Home Blog Page 282

No Systemic Racism?

By Black PressUSA

I woke up a few days ago expecting, almost hoping, that my day would be sufficiently uneventful so as not to aggravate my spirit.  Instead, while listening to “The View,” I heard Senator Tim Scott proclaim, “There is no Systemic Racism in America.”

He attempted to justify his assertion by using his home state of South Carolina as an example.  He mentioned there being a Black police chief.  Just one time, he mentioned America having a Black President.  Thoughtlessly, or maybe with full thought and consideration, he didn’t mention President Obama as being only one president out of forty-six in 247 years.

To be fair to him, he named two or three other Black people as examples for his premise, but he was speaking on “The View” where the hosts knew better.  His understanding of Systemic Racism was somewhere outside the realm of reality and Joy Behar told him so.

It was clear he was prepared for an adversarial response from Whoopi Goldberg, and he seemed somewhat surprised that he was confronted by Sunny Hostin.  She asked him to define what he believed to be Systemic Racism.  Responding as I’ve come to expect, Scott gave a solid ‘non-answer’ to her question, saying, “One of the things I think about, and one of the reasons I’m on this show, is because of the comments that were made, frankly, on this show that the only way for a young African American kid to be successful in this country is to be the exception and not the rule.”

He went on to say, “That is a dangerous, offensive, disgusting message to send to our young people today, that the only way to succeed is by being the exception.”

Scott’s other-worldly understanding of Systemic Racism in American history obviously does not include nearly 250 years of enslavement or the empirical data which caused Republican President Nixon to establish The Federal Affirmative Action Program (E.O. 11478 – August 8, 1969) to correct the ills of an uninterrupted pattern of racial discrimination in the Federal sector.

Scott has obviously ignored the history and patterns of personal Black American achievement in post-enslavement America.  On one hand, are the “chosen few” – those Blacks whose demeanor, disposition, and/or unique circumstances present them as non-threatening to whites and acceptable for favorable treatment.  On the other hand, are those I characterize as indomitable – those who have the talent, courage, confidence, and perseverance to challenge any obstacle that confronts them.  Either of these personality types achieves because of their exceptionalism.  Unlike the chosen few, those who are indomitable achieve without willingly compromising their principles.

While success is not always measured by wealth or position, opportunity and access or lack thereof are prime considerations.  Earl Graves, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Wes Moore ARE exceptions because of the obstacles they overcame.

Scott and his black-robed judicial counterpart, Clarence Thomas, exemplify the ‘chosen few.’  Scott echoes the talking points of his handlers and denies the obvious realities of those who must live through the hazards of racism.  When appointed to coordinate with Corey Booker to create a bipartisan response to police violence, Scott initially spoke with knowing candor.  Somewhere in the process, he was reined in and unyieldingly embraced the qualified immunity doctrine for police which effectively ended any bipartisan effort.

Since joining the Supreme Court, Thomas has espoused the destruction of the same affirmative action initiatives which provided the lift necessary for his professional development.  All appearances suggest that these two ‘chosen ones’ ignore any indignity or violence inflicted upon Blacks and other people of color or upon members of “other out-groups.”

Maybe guilt prevents the Senator from acknowledging his own complicity in the practices of Systemic Racism.

______

H.E. Ambassador Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq. (Ret) is President of http://thedickgregorysociety.org and author of “Wake Up and Stay Woke”–a tribute to Dick Gregory

The post No Systemic Racism? appeared first on Forward Times.


Ancestral Connections: Political Elite’s Ties to Slavery Revealed

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

Recent research conducted by Reuters has shed light on the genealogies of America’s political elite, revealing that a significant portion of members of Congress, living presidents, Supreme Court justices, and governors are direct descendants of ancestors who enslaved Black people.

Among the 536 members of the last sitting Congress, Reuters found that at least 100 have ancestors who were slaveholders.
Furthermore, over a quarter of the Senate, or 28 members, can trace their families back to slaveholding ancestors.
This spans Democratic and Republican lawmakers, including influential figures such as Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Tom Cotton, as well as Democrats Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, and Jeanne Shaheen.

The examination also revealed that President Joe Biden and every living former U.S. president, except Donald Trump, have direct connections to slaveholders.
That list includes Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and even Barack Obama through his white mother’s lineage.

