlawed,” Sharpton said.

The high court is expected to rule in the student loan case on Friday.

Both cases focus on policies that address historic racial disparities in access to higher education, as Black borrowers tend to take on disproportionately more debt to afford college, said Dominique Baker, an education policy professor at Southern Methodist University.

Backlash to racial progress tends to follow periods of social change and advancement, Baker said. In a study published in 2019, Baker found states were more likely to adopt bans on affirmative action when white enrollment at public flagship universities dropped.

“These are policy tools that have an explicit aim around reducing the power of white supremacy,” Baker said. The two court challenges, she said, can be seen “as linked backlash to two attempts towards racial justice.”

Green, who grew up in a low-income household in Harlem, New York, graduated from Rochester with about $40,000 in federal loan debt. Some of that was erased under a public service forgiveness program when she completed two terms with Americorps, and she whittled it down further with monthly installments until the government paused repayment due to the pandemic.

Green said she sees both court cases as connected to conservative attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Critics say opposition to such programs is rooted in questions of fairness and in white grievances over the advancement of nonwhite people.

“This is white supremacy at work,” Green said. “This is a long tactic of conservative, white supremacist-leaning groups to use education and limit Black people’s access to education, as a way to further control and oppress us.”

In the 1960s and 1970s, many colleges developed affirmative action plans to address the fact that many predominantly white schools struggled to attract people from historically disadvantaged and underrepresented communities. Policies were also created to promote greater inclusion of women.

Since the late 1970s, the Supreme Court has three times upheld affirmative action in college admissions on grounds that institutions have a compelling interest to address past discrimination that shut nonwhite students out of higher learning. Justices have also agreed with arguments that more diverse student bodies promoted cross-racial understanding.

Affirmative action exists because Black people and people of color historically have not been able to rely on colleges, universities, and employers to enact admissions and hiring practices that embrace diversity, said Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP.

“In a society still scarred by the wounds of racial disparities, the Supreme Court has displayed a willful ignorance of our reality,” he said.

Some students and advocates worried how the ruling would affect diversity on campuses.

Tarina Ahuja, a rising senior at Harvard College, said being part of a diverse student body has been a crucial part of her undergraduate experience. She recalled classes where students discussed their lived experiences on topics such as police violence, colonialism and labor movements — discussions that would have fallen flat without a diverse range of student perspectives.

In anticipation of a ruling against race-conscious admissions, some colleges have been considering adding more essays to get a better picture of an applicant’s background. Others have been planning to boost recruiting in racially diverse areas. But in states that have already banned affirmative action, similar efforts at selective colleges have largely failed to maintain diversity gains.

Jonathan Loc, a graduate student at Harvard who helped organize teach-ins in support of affirmative action, said that for students of color, it's impossible to speak about their lives without mentioning race, whether through hardships faced or simply their pride in their cultural heritage.

“I grew up as the son of refugees in a low-income community and a single parent family burdened with the model minority myth,” he said. “But I think that that kind of narrative also helps me to be an Asian American focused on racial justice, focused on making sure that everyone who has a unique story related to their racial background or any background has that story heard.”

It will be important for colleges to find ways to show they see the students as more than a number on paper, said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

“We need the schools to say, ’Look, the court says we can’t consider race, but we still see you,'” said Hewitt, whose organization defended affirmative action before the Supreme Court in October.


Working While Pregnant: New Protections Roll Out Nationwide

A new federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against pregnant workers went into effect on Tuesday, extending protections to millions of people.

The law, called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), requires businesses with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations” to workers with limitations related to pregnancy or childbirth — unless the accommodation is deemed difficult or expensive.

An estimated 2.8 million women work while pregnant, according to data from the National Partnership for Women and Families. The PWFA provides essential protections for them, with an emphasis on Black women, who are most likely to be employed while pregnant.

