Legally Black

Is it about race?

2009-09-17T20:18:00.000-07:00

Jimmy Carter may be on to something when he played the race card the other day, suggesting that Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst and other criticism is race-based. But then again, maybe he's wrong.

It's rarely about just race. America is too complex to be explained so simply. If it were just about race, Clinton wouldn't have had such a rough go. Notwitstanding being named the "first Black president", he was a white guy. Clinton survived because he knew how to play the game better than the right-wingers who were out to get him.

John Kerry, about as white as they come and rich to-boot, wasn't quite so adept. The swiftboaters sunk his candidacy.

Carter, another white dude, faced attacks on both sides of the political aisle.

But political affiliation can't explain it all. It can't explain why only 5 of the 22 children in my 4th grade daughter's class were permitted to watch the president's pep talk to the nation's school children. Political affiliation can't fully explain why so many people who would benefit from health care reform have rejected reform because it is proposed by Obama. What else explains why death threats aimed at Obama have skyrocketed?

Add to the mix the non-stop race baiting by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Video cameras catch black school children laughing while white kids are attacked. According to Rush, that's Obama's America. What? Really? Like the dozens of racially motivated events in the Before-Obama era that any moderately informed person could list off the top of their head? Was that Bush's America or Reagan's America?

I never thought I'd live to see a Black president in theWhite House. Will I live long enough to see the country have an honest dialog on race?

Random thoughts on health care

2009-08-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

I admit it: I don't understand most of those who oppose health care reform. Here are my random thoughts on the topic.

1. Every person who shows up in the ER ready to deliver a baby, or in need of an appendectomy, or dropping pints of blood, or having symptoms of any other medical emergency will receive care, regardless of ability to pay, citizenship status, or anything else. That's the law. There's a cost to that care, which we all absorb in one way or another. Health care reform that aims to create a more efficient system for providing preventative care and providing services more efficiently makes utmost sense.

2. If I didn't have employer-sponsored health insurance, I could barely afford to pay for a private plan that would provide substantially less coverage. If I lost my job, paying the COBRA premium would be a stretch. We are (I think) in at least the top 10% of earners. Are the people who are so vociferously protesting more able to pay? Or do they expect that they will have employer-sponsored insurance. Reality check: EAW, or for laypeople, employment at will. Those without a contract are subject to being terminated at any time. Bye-bye health insurance. Nothing requires an employer to provide health insurance.

3. We like to proclaim that we are a Christian nation (or in more inclusive moments) a Judeo-Christian nation. Let's assume that's a true statement. What's our proof? How do we treat the weakest, neediest people in our nation? What's that parable about the Good Samaritan? Or maybe the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes?

4. The richest nation in the world. The most powerful nation on earth. The best nation--love it or leave it. Pile on the superlatives. But whichever superlative you choose, the fact is the "most-est" nation doesn't provide a means for basic health care for all its citizesns. Lots of "lesser" nations somehow manage to do it.

5. Poor insurance companies; they can't compete if health reform includes a public option. What??? Since when have insurance companies been the poster children for protectionist policies. I thought we welcomed competition. Private schools manage to compete with public schools. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Atlanta haven't seen a wholesale loss of car dealers notwithstanding well-developed and utilized public transportation systems. FedEx and UPS seem to do quite fine, notwithstaning a mandated USPS monopoly. I suppose a public option might mean that private insurance companies might have to come up with innovative ways to compete, but if we're the best in the world, seems like they should welcome the challenge.

6. Rationing? The complaint is that health care reform will result in rationing? So what do insurance companies do if not ration? All insurance companies are fundamentally the same: collect premiums and limit the payment of claims, all in a quest for profit. Need to improve the bottom line? Easy! Simply deny or delay pre-treatment approvals for any number of specious reasons--not medically necessary, experimental, insufficient documentation, not a covered benefit, yada, yada, yada. Rationing by any other name. So who's the better gate-keeper? A profit-motivated company or the government? Neither makes me feel good, but rationing is a reality, and at least the government doesn't have a history of paying million-dollar bonuses to top executives.

I don't know that the current proposal is the best that we can do, but I do believe we have some of the best and brightest minds. I also believe that something has gotta give.

A Proportionate Response

2008-07-10T05:50:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Boulder DA formally exonerated them for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey and apologized to them for the cloud of suspicion that has hung over them since her death. The DNA says it wasn't them. Fine. It's always good when a DA does the right thing.

The story made the national news last night and the mornng news shows this morning. Why is this such big news? I'm sure the Ramseys did suffer because of the investigation and the whisper campaign that followed. It is tragic that Patsy Ramsey died, still under suspicion of having murdered her daughter.

But . . .they were never charged; they were never arrested; no one was arraigned; no one was tried; no one was wrongly convicted; and no one spent a single day in jail or in prison.

Consider all of the exonerations that have occurred across the nation, many involving black men. These individuals not only suffered a wrongful conviction, they lost years of their liberty for which there is no remedy. They missed the birthdays of children and the funerals of parents. And of course, no one knows how many individuals may have died in prison--or been executed--having been convicted of crimes they did not commit.

