What’s In A Name...A Heck Of A Lot

What’s In A Name...A Heck Of A Lot

By: Shannon Mouton

Whether Governor Rick Perry saw the stone, whether he or his father had it painted over or whether or not it was done before or after he got the lease is really inconsequential to me. What does matter is the heart and mind of those who live in that community and across this country who believe, “It’s just a name....”

For anyone to say it is “just a name,” as Haskell County Judge Davis asserts, ignores my history, condescends to my intelligence and dismisses my feelings. It is easy to be dismissive and say, “he doesn’t get it and he’s not trying to get it;” however, as a person of authority in his community, he has to “get it.”

He, and so many white men in positions of authority, with the literal lives of people of color in the balance have to “get it” if no one else does. Judge Davis, are these acceptable names as well?

Camel Jockey Junction
Chink Channel
Cracker Crossing
Dago Desert
Dyke Depot
Dink Hill
Faggot Forge
Guido Gulf
Half-breed Highway
Honky Outlook
Hymie Crossing
Mick Mountain
Polack Passing
Raghead Road
Spic Pass
Wetback Waterway

If not, then why is Niggerhead?

If so, then we clearly understand who and what you are your honor.

Diversity: Affirmative Action Myths

Affirmative Action Myths

By: Tamara Braunstein

 

 

As we pointed out yesterday, students at Berkeley have drawn a lot of fire this week for their purposefully racist bake sale, meant to draw attention to a state Senate bill (SB 185) awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature. The bill “would allow California public universities to take race into consideration during the admissions process.” (Berkeley Patch)  

While the Berkeley College Republicans, the group that sponsored the “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” may view its activity as “no more racist than giving an individual an advantage in college admissions based solely on their race or gender,” opponents of the BCR and its views have been quick to point to common misconceptions surrounding Affirmative Action and similar policies, including:

Effectiveness – “Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action”

Relevance – “Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level…without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body”

Reverse Discrimination – “Even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, only 1% of Whites would be affected.”

Those figures may be more than a decade old, but even as recently as last year, this video from MSNBC proved that the conversation surrounding Affirmative Action hasn’t really changed:

[video caption: Is Affirmative Action Still Needed? MSNBC April 2010]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36630542#36630542

  

So what do you think – Are policies like Affirmative Action and SB 185 still relevant? Are they inherently discriminatory? Are those two views mutually exclusive?

Did Berkeley College Republicans Go Too Far?

Did Berkeley College Republicans Go Too Far?

The adage goes, any press is good press, and the Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) have definitely received their share this week:

Madame Noire

The Huffington Post (had multiple articles)

Reuters

The Daily Californian (had multiple articles)

Right Wing News

News One

The Berkeley Daily Planet

CNN (had multiple articles)

The New York Times

LA Times

The BCR wanted to bring attention and awareness to CA SB185. Did they succeed in bringing attention to the bill or did they jump the shark? Are people discussing the bill? Are people weighing the pros and cons of affirmative action?

They wanted our attention...now what?

The Execution of Troy Davis: A Turning Point for US Justice?

The Execution of Troy Davis:

A Turning Point for US Justice?

By Tamara Braunstein

“We simply cannot say we live in a country that offers equal justice to all Americans when racial disparities plague the system by which our society imposes the ultimate punishment." Senator Russ Feingold on Civil Rights as a Priority for the 108th Congress, Senate, January 2003

Whether or not you believe an innocent man has been unjustly, legally murdered, one thing is undeniable in the aftermath of Troy Davis’ state execution: our country is at a potentially pivotal point in its adoption of capital punishment.

In the months, weeks, days and hours leading to Troy’s death, demonstrators both in the U.S. and abroad rallied not just to advocate for Davis, but to protest the U.S.’s death penalty.

Underlying the protest is a significant concern surrounding racial disparities in capital punishment enforcement.

According to Amnesty International, despite the fact that African Americans make up about half of homicide victims nationally, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, just 15 percent of death row defendants have been executed for killing a Black victim, and “the overwhelming majority [77 percent] of death row defendants have been executed for killing White victims.”