The PWFA could play out differently for each worker, depending on their needs. For example, a grocery store worker may request a stool to sit on instead of standing for long hours at a cash register. A fast food worker may request a change in uniform to accommodate maternity pants. A clothing store worker may request to carry a bottle of water on the floor.

Other examples include longer breaks to rest or use the bathroom, later start times to accommodate for morning sickness, creating temporary lactation spaces, flexible scheduling for prenatal and postpartum appointments, and time off for childbirth recovery.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a UPS driver who was denied accommodations while pregnant.

The PWFA was signed by President Joe Biden in December 2022. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing the law, including reviewing cases of discrimination that occur on or after June 27.

“I am honored to lead the EEOC as we enforce a new civil rights law. For workers and job applicants, the PWFA will help ensure economic security at a critical time in their lives,” EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows said in a statement.

The PWFA comes nearly four decades after the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which was passed in 1978. The law was groundbreaking at the time. It banned hiring, firing, promoting, and adjusting pay and other benefits based on a person’s pregnancy status.

Yet, over the years, many workplace needs continued to go unmet, resulting in a slew of lawsuits.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a UPS (United Parcel Service) driver who was denied accommodations while pregnant. Peggy Young, the plaintiff in Young v. UPS, was advised to lift no more than 20 pounds by her OB/GYN and midwife. She requested a lighter workload but was denied because UPS did not give light-duty for pregnancy. Though, they did offer the assignments to injured or disabled workers.

PWFA may provide essential protections for them, with an emphasis on Black women, who are most likely to be employed while pregnant.

The Supreme Court sided with Young, which established a new legal standard — but there was a caveat: a pregnant worker could only request accommodations if they could prove a co-worker with a similar medical condition was accomodated.

The EEOC continued to receive pregnancy discrimination claims by the thousands after Young’s case. So, organizations like A Better Balance advocated for a new law — what became the PWFA — to fully protect pregnant workers.

“The onerous Young standard did not (and could not) skirt the fundamental problem with the PDA: it does not require employers to affirmatively provide accommodations to pregnant workers regardless of how they treat others,” the non-profit wrote in a recent PWFA report.


2 More Connecticut Officers Fired for Mistreating Randy Cox After he Was Paralyzed in a Police Van

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Two more Connecticut police officers were fired Wednesday for what officials called their misconduct and lack of compassion in how they treated Richard “Randy” Cox after he was paralyzed in the back of a police van last year.

New Haven police commissioners voted 5-0 to dismiss Officer Oscar Diaz, the van driver, and Sgt. Betsy Segui, the detention area supervisor, at the recommendation of Chief Karl Jacobson.

Of the five officers who were criminally charged, commissioners have now fired four of them after an internal affairs investigation. The fifth officer, Ronald Pressley, avoided department disciplinary proceedings by retiring in January.

“I hope that these decisions ... with this being concluded we can now start to heal as a police department and as a community," said Evelise Ribeiro, chair of the commissioners. “The treatment of Mr. Cox was appalling and is not the way that we would want our officers to treat any of our citizens in the city of New Haven. And this behavior will not be tolerated in this department.”

Ribeiro also apologized to Cox and his family,

Lawyers for the four fired officers said they plan to contest the terminations in arbitration proceedings, under rules set in the police contract.

“Unfortunately these four police officers wound up in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in the wrong political arena,” said Jeffrey Ment, a lawyer for Diaz and Segui.

Cox, 37, injured his neck on June 19, 2022, when Diaz braked the van hard to avoid a collision with another vehicle that had pulled out from a side street, according to police and videos of the events. Cox's hands were cuffed behind his back and there were no seat belts, and he flew headfirst into the metal divider between the driver's section and prisoners' area.

“I can’t move. I’m going to die like this. Please, please, please help me,” Cox said, according to police video. He had been arrested on allegations he threatened a woman with a gun, charges that later were dismissed.

At the police station, authorities said officers recklessly dragged Cox out of the van and around the police station, mocked him for not being able to move and accused him of faking and being drunk.