So yeah, I do feel for the Ramseys. They lost their daughter and the murderer is still out there. But, let's not get carried away.

One Drop

2008-05-14T20:08:00.000-07:00

If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, he will be the 44th white President of the United States. He will also be the first black President, and that is what has been the focus. It certainly makes a more compelling story to treat him as black, and I'm personally happy that there's lots of positive press for a black man. But does it not suggest that we are still of the mind that anything other than 100% white makes one, well, not white. And for that reason, some small percentage of the white voting public will not vote for him although his mother looks pretty much like theirs. Odd irony.

Wouldn't want to be her

2008-05-11T15:02:00.000-07:00

Can you say caught between the devel and the deep blue sea? As it stands, only a miracle will save Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. So what's the next step for her? I'm assuming that her amibition to be president won't die with her campaign.

With that in mind, if Mrs. Clinton plays the good little former candidate and forcefully campaigns for Obama, he might just win. That ain't necessarily good news for Mrs. Clinton, because barring a horrendous first term, Obama, the incumbent, will be the Democratic nominee for 2012. In other words, helping Obama win will sink her next best chance to become President; she'll have to wait until 2016 when her age will be an issue.

On the other hand, if she fails to campaign or it's clear that her heart isn't in it, the party faithful are like to blame her if Obama loses, particuarly if he loses by a close margin such that her assistance could have been a true game-changer. She can wave good-bye to her chances in 2012. She might not become a pariah, but I doubt there'll be a rush to annoint her the 2012 candidate. The Obamaites won't forget and will punish her for her lack of support.

It's a no-win situation, as I see it. To borrow from Laurel and Hardy, this is a fine mess she's gotten herself into.

Politically correct on age?

2008-05-09T18:19:00.001-07:00

Remember Omarosa from The Apprentice? Remember the controversy she created over another another competitor's statement about "the pot calling the kettle black?" "It's racist!" she exclaimed

Her claim was ridiculous, and it made her look bad to press such an idiotic claim. And there were plenty willing to tell her as much. Such claims as Omarosa made often bring out those who rail against "political correctness" and accuse blacks of being hypersensitive.

I hope that those same critics will rail against John McCain in the same way. Didn't McCain just play the age card? After all, when Obama suggested that McCain had "lost his bearings" in response to McCain's statements about Hamas wanting Obama for president.

I have only one college degree and one professional degree, and I'm well into middle age, so I might be a little slow on the uptake, but exactly where is the ageism in that? I suppose you could say that the statement suggests senility, which one associates with age, but to claim ageism is a bit of a stretch.

Come on, John. Is that the best you can do? But if you want to make such spurious claims, you can start writing your concesesion speecch now. But until then, all you other folks had better watch what you say.

Hillary Clinton, President of Hard-working whites only?

2008-05-08T11:25:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton keeps making the pitch that Barack Obama can't draw the vote of working-class whites like she can, and that's what makes her the stronger candidate against McCain. Excuse me? Did I miss something?

The Democratic candidate will need the support of working class whites, but that's not all. Lest Mrs Clinton forget, the candidate will need the vote of African-Americans of all income and educational levels. That candidate will also need the votes of young voters, including first-time voters. In other words, the candidate will need broad support, which is fitting since that person will have a darn good shot at becoming the President of theUnited States. The same United States that, as cliche-ish as it sounds, is a great melting pot.

When I survey the results from the past few months, it is Obama that has generated excitement among a broad spectrum of voters.

To the extent that Hillary believes she can somehow pull out the nomination by focusing on one demographic, she'd better remember that she risks alienating the others. I don't expect this to become relevant because I don't expect Hillary to be the nominee. But if she does, she had better not assume that she can pander to one group and write the others off or take them for granted.

We have spent the last 8 years with a President who thinks that only certain groups matter. He is our President in name only, but theirs in reality.

Hillary's latest tact is one likely borne of desperation, but don't make the mistake of failing to appeal to all of us. That's what she should have been doing from the outset, and then maybe she would not have found herself in such a precarious position.

In Memory of Mildred Loving

2008-05-05T18:17:00.000-07:00

By all accounts Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were madly in love. They had grown up near each other and fallen in love at an early age. First comes love, then comes marriage, so the saying goes, and that's what followed for them. Nothing particularly unusual about that--just an old-fashioned love story. Except that their union was illegal.

Until 1967, the Commonwealth of Virginia had the audacity to criminalize interracial marriages. The so-called Racial Integrity Act made it a felony for blacks and whites to marry, as Mildred and Richard discovered. Mildred, black, and Richard, white, had married in Washington D.C., but returned to Virginia, and the Commonwealth just wasn't going to have any of that race mixing. Police officers invaded the Lovings' home in the dead of night and upon finding them in bed, arrested and convicted them. They were sentenced to 1 year in prison, suspended, if they would leave the Commonwealth. The U. S. Supreme Court overturned their convictions, finding the statute unconstitutional.