When it comes to interracial murders, the disparities are even more appalling:

-          17 cases of a White defendant killing a Black victim have resulted in a death sentence

-          254 cases of a Black defendant killing a White victim have resulted in a death sentence

Troy Davis’ supporters argue his innocence for reasons penetrating far more broadly and deeply than race. Nevertheless, his execution has brought to the forefront one of the most controversial and inexcusable atrocities in this country’s embattled and racially charged history. It has also created one of the most advocacy-ripe atmospheres our country has seen, and for better or for worse that cannot be ignored.

Divided We Fall

By T. Braustein

Centuries later, Aesop’s famous quote still holds true, yielding inspiration for unity even as our patriotic sense of community ebbs and flows: “United we stand, divided we fall.”

But our nation is falling.

Children return to school, resuming daily recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, but the notion of our country being “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” seems illusory at best.

A report released Tuesday shows that the country remains starkly divided in outlook toward one of its most distinguishing qualities: diversity.

According to the report, “What it Means to be American,” only 17 percent of Whites believe discrimination against minorities is a critical issue. Contrarily, 51 percent of Whites believe discrimination against them is as big a problem as it is against minorities. Meanwhile, 42 percent of Hispanics and 53 percent of Blacks believe discrimination against minorities is a critical issue.

In our determination to amend our nation’s past racial indiscretions, have we instead created a setting ripe for vain accusations?

Granted there are grave statistics to support some claims of discrimination – take the recent finding that Black men are more at risk than any other demographic to fall out of middle class, or the report that Hispanics make up more than half of all people sent to prison for felony crimes so far this year, for example.

It’s hard to imagine a country that is truly indivisible, serving justice for all when everyday reminders of our racial differences become negative reinforcements of stereotypes rather than uplifting foundations for growth.

Indeed, just “10 years after September 11, 2001, we seem far less united as a nation.”

Diversity: Seeing in Color

Diversity: Seeing in Color

By T. Braunstein

Do a Google News search for “diversity” and the results are as varied as the word itself implies. But one thing most of the resulting articles have in common is the acknowledgement that for whatever reason, in whichever industry or field being discussed, diversity is lacking.  

Why is that? If so many people, communities and leaders are talking about diversity – more specifically about improving diverse racial representation – why are the results not there?

One answer may be that too many people are adopting a form of enlightened ignorance: The idea that ignoring race equals approaching everyone with equality and therefore eliminating racial bias and discrimination.

It’s not hard to find examples of this – take a look at Forbes contributor Bill Frezza’s response to the recent NIH grant study, for instance. Frezza argues that, among other things, because the “peer-review process is entirely colorblind, with reviewers having no indication of an applicant’s race,” there is no reason to cry foul. Even as he admits that Blacks are underrepresented in the medical and science fields, and that the community “would be well served if many more students graduated high school, went to college, pursued advanced degrees and considered degrees in science,” he asserts that it would be utterly preposterous for the NIH to “fall for” applying such advances as Affirmative Action and other racial quotas to its review processes.

Frezza’s viewpoint, as common as it is, misses the mark in a major and extremely detrimental way. Given the sensitive history of minority populations suffering abuse at the hands of the majority, popular culture’s attempt at making amends by way of strengthening pride in racial diversity cannot be attained by simply adopting colorblindness. Putting a car in neutral after driving it in reverse doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden moving forward. Diversity must be consciously driven.

True diversity can only be attained through a sincere effort to see and acknowledge race and then act against the abounding disparities that accompany it.

Frezza is right about one thing: it is a downright shame that minorities remain underrepresented in such advancing industries, and the Black community would most definitely benefit if more of its members had access to higher educational and employment opportunities. But that very notion serves to explain why ignoring race won’t do much to mend discrepancies.

How can we expect the members of our minority communities to truly reach equal levels of potential – including receiving government grants and funding – by ignoring the fact that they often begin with an opportunity deficit in many steps along the way?

Fiction Isn't Fact...It's Fiction

Fiction Isn't Fact...It's Fiction

While The Help has garnered rave reviews and made money at the box office, there has been an undercurrent of mumbling and grumbling about the movie. Some, like the Association of Black Women Historians, have denounced the movie because of its historical inaccuracies in the depiction of life as a Black domestic in the Jim Crow south.