Cox's case outraged the community, including local NAACP officials. Ben Crump, one of Cox's lawyers, compared it to what happened to Freddie Gray, a Black man who died in 2015 in Baltimore after he suffered a spinal injury while handcuffed and shackled in a city police van. Cox is Black, and all five officers who were arrested are Black or Hispanic.

Messages seeking comment were left for Crump and Cox's mother Wednesday night.

As Cox pleaded for help in the back of the van, Diaz kept driving for more than three minutes before pulling over to check on him after having heard Cox repeatedly say he couldn't move and thought he broke his neck, according to the internal affairs investigation report.

Diaz told Cox he had called for an ambulance, which he asked to meet him at the police station. Diaz then drove Cox to the station. Jacobson has said that was a violation of department rules because Diaz should have waited for the ambulance when he pulled over.

At the police station, Officer Jocelyn Lavandier dragged Cox to the back of the van by his feet, and Diaz and Pressley grabbed his shirt as he collapsed to the ground.

When Cox told them he thought he had cracked his neck, Segui responded, “You ain’t crack nothing. You just drank too much,” according to the report.

Cox was then put in a wheelchair, with his neck and body leaning to one side. Officers later took him out of the wheelchair, placed him on the floor of a cell and handcuffed him. The ambulance arrived minutes later and took Cox to a hospital. He was left paralyzed from the chest down.

The five officers were charged with misdemeanors — cruelty and reckless endangerment. All pleaded not guilty, and their cases remain pending.

Cox sued the city, which recently agreed to a $45 million settlement.

After Cox was injured, city police announced reforms including making sure all prisoners wear seat belts. The state Senate gave final legislative approval earlier this month to a bill spurred by the Cox case that would require seat belts for all prisoners being transported.

New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker called the firings “important and necessary steps towards ensuring accountability for the mistreatment of Randy Cox.”

“While nothing can ever return Randy’s life to the way it was prior to this incident ... we have demonstrated clearly and unequivocally as a community that Randy’s life matters, that Black Lives Matter and that we are resolved to do everything in our power to ensure an incident like this never happens again,” he said in a statement.


Relatives of Man who Died During Admission to Psychiatric Hospital Seek Federal Investigation

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Lawyers for the family of a Virginia man who died of asphyxiation after he was pinned to the floor for about 11 minutes while being admitted to a psychiatric hospital have asked the U.S. Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.

In letter to federal officials that was dated June 26 and made public Wednesday, prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump and Virginia attorney Mark Krudys said the state prosecutor's office that brought second-degree murder charges against sheriff's deputies and hospital workers does not have the staff or resources to prosecute the case adequately.

Irvo Otieno, 28, died March 6 as he was being admitted to Central State Hospital. Video from the hospital showed Henrico County sheriff's deputies and hospital staff attempting to restrain Otieno — who was in handcuffs and leg shackles — for about 20 minutes. For most of that time, Otieno was on the floor being held down by a group that at one point appeared to include 10 people.

Seven deputies and three hospital workers were charged with second-degree murder in Otieno's death. Former Dinwiddie Commonwealth's Attorney Ann Cabell Baskervill, whose resignation became effective last week, dropped charges against two of the workers just before her departure.

The family of Otieno, who was Black, has said he was brutally mistreated during a mental health crisis, both at the hospital and while in law enforcement custody for several days before that.

In their letter, lawyers for Otieno's family said Baskervill's resignation leaves just two recently hired prosecutors to handle the case as well as all other state prosecutions in the county.

“In our opinion, the newly appointed (Commonwealth's Attorney) and his similarly new, small staff — with an ample caseload apart from the indictment of Mr. Otieno’s killers — are not adequately prepared to prosecute the eight defendants, all of whom have separate, experienced counsel,” Crump and Krudys wrote.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to comment. The Justice Department and the Dinwiddie County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

Crump and Krudys also said in their letter that federal civil rights laws prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers “are the appropriate vehicle" to address the defendants' conduct.