The Virginia miscegenation statute had been on the books since 1924. The trial judge that convicted the Lovings stated,

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The Commonwealth of Virginia argued before the Supreme Court that the original intent of the framers of the 14th amendment was that its provisions did not apply to interracial marriage. Original intent. The Commonwealth also relied on another familiar argument: states' rights, i.e. marriage is a matter to be determined within the realm of a state's police power.

If there is ever a time one doubts the importance of the Supreme Court, it is cases like Loving that should remind that person of the important role the Court plays in checking the power of the State. How different this country would have been had Virginia and the other Southern states had their way.

Mildred and Richard didn't set out to make history or even to make new law. They just wanted to be married and to live in the community in which they had grown up. That's not much to ask.Mildred died several days ago. Richard has been dead since 1975, killed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver.

Stick to the Issues or Get Out!

2008-04-26T06:57:00.000-07:00

Six months ago, when I looked at the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, I was as thrilled as preacher at a Sunday buffet. Obama. Clinton. Edwards. Sure there were differences, but all three were strong candidates, and shoo-ins to win the presidency. I could no more imagine not voting in November than I could imagine taking a weekend trip to Pluto. Now look at the mess we Democrats are in.

So, I'm starting my own campaign. Stick to the Issues or Get Out! My campaign is not aimed at any particular candidate. Rather, it is my way of saying that personal attacks and strategies designed to focus on irrelevancies will guarantee only one thing: that a candidate who becomes the Democratic nominee this way won't get my vote. I'll be busy come election day.

Issues that I want to hear about:
1) The economy and what the plan is for giving the poor a hand-up and revitalizing the middle class.

2) Education. What's the plan for addressing our unacceptable high school drop-out rate. What ideas does the candidate have to make higher education more affordable.

3) Iraq. What's the plan for the future there? A precipitous withdrawal would likely be disasterous, but it makes little sense to continue to throw billions of dollars at a warthat should have never been started.

4) Health care. I'd like someone to really push a reasonable plan that immediately provides preventative health care to everyone. I'd like to hear some innovative thinking about how to address the larger issue of providing diagnostic and treatment to everyone if not free, at an affordable rate.

5) Taxes. Our system is horribly out of whack. Why should some lower middle class, single mother pay more taxes than a multinational corporation?

That's just my short list. I know that from time-to-time the candidates do talk on these issues, but I'm sick of hearing about Rev. Wright. I'm sick of hearing about shooting in duck blinds.

If you agree with this, pass this message along to other bloggers and friends. Let's get our own campaign underway.

Does affirmative action hurt minorities?

2007-09-28T20:30:00.000-07:00

This article, which appeared in the L.A. Times, poses that question. Clearly the question has no simple answer, but this is a discussion that we as African-Americans should not shy away from considering. Nor should we be reluctant to engage in the research that is necessary to gain clearer understanding of the effects of affirmative action or to allow others to do that research.

My own experience is that affirmative action in some cases can hurt the very people it is meant to help. Perhaps the most startling statement in the Times article is

"Only one in three black students who start law school graduate and pass the bar on their first attempt; most never become lawyers. How much of this might be attributable to the mismatch effect of affirmative action is still a matter of debate, but the problem cries out for attention. "

I've seen that happen first hand. For example, with the best of intentions, Law School A may be willing to admit a student, notwithstanding that all indications are that this student is non-competitive at that particular institution. That's not to say this student is not capable, but rather a realistic recognition that, as is the case with sports, a player may notbe ale to run with the big dogs of the NBA, but in another league, he can shine. In other words, that prospective student might in fact be competitive at School B, although School B may not be as highly regarded as School A. The prestige of going to the better school, perhaps enhanced by a grant of a scholarship, however motivates the student to go to School A.

If this student graduates and passes the bar, affirmative action has worked just as it was meant to. We have added one more minority attorney to the bar. If, however, the student drops out, either voluntarily upon learning that he is at a competitive disadvantage, or involuntary, because of a breach of academic probation, that student will likely never obtain a law degree and will never becocme a licensed attorney. Keep in mind that many law schools have a mandatory gradidng curve, which pits students directly against each other--the weaker students will bear the full brunt of the merciless grading curve. If School A won't give this student a second chance, it is unlikely that any other school will now admit him. That includes School B.

On the other hand, had the student attended School B from the outset, he would have had a greater chance of success. Competing against other students who share credentials similar to his own would have given that student a chance to excell at School B or at least to complete the program. If School B is accredited, upon his graduation, this student would have been eligible to take the bar exam in any state of his choosing, and would be well on his way to becoming a licensed attorney.

Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification. Nonetheless it makes the point: affirmative action is not necessarily a benefit if indeed there is a mismatch.

We cannot be afraid to confront difficult facts. Nor can we afford to take our eyes off the prize. We need more African-American attorneys. If what we're doing is not working--and there are indications that it is not--then we must rethink what is the best way to achieve our goal.

I have other thoughts on what we ought to consider in terms of increasing the number of minorities, which I will touch on as time goes on.