Additionally, two of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, have ancestors who were involved in enslavement.
The research conducted by Reuters also delved into the gubernatorial level, revealing that in 2022, 11 out of 50 U.S. states had governors who were descendants of slaveholders.

Eight governors hail from states that formed the Confederate States of America, which fought to preserve slavery.
Among them, Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas, and Doug Burgum of North Dakota are seeking the Republican nomination for president.

According to Reuters’ findings, at least 8% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans in the last Congress had ancestral ties to slaveholders.
This disparity reflects the historical strength of the Republican Party in the South, where slavery was concentrated.

South Carolina, where the Civil War began, exemplifies the familial connections between lawmakers and the nation’s history of slavery.
Every member of the state’s delegation to the last Congress has ancestral ties to slavery.
Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican presidential candidate, and Rep. James Clyburn, a prominent Democrat, both have ancestors who were enslaved.

All seven white lawmakers from South Carolina in the 117th Congress are direct descendants of slaveholders, as is the state’s Republican governor, Henry McMaster.
The unveiling of these ancestral ties to slavery comes at a time when the legacy of slavery is under renewed and intense debate.

The investigation by Reuters emphasizes the ongoing relationship between America and the institution of slavery, particularly among those who influence the country’s laws.
Henry Louis Gates Jr., a professor at Harvard University specializing in African and African American Research, emphasized in an NBC News interview that identifying these ancestral connections is not about assigning blame but recognizing the close link between lawmakers and slavery.

Gates stated that it served as an opportunity for individuals to learn and for the American people to gain a deeper understanding of their shared history.
The Reuters analysis goes beyond previous documentation of ancestral ties to slavery by focusing on the most powerful officeholders of today, many of whom have taken stances on race-related policies.

The comprehensive research provides a broader and more detailed perspective on the extent of these leaders’ connections to America’s “original sin.”
It also explores the personal and significant implications for lawmakers and prominent officials as they confront the realities of their own family’s involvement in slavery.
The research focused on direct lineal descendants rather than distant cousins.

The sources analyzed included Census records, tax documents, estate records, family Bibles, newspaper accounts, and birth and death certificates.
To ensure accuracy, board-certified genealogists reviewed each case linking a contemporary leader to a slaveholding ancestor.

While the Reuters examination provided a valuable understanding of the ancestral ties between the political elite and slavery, it’s further acknowledged that the records available may not capture the full extent of those connections.
Many records have been lost or destroyed over time, leading to the possibility of an undercount.


California Reparations Report Urges Action on Housing Discrimination and Overpolicing

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — It was a report two years in the making — one that details how California, a state that never officially sanctioned slavery, can confront decades of policies that have kept Black residents from living in the neighborhoods they choose, being treated fairly at doctor’s visits and building generational wealth.

California’s reparations task force completed its work Thursday and turned more than 100 recommendations over to the Legislature, the first work of its kind in the U.S. The nearly 1,100-page document recommends the state formally apologize and suggests how to calculate monetary reparations.

Here’s what the task force examined:

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION

The report recounts California policies that have kept Black families from retaining property and living in certain neighborhoods. The effects of redlining, which led to Black families being denied home loans; and eminent domain, where residents’ property was seized by the government, still linger, the report states.

The panel recommended returning property unjustly seized from Black residents. It also urged lawmakers to offer property tax relief to African American homeowners living in historically redlined neighborhoods.

OVERPOLICING AND MASS INCARCERATION

The task force condemned policies and practices that have led to Black Californians being disproportionally stopped by police, killed by law enforcement or imprisoned.

Recommendations include ending the death penalty, banning cash bail, requiring anti-bias training for police officers and funding education for more African American prospective lawyers. The panel also called on lawmakers to bar searches by law enforcement based on a person’s consent alone.

HEALTH HARMS

The committee urged lawmakers to address disparities in maternal mortality and treatment for substance abuse. Members also called for lawmakers to set aside money to research rising suicide rates among African American youth.

Another suggestion is to fund wellness centers in historically Black neighborhoods to address mental health issues and refer patients for psychiatric or medical care.

PAYMENTS

The recommendations include paying Black Californians who lived in the state while certain discriminatory policies were in effect. The task force voted to limit eligibility to people descended from free or enslaved Black people living in the United States by the end of the 19th century. The panel stopped short of endorsing a fixed dollar amount for individuals. But the members recommended calculations from economists projecting the state is responsible for more than $500 billion for overpolicing, mass incarceration and housing discrimination.