“This matter, which implicates important concerns regarding the treatment of the mentally ill, has garnered significant community attention and deserves the thoroughness and competence that can only be dispatched by DOJ agents, AUSAs, and other DOJ employees,” the lawyers wrote.

Krudys said in a phone interview that they are not asking state prosecutors to step aside from the case completely. They want the Dinwiddie Commonwealth Attorney's Office to prosecute the state murder charges and the Justice Department to bring an excessive force claim, he said.

An autopsy conducted by the Virginia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner determined that the cause of death was asphyxia, while the manner of death was ruled a homicide.

During court hearings and in statements, attorneys for several of the defendants have said Otieno was combative and the deputies were trying to restrain him.


California Black Reparations Task Force Concludes Historic 2-Year Work

By Associated Press 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's first-in-the-nation slavery reparations task force wraps up its historic work Thursday with the official submission of a report two years in the making, one that documents the state's role in perpetuating discrimination against Black residents and suggests dozens of ways to atone.

The report heads to lawmakers who will be responsible for turning policy recommendations into legislation. Reparations will not happen until lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom agree.

The recommendations include a formal apology to descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. and financial compensation for harms descendants have suffered, such as overpolicing and housing discrimination. The panel also recommended the state create a new agency to oversee reparations efforts.

“It’s been a whirlwind, it’s been very work intensive, but also very cathartic and very emotional,” said Kamilah Moore, 31, task force chair and a Los Angeles-based attorney. “We’re standing in the shoes of our ancestors to finish, essentially, this sacred project.”

The nine-member panel convened in June 2021 after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation in 2020 creating the task force. The panelists, picked by Newsom and leaders of the Senate and Assembly, include the descendants of slaves who are lawyers, educators, elected officials and civil rights leaders.

Reparations efforts at the federal level have stalled for decades, but cities, counties, school districts and universities have taken up the cause in recent years. An advisory group in San Francisco has recommended that qualifying Black adults receive a $5 million lump-sum payment, guaranteed annual income of at least $97,000 and personal debt forgiveness. San Francisco supervisors will take up the issue later this year.

New York could become the second state to create a commission to examine state involvement in the institution of slavery, and to address present-day gaps in economical and educational disparities experienced by Black people. The legislation, approved earlier this month by lawmakers, has not yet been signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul.

California entered the union as a free state in 1850, but in practice sanctioned slavery and approved policies and practices that thwarted Black people from owning homes and starting businesses. Black families were terrorized, their communities aggressively policed and their neighborhoods subject to environmental pollutants, according to a groundbreaking report released last year as part of the committee's task to educate the public.

The panel did not recommend a fixed dollar amount for financial redress, but endorsed methodologies by economists for calculating what is owed for decades of overpolicing, disproportionate incarceration and housing discrimination. Initial calculations pegged the potential cost to California at more than $800 billion — more than 2.5 times the state's $300 billion annual budget — although that cost was reduced to $500 billion in a later report without explanation.

“Overall, what we said is we believe there should be compensation, elders should be prioritized and it should be in installments,” Moore said.

For those elders, economists recommended, for example, nearly $1 million for a 71-year-old Black person who has lived all their life in California — or $13,600 per year — for health disparities that have shortened their average life span.

Black people subjected to aggressive policing and prosecution in the “war on drugs” from 1971 to 2020 could each receive $115,000 if they lived in California throughout that period or more than $2,300 for each year they lived in the state during that period.

The task force narrowly voted to limit individual financial redress to residents who can document lineage from Black people who were in the U.S. in the 19th century, thereby excluding more recent immigrants.


Accessibility Toolbar

Unlike many news organizations, Voice & Viewpoint delivers content that matters to you. Help us keep it that way by making a generous donation for as low as $2. Your support will fund local, investigative journalism for the community, by the community.

© The San Diego Voice and Viewpoint

Submit Community News Advertise Contact Us Subscribe Our Team Privacy Policy