Celebrating the Little Rock Nine

2007-09-24T20:39:00.000-07:00

It's been fifty years since President Eisenhower called in the national guard to escort 9 African American students as they integrated Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. That time seem so long ago. Maybe it's the pictures, in stark black and white, or the clothing, like costumes out of a staging of Grease. The idea that so many people could be so agnry over because nine black teenagers wanted to take advantage of the learning at Central High seems so foreign. Newsweek has a good article about the events of those days.

Are things better? Mostly, yes. We're still far too conscious of race. But except for maybe a few skinheads or throwback Klansmen, people are rarely openly hostile to the idea of integration.

But then again, I'm reminded that the problems in Jena, Louisiana began when a few black students sat under the tree some white students believed to be exclusively for their pleasure.

Within days of each other, there's a celebration in Little Rock and a protest in Jena.

Reflections on the Jena 6

2007-09-21T20:11:00.000-07:00

After hearing the reports of the protest in Jena yesterday, I was heartened. The peaceful nature of the march was a powerful reminder of the power of a peaceful protest. I wish I could have attended. Thousands of people, marching in solidarity, taking care of business. One Jena city official described the day as not only involving no arrests, but not a single incident--at least not from any of the supporters of the Jena 6. The one incident that did occur, involving the two white teens with nooses in their pick-up, portrayed the protesters in a positive light, backfiring on those two teens who tried to garner a reaction.

Then there was today, and the court's refusal to reduce Mychal Bell on bond. It's not clear that the court considered the bail issue, given the closed nature of juvenile court. However, if the judge did not consider the issue, or if he did hear the bail issue but indeed refused to reduce bail to something less than $90,000, an explanation is in order.

I learned a few key principles in law school, including the presumption of innocence, i.e. innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I also learned that consistent with the presumption of innocence, a criminal defendant shouldn't be denied his freedom unless there is a fear that he will not return to stand trial. Bail is meant to serve as a guarantee that the defendant will return. Stated simply, unless there is good reason not to release a defendant before he has been found guilty, bail should be allowed and should be set in an amount that is high enough to guarantee the defendant's appearance, but not unnecessarily excessive such that the defendant is unnecessarily denied his freedom.

Bell clearly has a past history that works against him. His prior convictions, although while a juvenile, don't help his cause. But as I understand it, Bell has plenty of reason to stay put. His young age and the fact that his relatives, on whom he is dependent, live in the area, suggests that bond could be lowered. Finally, the court has the discretion and the power to impose certain conditions on Bell that if breached, could result in is immediate return to jail.

Finally, there are the reports that members of the KKK or neo-Nazis have posted the names and addresses of the six teens on the internet such that if the six aren't convicted, the Klan or the neo-Nazis can mete out their own brand of justice. The nuts come out at night, and the question is what, if anything the police are doing to protect the five that are currently free on bond. Beer or cheap wine decrease inhibitions, and the Klan's system of justice isn't going to include community service. My prayer is that nothing happen to those boys. May our justice system give them the fair trial they deserve, and a just punishment if they're found guilty.

Just keep this in mind

2007-09-05T18:46:00.000-07:00

Do you have a Dillard's Department Store in your town? If you do, consider what you may want to do, if anything, in light of Dillard's apparent discriminatory treatment of African-Americans, as outlined in this article.

Of course, the case hasn't yet gone to trial; Dillard's deserves its day in court, and ultimately the plaintiffs' stories may not be believed. However, having experienced false accusations about how I acquired an infant outfit that I attempted to return when it came apart the first time my son wore it, I think the stories of the various individuals may have some credibility. I ultimately was able to return the outfit, which I received as a shower gift, but only after obtaining the receipt from my friend and making a second trip to the store. My own experience was many years ago, but it still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and I avoid shopping there.

Justice delayed, but not denied entirely

2007-08-25T16:16:00.000-07:00

It took 43 years, but finally, James Ford Seale has been called to account for the heinous crime he committed against two teens, as described in this article. How much hate and depravity must one have to be able to kidnap two hitchhiking teens, beat them, bind them, and toss the teens into the Mississippi River while they were still alive?

It's a miscarriage of justice that it took so long to try the case and obtain a conviction, in part because of the apparent collusion of law enforcement officers. Seale should have spent the better part of his adult life behind bars instead of enjoying whatever his degenerate life consisted of. Nonetheless, I can't think of a fate worse than spending the twilight of your life behind bars, knowing that you're almost certain to die in a prison hospital, deprived of the comfort of family and friends. Suffering from cancer and other problems, Seale is in pretty sad physical shape, but off to jail he goes. Capital.

A voice of reason speaks on the Michael Vick case

2007-08-23T19:23:00.000-07:00

“It is regrettable to us that Michael Vick had to settle for a plea bargain,” Rev. R. L. White said. “All of us, the fans of Mr. Vick, had hoped for a more favorable outcome." (See this article.)

