Stick to the Issues or Get Out!

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?

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

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

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

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

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

“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.