AGENCY

The task force recommended creating an agency to implement and oversee reparations programs and help people research their family history to find out if they may be eligible for compensation.

NEXT STEPS

Any policy changes must come through legislation signed by the governor. State Sen. Steven Bradford and Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, both Los Angeles-area Democrats on the task force, have both said they plan to introduce legislation. Bradford has previously cautioned that it would be difficult to get large cash payments approved.


Fraud Lawsuit Against Black Lives Matter Foundation Dismissed in California

A California judge has dismissed a civil lawsuit that grassroots racial justice activists from around the U.S. brought last summer against a foundation with stewardship of the Black Lives Matter movement’s charitable endowment worth tens of millions of dollars.

Black Lives Matter Grassroots Inc., a collective of organizers, claimed Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation Inc. had raised donations off the work of city-based BLM chapter, then defrauded the public and shut activists out of decision-making.

In dismissing the lawsuit, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Bowick sided with the foundation’s lawyers, who argued that local BLM activists failed to prove they were entitled to the raised funds or that the foundation’s leaders had siphoned off millions of dollars for nefarious purposes, among other unproven allegations.

The fraud claim against the foundation was, in part, based on the alleged misrepresentation of a $6 million Los Angeles-area compound purchased with donated funds. The foundation says the property, which includes a home with six bedrooms and bathrooms, a swimming pool, a soundstage and office space, is used as a campus for a Black artists fellowship. BLM chapter organizers say the donated funds were never intended for use that way.

If the fraud allegations were “premised upon misrepresentation rather than concealment, the complaint fails to sufficiently allege the how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered,” Bowick said in a court order issued Tuesday.

Melina Abdullah, co-founder of BLM Grassroots, said Thursday that the group was “stunned and dismayed” by the court’s dismissal order. A lawyer for the local organizers said an appeal would be filed “immediately.”

“As always, the work of Black Lives Matter continues, regardless of the court ruling,” Abdullah said in a statement.

In response to the ruling, the BLM foundation said it also will move forward with its work.

“We have stayed true to our principles, philanthropic duties, and organizational focus despite countless blatant fabrications, misrepresentations, and innuendos of misdeeds lodged against us,” reads a statement the foundation released Wednesday night.

It filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit under California’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statute, or anti-SLAPP. The law is meant to prevent plaintiffs from using the courts as a way to intimidate people and organizations that are exercising their free-speech rights.

Justin Sanders, an attorney for BLM Grassroots, said the legal basis of the ruling is a “terrible example of the letter and not the spirit of the law being followed.”

The local organizers’ complaint, filed in state Superior Court last September, had singled out foundation board secretary Shalomyah Bowers and his firm, Bowers Consulting. Bowers’s firm was brought in by BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, before her resignation as head of the organization in May 2021, to help the organization build out infrastructure.

The foundation had been financially supporting BLM chapters in the U.S. and Canada, but it desperately needed help amid an unprecedented wave of monetary support and public attention, following the murder of George Floyd by police in 2020. After receiving $90 million in donations between 2020 and 2021 — and spending $37 million on grants, real estate, consultants, and other expenses — the foundation invested $32 million in stocks.

The foundation ended the 2021-2022 fiscal year with roughly $30 million in assets.

Its 2020-2021 IRS filings show Bowers’s firm received $2.1 million to provide operational support, including staffing, fundraising and other key services – that was the lion’s share of what the organization spent on consultants in that fiscal year. But local organizers failed to prove in court that either Bowers or his firm siphoned several millions of dollars in fees from donated funds, as their lawsuit alleged.

These specific allegations against Bowers were “confusing and unintelligible,” Bowick wrote in the court’s dismissal order.

A separate statement issued by Bowers’s firm said the BLM board secretary was deciding how to seek accountability for how the lawsuit affected him and his business.

In a public letter to BLM Grassroots released after the court ruling, the foundation opened the door for mending the relationship with local BLM organizers.

“The problems we face as a community are too great for us to be divided,” the letter reads. “The only way to deal with the critical issues of police brutality, ending state sanctioned violence, economic prosperity for Black people, and achieving a world where Black people across the Diaspora thrive, experience joy, and are not defined by their struggles, is if we heal the past and re-imagine the future.”


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.


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