The film is based on the novel of the same name, which by definition is a work fiction. The Help isn't a memoir, biography or autobiography. The story is based on someone's real life; however, by calling it a novel, the author acknowledges sufficient embellishments and divergence from facts for it to be fictional. This is nothing new, during the early nineties, there was much ado over Oliver Stone's JFK. Historians denounced the film because Stone told the story from his point of view and used creative license in telling the story of the 35th president, his tenure and his death.

Guess what? It's all fiction...it's all make believe. These are not documentaries or exposes. These are movies and novels; they represent one person's creative expression. 

The good news, people are talking about day work (as my Mother calls it). They are asking questions, researching and learning about an aspect of Black women's history that has mostly been glossed over for the last half century. And discourse and discussion are always good.

What do Science and PR Week share in common?

What do Science and PR Week share in common?

For better and worst, both publications have spotlighted disturbing gaps, exclusion and omission of worthy African American professionals in the respective fields of biomedical research and public relations.

Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published a study revealing that Black researchers are systematically denied coveted NIH research grants, regardless of education, training, citizenship, country of origin and prior research and publication history.  The study found that Black applicants are 10 percentage points less likely than Whites to be awarded NIH research funding. 

PR Week, a stalwart trade publication, churned out a special edition in July anointing “50 PR Power Elites.”  In a field where women dominate, a whopping 39 of the 50 titans were men.  None were African Americans! 

Two of my colleagues, incensed about the bias, weighed in with a strong missive to PR Week editor Steve Barrett.

Where the PR Week and NIH case diverge is in the institutional response. 

Barrett, high-handed and unapologetic, pushed back against criticism by declaring that he never considers race, gender or ethnicity in a selection process.  He went on to define power and influence as the big corporate entities that rake in the largest revenue. 


Switch screens to the NIH. The findings of exclusion brought sober reflection and an acknowledgment that the status quo was unacceptable.

NIH officials pledged immediate action to correct the inequality. "In order to improve the health outcomes of all Americans, it's important for the biomedical workforce to reflect the diversity of the population," lead author Donna Ginther, professor of economics at the University of Kansas, said in an NIH news release." As the population becomes increasingly diverse, we will continue to get further from that goal unless the community intervenes."

PR Week’s Barrett got it right when he said he doesn’t see race. Apparently having the luxury to be blind to color, he sees only people who look like him.  Diversity requires an intentional and focused gaze on race. It demands an embrace of those who are different across a spectrum, and the beneficiaries are not just the once excluded; everyone ends up better off.  I’m left with two questions: Do I cancel my subscription to PR Week? Or start my own “PR Power” list?

A Letter to Steve Barrett, Editor of PR Week

August 18, 2011

Steve Barrett, Editor 
PRWeek

steve.barrett@prweek.com 

Dear Mr. Barrett: 

We were surprised and disappointed to see so little diversity reflected in PRWeek’s 2011 Power List of 50 “elite” public relations pros. Apparently PRWeek still defines power rather narrowly. In a profession where women predominate, PRWeek found only 11 powerful women, and in a field increasingly driven by multicultural markets, PRWeek couldn’t find any powerful African American or Latino PR corporate executives. It appears that public relations executives who are running their own shops also were not worthy of the power list. 

Your publication’s vision of power and elite PR professionals closely resembles that of Mad Men, the fictionalized television show reflecting the status quo of an earlier era. In our 21^st century global media landscape fueled as much by independent social media as the corporate behemoths, does PRWeek really believe that power and influence are the exclusive province of white males in corporate settings? 

If the parameters for inclusion were simply corporate size or billings, how were so many worthy picks overlooked? Consider African American corporate executives like Don Coleman, GlobalHue CEO; Y. Mark Belton, General Mills Executive Vice President for Global Strategy; Olivia Smashum, HBO Executive Vice President for Affiliate Marketing & Business Development; or Gwen Fortune-Blakely, Marriott Sr. Director of Marketing Integration & Brand Marketing.

Where are Latino senior executives like Univision Vice President for Corporate Communications Monica Talan or Javier Farfan, Director of Cultural Branding at PepsiCo? Why not include Jorge Moya, Chief Creative Officer at Latino agency powerhouse MGSCOMM?