Rev. White is the president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP. What more favorable outcome could Rev. White have wished for? Maybe if Vick said, "pretty please" or "abra cadabra" or uttered some other magic phrase, the indictment would simply disappear and he could show up at training camp as if he'd just awakened from a nightmare. Is that the more favorable outcome Rev. White was hoping for?

I mean no disrespect, but Reverend White's statment is idiotic. It ignores the fact that Vick had few options: plead out or face a trial, with two close associates turning state's evidence. In a country where people spend millions of dollars on their pets and in a case where there is evidence of Vick's involvment in financing the dog-fighting operation and treating the animals with wanton cruelty, I'd put Vick's chances of an acquittal on all charges between zero and zero. He'd need conviction on only one of the charges to put his NFL career in jeopardy, and any appeals could have lasted years. So, a plea that could Vick out of at least the federal pen somes about as good as it could get.

In an earlier post, I was very critical of the Southern Christian Leadership Council's plan to honor Michael Vick, which the SCLC has since reconsidered. And I think what I wrote above is pretty indicative of what I think of the Atlanta chapter's position on this case. Civil rights organizations lose credibility when they give blind support based primarily on race.

Thankfully, this article provides an alternative view to that of Reverend White and the local NAACP chapter. I like that Dennis Courtland-Hayes, interrim president and CEO of the NAACP, stated clearly and unequivocally that, "Michael Vick is not a victim. He absolutely must account for what he has done."

No doubt African-American men suffer the most injustice under in our judicial system. That said, if Michael Vick is guilty, as it appears he is, there is nothing unjust about calling him to account for it. Maybe the government is singling him out, making an example of him. That strategy is as old as the law itself, and if anything, just confirms that Vick is a big fish who will give the federal government a lot of publicity bang for its prosecutorial buck. Remember Martha Stewart? She too was a big fish who was prosecuted as much for who she was as for what she did.

So in short, I appreciate Courtland-Hayes' statements. His is a voice of reason.

Send your children to a White school?

2007-08-20T22:30:00.000-07:00

This article suggests that parents who want to increase thier childdren's chances of gaining admission to top schools, at least top California schools, parents ought to send their children to a school where the majority of children are White.

What a choice, but too often, the choice too many of us have to face. We agonized over where to educate our children. In an idea world, there would be a public school, with excellent academics, a solid core of parents committed to the school, a good racial and ethnic mix, economic diversity, and quality extracurricular programs. I don't live in a community where any of the schools come close to being ideal. So what's a parent to do?

Where I live, the public schools have very good academics, but there is very little economic diversity and even less racial/ethnic diversity. By moving just four blocks from where we now live, my children could attend a school rich in diversity, but deficient in academics, often close to the line between being "academically acceptable" and "academically unacceptable" based on standardized testing. It does have an excellent "school within a school" for gifted and talented children, but few African-American students take advantage of the program, and those who do, suffer some ostracization for being "too white". In addition, something about teenage girls going into labor in the cafeteria (which has happened) is not particularly conducive to the educational process.

So what did we do? We chose a small private school. It has absolutely the best academics in town, with many of the other things I've listed above as being my idea of ideal. But what it very clearly doesn't have is diversity of any type. That a family with two parents with professional careers is one of the "poor" families says much about the economic diversity. Plus, at various times in recent years, my children have comprised 50% of the African-American student body.

My children have thrived in their school, but it has come at a cost, without a doubt. The lack of diversity is just a part of it. And I feel a tinge of guilt. One of my white friends, a doctor married to another doctor, once told me that she chose to send her children to the barely acceptable high school I described above because she believed, as a Christian, she had an obligation to use her means and influence to make the school better for the children whose parents weren't as well-placed. She explained that she and her husband could afford to send their childrento any school of their choosing, but she felt in important to not just look out for her own children, but to take an interest in the education of other children in the community. She is a far better person than I am.

I don't know what the solution is. I am stumped. But I don't like believing that attendance at a white school is the key (or at least a better key) to success.

Perpetuating the stereotype of young Black men

2007-08-17T19:11:00.000-07:00

I rarely watch the Dr. Phil show, but I watched it today. The first 30 minutes were moderately entertaining. Then it things spiraled downward. The topic was about relationships for money. The guests in the first half-hour were a woman, whose sole ambition is to find a sugardaddy and be a kept woman, and her husband, who passively tolerates his wife's efforts.

The guests for the second half-hour were a 34 year old Keli, a White woman and her 20 year old Black boyfriend, Zach. Continuing the same theme from the first half of the show, she was the "sugar mama" and he was the kept man. Keli was delighted to take care of him. Zach is unemployed and not looking to change that status, so she pays for everything, including a couple of trips to NASCAR, at $1000 each. In the space of about 20 minutes, the show managed to touch on virtually every negative stereotype of young Black men:

--YBM are shiftless, lacking in ambition;

--YBM view White women as trophies--objects of sexual desire;

--with YBM, it's all about the sex and money; who needs love and committment;

--YBM need to be taken care of, and told what to do;

--the main value of YBM is their sexual prowess; like the Energizer bunny, YBM keep going and going.

Perhaps I should be happy that nothing suggested that Zach had a criminal record, but I was so annoyed by everything else, that this was scant consolation.

There was nothing inaccurate about the Keli/Zach story, but I am always bothered by stories that unnecessarily portray African-American men in a poor light, even if the light is accurate. The picture of Keli is not a pretty one either, but there are enough positive images in the media that one silly, insecure woman will have little effect on how other White women are viewed. But there is so little positive press about Black men, that to add another negative image to the other side of scale does exponentially more damage to Black men.

I doubt that it was intentional on the part of Phil McGraw or his producers--at least I hope that the case, but I'm sure that there were many other candidates who the producers could have chosen to make the second half of the show. I wish they had thought of the implications of selecting Keli and Zach.

Invisible Man

2007-08-15T16:44:00.000-07:00

I finshed Invisible Man by Ralph Elison recently. What an incredible book, and one that I wish I had read earlier in my life. The story and the theme remain relevant, even 50 years after it was first published and some 70 years after the setting of the story. For anyone unfamiliar with the book, it chronicles the unnamed Black narrator's search for his own idenity in a world of where people are determined to impose on him their own ideas about his identity, ignoring or failing to see him for who he really is, dishonoring his individuality.

The theme is relevant beyond race. Who doesn't struggle with identity in general? Who doesn't strugge with the identity others want to hang on us? It is something I continue to struggle with, even as I approach the half-centrury mark age-wise.

People, particularly men, see what they want to see about me, presumably what they see of all black women, blind to my individuality. I think that African-Americans may feel the invisibility more palpatably, however, because there are so many stereotypes to which we are subject. As a successful Black woman, invariably I face the issue from whites as to whether I'm the token Black, successful because I'm the affirmative action hire or because I've earned it. From too many other Blacks, there's sometimes the suspicion that I've sold out or I'm "too white" whatever that means. I could go on.

Elison manages to capture the angst of life and identity in a world where it's so easy for all us to pigeonhole people quickly and proceed as though the initial charactization has to be correct. This isn't really a male or female issue or a black or white problem, but one of which so many of us are guilty of--ignoring the uniqueness of each living person.

In this well-crafted story, Ellison created a character with whom I could identify while also forcing me confront my own shortcomings in how I view other people. I'm on a mission to encourage others who have not read this book to do so, sooner rather than later.

Rethinking the 1-800-FLOWERS lawsuit

2007-08-13T20:20:00.000-07:00

Everything about Leroy Greer's lawsuit against 1-800-FLOWERS.com is misguided, in my opinion, and I would hope that his attorney, Kennitra Foote, would reconsider pursuing this case. Mr. Greer is an adulterer, but ultimately, that has little relevance. Rather, Texas law is quite relevant, and Mr. Greer's claims have scant support in Texas law.

From what I've seen of his complaint, he claims that the florist breached its contract when it sent a thank you note to his home address and subsequently faxed to his estranged wife the receipt showing his purchase of flowers for his mistress.

The first problem that Greer is likely to encounter is proving the contract. He claims he requested by telephone that nothing be sent to his house and the phone representative agreed. He has nothing in writing, which is not fatal to his claim, but will make it difficult to prove that any agreement ever existed unless there is a recording of the call.

Assuming he can prove the contract, the next problem is that under the law, contract damages are very limited. Without getting too legally technical, only certain kinds of damages can be recovered for breach of contract. The goal is to put the injured party in the position he would have been in if the contract had been performed. More importantly, the damages must be reasonably foreseeable--the damages must have been within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract.

The mental anguish damages Mr. Greer is seeking don't fit that bill. In Texas, with rare exception, one cannot recover mental anguish damages for breach of a contract, and this case doesn't seem to fit within the exception. No one would could contemplate that sending a thank you note and receipt to a customer's house could affect a divorce settlement. You'd need a crystal ball and 20/20 vision to see that. In short, the contract claim seems like a hard sell.

There is in Texas a tort for the intentional infliction of emotional damage, which would allow Greer to recover his mental anguish damages, but that appears unlikely as well. To win based on intentional infliction of emotional distress, Greer will need to show 1) extreme and outrageous conduct; 2) intentional or reckless conduct by 1-800-FLOWERS; and 3) severe mental anguish caused by the florist's conduct. Even if the florist acted wrongly in faxing the receipt to Greer's wife, that does not strike me as "outrageous" and is not likely to strike a court as outrageous. There are many cases in Texas with more compelling facts that did not result in a finding of outrageous.

Even if the the florist's conduct is considered outrageous, establishing intentional or reckless conduct on the part of the florist will be the next hurdle. More likely, its conduct would be characterized as negligent, but not reckless or intentional.

Finally, Greer would need to prove that he is actually suffering mental anguish, sufficient to justify damages. That is very difficult to do in Texas. Mere embarassment or annoyance is not enough. One has to suffer an extreme degree of mental pain, and it has to be the result of the outrageous conduct of the defendant. Mr. Greer's statements on the Today Show this morning suggest that his "mental anguish" stems from the ridicule resulting from the lawsuit--not from anything tht 1-800-FLOWERS did.