Astonishingly, America’s changing face with its multi-hues and backgrounds was not reflected in your tribute. Nor did you consider the rapidly evolving field of public relations that includes myriad entities and organizations ranging from boutique firms to shops within public interest organizations that are reframing public policy and our communications landscape. Does PRWeek honestly believe that the executives shaping the messages and communications strategies for the nation’s non-profits and advocacy groups don’t exercise power within our profession and the larger public square? Perhaps the core question is how do you define power?

 

Today, a number of women, African American and Latino PR professionals broker power in ways that lift the industry to new heights. PRWeek owes it to those leaders and the profession to support a vision for the future that incorporates diversity in leadership as a best practice. Women constitute a majority of the population in a world that is increasingly black and brown. Our teams and our strategies must reflect the people we aim to reach and influence.  

Sincerely, 
Donna Lewis Johnson and Llenda Jackson Leslie

McKinney & Associates

Diversity: Educating the Future, a Majority of Minorities

Diversity: Educating the Future, a Majority of Minorities

Latino employment and education seem to be hot topics in the blogosphere nowadays, especially with the ongoing, heated immigration debates. Regardless of what your stance on the latter issue, one thing is certain: the Latino population is booming in the U.S. By 2050 it is expected they will make up 29 percent of the American population.

But Latino representation in higher education is still lagging. “Almost one in four school-aged American children is Latino, but a report released earlier this year by the White House showed those children achieve ‘the lowest education attainment levels’ in the country.”

Even while “college and career readiness among 2011 Hispanic high school graduates … shows slow but steady improvement, particularly in the areas of math and science,” youth of color are still suffering from historic “disinvestment in public education, social services and youth development.”

The good news is that some institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) recognize the dilemma and are increasing recruitment at mostly Hispanic high schools and community colleges.

Of course as Latino enrollment in post-secondary education programs grows, students will most likely face the counter-productive criticism of race-based acceptance, but let’s deal with that when we get there.

Diversity: Tap or Bottle? Your Skin Color May Tell the Answer

Tap or Bottle? Your Skin Color May Tell the Answer

In the years since major brands like Coca-Cola and Nestle first decided to bottle and sell water, a mostly-free and vital resource, marketing tactics have gone from convincing consumers that “it tastes better” to “it’s healthier” to “it will improve your life.”

Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary on all three counts – including that “municipal tap water is the source for 47.8% of bottled water” – big brands continue to up their game and push their campaigns. That’s not really news, except that, according to a recent study, Black and Latino parents are three times more likely than white parents to buy bottled water for their children.

Taking into consideration that the National Resources Defense Council found unsafe levels of bacteria in 17% of bottled water and chemical contamination in 22%, and the average price of a bottle water is about 500 times higher than filling a glass from the kitchen sink, don’t you wonder why more isn’t being done to market the truth to populations already suffering from huge health and economic disparities?

Weekly Poll: Do We Really Want a Color-Blind America?

Weekly Poll: Do We Really Want a Color-Blind America?

Color-blind America?  It sounds great, but do we Americans really want to give up our own self-interests?  Do we want to want to subjugate our needs, our families’ needs, our special interests to some ‘greater’ (or at least larger) good?  And should we?

 

 

This week, when the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) meets in Philadelphia, it’s sure to come up that MSNBC is about to hand its coveted prime time 6 PM time slot to the Rev. Al Sharpton—a “non-journalist celebrity” as he has been called by any number of more experienced, capable black journalists.

 

 

And what about the ongoing criticism that President Obama avoids weighing in on such critical issues as the soaring rate of black unemployment and the widening wealth gap between blacks and whites?  Does he get a pass with, “I am the President of all Americans”?  By the way, the President sent a dozen reps to the NABJ meeting.

 

 

On the flip side, there will be nothing but kudos for Mayor Bloomberg , who has pledged both his own and New York City’s funds to help Black and Latino youth.  And so it should be.  a city program targeting young Black and Latino males

 

 

Can we have it both ways?  What do you think?  Do we really want a color-blind America?

 

 

 YES ______                          NO _____

Diversity: Are We Self-Segregating?

[A screen shot of the DC metro area by race. How does your neighborhood compare?]

Diversity: Are We Self-Segregating?

A study released this week revealed that “affluent Blacks and Hispanics live in neighborhoods that are noticeably poorer than neighborhoods where low-income Whites live.”