Moreover, there is the unspoken element, that is, a sympathetic plaintiff. There is so much suspicion about awarding mental anguish damages anyway that as a practical matter, only the most sympathetic plaintiffs tend to have success. Mr. Greer is not sympathetic. Men who cheat on their wives, even their estranged wives, just don't evoke a lot of sympathy. You'll never find a requirement that the plaintiff be sympathetic in the jury instructions, but you have to be realistic.

All in all, I hope Ms. Foote is being paid by the hour. She's taking a big risk if she has a contingency fee arrangment.

I'm not the janitor

2007-08-12T17:46:00.000-07:00

This article describes the experience of one Black partner at a major Chicago-based law firm. Like so many of us, he was mistaken for someone other than the lawyer that he is--in this case, the janitor. I had a similar experience early in my career. My office at one of the top Dallas firms of the day was near the copy room. Working late one evening, I was interrupted by a couple of white men who poked their heads into my office, seeking help with the copier. There was a deposition running long, and they were particicpating one way or another in the depo., but not one of our lawyers. The copier problem was easily solved. One of them noted, "Figures that a secretary would be able to solve the problem!" Fortunately, the other guy responded, "Maybe she's not a secretary. Maybe she's an attorney." I couldn't keep the smugness from my voice as I replied, "I am."

A simple thank you from either of them, and I surely would have forgotten the incident five minutes later. The request for help wasn't the problem, and I guess I should be glad I was mistaken for a secretary, as opposed to the cleaning lady. But I was tempted to confront the mistaken gentleman with a question of what about me suggested that I was a secretary? My nicely appointed office? The one with exterior windows? My late hours? The big stack of regional reporters and treatises? What?

So, I can relate with Stanley Stallworth's story. And I'm delighted to see that certain firms and companies are trying to address the problem. But let's be frank: there's still a long way to go. How many Black general counsels are there? How many major firms have more than a few (if any) African-American partners?

Until there's some real change in the way associates are hired and the way they are mentored as they work their way up the partnership ladder, there's not likely to be significant change. Firms still regularly want to interview only the students whose grades place them in the top 15 or 20 percent of the class, failing to spend anytime with students who are likely to be very good attorneys, notwithstanding their grades, a poor proxy for predicting future success in practice. And the firms must be very intentional in not having higher requirements for the African-Americans they are interested in. At my first firm out of law school, I was one of two African-American associates, in a firm of approxiately 120 attorneys. Most of the partners and associates were alumni of very good regional law schools. The other Black associate and I, however, were both top graduates of top national law schools.

I could go on, but I hope that I'm clear. I'm delighted to see firms like Sidley and companies like Walmart doing more to increase diversity. It's a good start.

Michael Vick/SCLC Update

2007-08-11T18:24:00.000-07:00

Whether the Southern Christian Leadership Council has backed off or never intended to honor Michael Vick, this is good news. Yes, I just heaved a sigh of relief.

Obama: Black Enough?

2007-08-10T20:10:00.001-07:00

Is Obama "Black enough?" I missed the debate on Hardball on this question, but in my opinion, it's a silly question. What does it even mean? Is there some scale that measures "Blackness?" Is it the opposite of the fabled paper bag test where only those lighter than the bag were eligible for membership in certain fraternities and sororities? Here, must you be darker than the bag to be considered "Black enough?" Someone explain this to me.

Interestingly enough, when the question is raised in the white community, i.e. is someone "White enough," it's likely to be posed by a skinhead or klansman, givng more proof to how wrong-headed the question truly is.

Nonetheless in the Black community, that criticism of not being "Black enough" is often raised when the subject of the inquiry is well-educated, well-spoken, well-off financially, or well-connected with friends across the racial spectrum, but not considered adequately committed to Black issues. This may or may not be why Obama's Blackness is questioned.

I suspect that former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts is not "Black enough" in the opinion of some, notwithstanding his mahogany complection. After all, he is a Republican and a professed conservative. He's Black enough for me. I just happen to disagree with most of what he stands for. To state it more pointedly, the appropriate and only appropriate questions are:

What does an individual believe?
Do I agree?
Why or why not?

These are relevant questions that are more likely to lead to meaningful discussion than some vague question about "Blackness."

But whatever you do, I beg you to avoid even dignifying the question of whether some individual is "Black enough" with a response. When we respond to such a question as though there is a legitimate or correct answer, we contribute to the belief that African-Americans are a monolith--all of one mind and subject to excommunication should we deviate too much from conventional Black wisdom. Only a weak people are threatened by differences within the community.

Let us not distract from the strength of our people by suggesting that we can brook no dissension. Nor should we permit anyone else to shackle us with such a burden by asking such an inane question as to whether someone is "Black enough."

Is Obama Black enough? Next question, please.

Barry Bonds: Much ado about nothing

2007-08-08T14:02:00.000-07:00

Now that the Barray Bonds has broken the homerun hitting record, maybe everyone can go back to their regular lives and stop talking about whether Bonds accomplished the record with the aid of steroids or not. We may never know the anser to that one, and quite frankly, I don't think it matters.

Let's suppose that Bonds indeed used performance-enhancing drugs. There is every reason to believe that he wouldn't be the only one to do so. That would include the many players who pitched to him and may have improved their performance through steroid use. Can anyone ever figure out what would have happened if they all had been clean?

Let's not forget that steroids aren't the only performance-enhancing drugs. Amphetamines--greenies--have been around for years, and if this article is accurate, used by a substantial number of players, including possibly Hank Aaron. Those lovely little green pills jazzed the user's stamina and enhanced his reaction time. In other words, anyone who wishes to diminish Bonds' homerun record better be ready to challenge many other records as well.

But, I'm not ready to congratulate Bonds either. I don't fault him, but I can't give him the figurative pat on the back. Rather, the most that can be said is that Major League Baseball has a serious PR problem. It waited far too long to determine whether there was a problem and then to decide how to address it. That's not Bonds' fault; it's not any of the players' fault. It is what it is. I'm not particularly a baseball fan, but play ball.

Oliver W. Hill 1907-2007

2007-08-06T18:49:00.000-07:00

Pop quiz: name two renowned civil rights lawyers from the civil rights era. That should actually be quite easy. One could easily choose from Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, Spottswood Robinson, James Nabrit, or Charles Houston. But there was also Oliver W. Hill, who before his death yesterday, amassed an incredible record. This article, by Julian Bond, aptly reflects the greatness of this pioneer. This was a man who was worthy of the many honors he received. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Rest in peace.

Works for me

2007-08-05T22:12:00.001-07:00

If I were single, and wanting to be married, I wouldn't hesitate to consider any decent man who was interested in me, without regard to color. As the mother of a college-aged daughter who will in all likelihood some day wish to be married and have children, I would have no problem with her bringing home a non-Black man, so long as he was good and decent. I'm not the only one to see things this way, as is pointed out in this article.

Any black woman who wants to limit her choices to only Black men, is plain and simply going to limit her chances of finding Mr. Right. As long as she recognizes the cost, that's a personal choice. But as for me, there are too many other considerations in findng the right partner to automatically exclude large groups of candidates simply because their race or ethnicity is wrong. It sounds trite, and cliche-ish, but color is only skin-deep. We can't ask others to look beyond our skin color (as I think most believe should be done for employment, housing, and all manner of other decisions), if we are not willing to do the same.

More power to you Sisters.

Thinking like the KKK

2007-08-03T15:15:00.000-07:00

What's the difference between the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Ku Klux Klan? Less than what appears at first blush, if you consider the SCLC's plans to honor Michael Vick, as described in this article.

Michael Vick has done nothing recently that deserves special recognition. Does the SCLC, the same organization led by Martin Luther King, not subscribe to the concept, so eloquently stated by Dr. King, that we judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin? Yet the SCLC, in choosing to honor Vick, rejects that concept for which so many fought, and for which some died. No doubt, the SCLC would not bestow honors on Michael Vick but for the fact that he is an African-American. What infuriates me even more is that I question whether the SCLC would bestow honors on Vick at all if had not been indicted for dog-fighting activities allegedly occurring on his property. This is not the basis for deciding who is worthy of respect.

Let me be perfectly clear: if the SCLC were simply criticizing Michael Vick detractors for having convicted him before he's had his day in court, I'm right there with them. I might even be in agreement about any criticism of the NFL's decision to restrict Vick from attending Falcons training camp. But having said that, one must look at the facts critically. It is a fact that evidence of dog-fighting activities was found on Vick's property. It is a fact that one of his acquaintances has already pleaded out and implicated Vick. It is a fact that dog-fighting is a brutal "sport" that appeals to the basest of human instinct.

One should consider what it means to "honor" someone. The dictionary definition of honor is to confer distinction; to holdin high respect.Moreover, one should remember what the SCLC supposedly stands for. According to its website, its focus is "To promote spiritual principles within our membership and local communities; to educate youth and adults in the areas of personal responsibility, leadership potential, and community service; to ensure economic justice and civil rights in the areas of discrimination and affirmative action; and to eradicate environmental classism and racism wherever it exists."

Help me out here: where exactly does honoring Michael fit within the professed focus of the SCLC? What aspect of dog fighting (assuming it was occurring) is Christian?There are simply too many individuals worthy of honor by the SCLC to select one who is tainted by the allegations such as those contained in the indictment. If Michael Vick should ultimately be found innocent, after having comported himself with aplomb and dignity, then by all means, honor him then. At least there will be a basis for doing so. But while he remains under a cloud of suspicion, supported by evidence of wrong-doing, now is not the time to sully the name of the SCLC or dilute the values for which it professes to stand.

The KKK's standard operating procedure is to judge people by the color of the skin. I'd expect better from the SCLC.