The study, by Brown University Sociologist John Logan, relied on census data from 2005 to 2009 to show that (with the exception of the District and Atlanta, where Blacks and Hispanics who are well-off still live in neighborhoods of equal status to low-income Whites and Asians), segregated neighborhoods are still a very prominent reality throughout our nation.

"Separate translates to unequal even for the most successful Black and Hispanic minorities… African Americans who really succeeded live in neighborhoods where people around them have not succeeded to the same extent," said Logan.

At a time when the wealth gap between Whites and minorities is at its highest, should we be concerned about the implications and causes for these housing disparities? Or is it possible are we self-segregating as a means to cope and maintain a sense of unity in our common struggles?

Former HHS Secretary Says Diversity Is Key to Better Health

Former HHS Secretary Says Diversity

Is Key to Better Health

 

 

Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, the former US Secretary of Health and Human Services from 1989-1993 blames the lack of racial and ethnic diversity among the nation's health professionals for the growing gap in health disparities between whites and minorities.

"Having a more racially and ethnically diverse health professions workforce will enhance communication between health professionals and our nation's population," Dr. Sullivan said. "Improved communication between health professionals and the individuals they serve will foster trust and understanding that will influence health outcomes. If we are successful in increasing diversity, this will result in improved health status in the long run among our nation's minorities."

Speaking at the recent National Medical Association Convention held in Washington, DC, July 23-27, the president emeritus of the Morehouse School of Medicine, offered several strategies for promoting diversity in the health care professions from strengthening K-12 education in math and science to increasing financial aid to minority students interested in health care.

For his complete text, read Increase in minority health professionals to reduce disparities.

Reexamining Gentrification

Reexamining Gentrification

During his town hall last week, an audience member questioned President Obama’s views on gentrification and its role in our communities. Among other things, Obama said called it a most likely “welcome problem,” for many suffering neighborhoods in this economy.

But why would gentrification be viewed as a problem in the first place? Because society misunderstands it. The general notion these days is that a gentrification occurs when whites begin to increasingly occupy traditionally urban, Black neighborhoods.

But it’s really about “when a middle-class person moves into a poor neighborhood,” says Charles Wilson, president of the Historic Anacostia Block Association. In an article today by The Washington Post, Wilson says he realized after reading the definition of gentrification that as a Black man he is still “a gentrifier.”

The article highlights an important aspect of Black culture that is too often lacking in present economic and political discussions – by taking pride in our communities, we have the power to improve our surroundings.

While the notion of gentrification “makes so many people uncomfortable,” does it really have to? Should the African American community begin to claim the g-word as its own?



Breastfeeding cop forced to take unpaid leave

“Breastfeeding cop forced to take unpaid leave”

A breastfeeding DC police officer has been forced to take leave without pay after the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) refused to allow her to work at a desk job. The department’s chief of police, a woman and mother, upheld MPD’s new policy to deny reasonable options for breastfeeding moms.

The Draconian decision by MPD is mind-boggling. There is no sound justification for rejecting the mother’s right to express her milk for nurturing her baby. MPD’s own physician backed the officer’s request. After all, going back on the street would require the mom to wear a bullet-proof vest. The heavy protective gear would cause major discomfort and potentially compromise the mother’s lactation. 

For MPD’s information, breastfeeding is proven to be beneficial to babies, moms and employers. The Le Leche League, which promotes a better understanding of breastfeeding as an important element in the healthy development of the baby and mother, lists the following benefits:

 

Benefits for Baby

·         Antibodies in breast milk protect the baby from illness.

·         Breastfeeding promotes appropriate jaw, teeth and speech development as well as overall facial development.

 

Benefits for Mother

·         Breastfeeding is linked to reduced rates of breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

·         A breastfeeding mother can feed her baby even during stressful times such as when normal supplies of food and water are not available.

·         Breastfeeding saves time for mothers.

 

Benefits for Employers

·         Breastfed babies are healthier babies; thus, mothers who are employed outside the home are likely to miss fewer days of work.

What do you think about breastfeeding on the job? Send us your comments.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/07/breast-feeding-dc-cop-forced-take-leave-without-pay?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C1

http://www.llli.org/faq/advantagetoddler.html