The Deadwiley Truth

2013-06-14T22:14:00.001-07:00

THE DEADWILEY TRUTH

OP-ED COLUMN

By Eric M. Deadwiley

The EEOC Is Enforcing The Law. Finally!

It only took “decades” of rampant poverty in Black and Brown communities and literally “millions” of otherwise qualified job applicants with criminal convictions on their public records to be denied an honest 9 to 5, for the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to finally enforce a law that has been on the books for over 4 decades.

The EEOC announced on Tuesday that it is filing federal civil rights suits on BMW and Dollar General Corp for what they claim are violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit employment discrimination based on race, creed, religion, sex etc… BMW apparently held a “blanket” no-hire policy for people with any form of criminal conviction on their records. However, BMW hired a sub-contractor UTI Integrated Logistics Inc., who only considered criminal convictions that were within the past 6 or 7 years. The EEOC encourages employers to set time limits on most criminal convictions for employers to avoid denying an applicant employment for what could be an outdated and oftentimes irrelevant conviction to the job being sought. UTI’s policy complied with the EEOC’s guidelines. BMW parted ways with UTI and brought in a new logistics contractor who did not follow the EEOC’s guidelines, but followed BMW’s policy and required all of BMW’s current employees to reapply for the jobs they already occupied.

As a result, over 600 current UTI employees where given background checks. Around 88 employees had prior criminal records and were terminated immediately. Of the 88, around 70 were Black. This “blanket” exclusion of any person with a criminal history violates Title VII’s clauses against “Disparate Impact.” In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission updated it’s “Enforcement Guidance for the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” The EEOC concluded this about the use of criminal conviction records in hiring decisions:

"Some states require employers to wait until late in the selection process to ask about convictions. The policy rationale is that an employer is more likely to objectively assess the relevance of an applicant’s conviction if it becomes known when the employer is already knowledgeable about the applicant’s qualifications and experience. As a best practice, and consistent with applicable laws, the Commission recommends that employers not ask about convictions on job applications and that, if and when they make such inquiries, the inquiries be limited to convictions for which exclusion would be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity."

The EEOC has also clarified their policy position–that the exclusion by employers of all people with criminal records has a “disparate impact” on Blacks and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers can also be in violation of the statute for using criminal convictions that are deemed to be “unrelated” to the job being sort and not consistent with business necessity, which is one of the cases filed against Dollar General Corp. A Black female was offered a position even though she disclosed that she had a 6 year old drug possession conviction. Not only is the drug possession conviction not in any way connected to the job the applicant was seeking, but for Dollar General Corp to have a blanket policy against anyone with a drug possession convictions would have a disparate impact on Black applicants since Blacks are “targeted,” “arrested,” “prosecuted,” “convicted” and “incarcerated” at much higher rates than other ethnic groups in this country. This is also in the face of “staggering” reports that Whites sell and use more illegal drugs than Blacks.

The EEOC is also encouraging employers to “Ban the Box” on their job applications, which is to remove the question: “have you ever been convicted of a crime?” from job applications, reserve the question until the “end” of the hiring process and limit the inquiry to those crimes where exclusion would be warranted because of business necessity. For example, it would be reasonable for a Bank to deny employment to a convicted Robber, a Pharmacy to deny employment to a convicted drug dealer or a Day Care Center to deny employment to a Child Molester. Yet, it would “not” be reasonable for a Bank to deny an applicant employment based on a 10 year old Marijuana possession case, a Pharmacy for a ten year old car theft case or a Day Care Center for a 15 year old Trespassing case. The State of Minnesota is the latest state to ban the box on public and private job applications. Other states, cities and municipalities that have banned the box are: (1) Austin, TX; (2) Chicago, IL; (3) Connecticut; (4) Detroit, MI; (5) Durham, NC; (6) Hawaii; (7) Jacksonville, FL; (8) Maryland; (9) Massachusetts; (10) Memphis, TN; (11) Minneapolis; (12) New Mexico; (13)Newark, NJ; (14) Philadelphia, PA (15) Providence, RI; (16) San Francisco, CA; (17) San Jose, CA; (18) Seattle, WA and (19) Oakland, CA. The states of New York and New Jersey are considering similar Bills in their legislatures. If this is the “NEW” and “IMPROVED” EEOC, then I like it. This is what America needs to get our economy back on track for the middle class.

Eric M. Deadwiley is a Freelance Op-Ed Columnist, Investigative Reporter and Author

Contact: Eric M. Deadwiley

Email thedeadwileytruth@yahoo.com

Blog: http://civildeathinnewyorkstate.blogspot.com/

PRESIDENT OBAMA, AMERICA TRULY NEEDS A NATIONAL BAN THE BOX POLICY

2013-01-14T23:44:00.000-08:00

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA

PRESIDENT OBAMA, AMERICA TRULY NEEDS A NATIONAL BAN THE BOX POLICY

Mr. President, I would first like to enthusiastically congratulate you on your impressive victory and re-election to a second term as President of the United States of America. With the upcoming fiscal negotiations weighing heavy on you, your cabinet and staff, I can only hope and pray that you get a chance to read my letter. I will attempt to be brief.

Mr. President, We need you to use your executive privilege and implement a “national” Ban the Box policy. Mr. President, there are over 80 Million people with a criminal conviction on their public records. I call this “public” notification of a person’s past–the “scarlet letter” of our day, which I also proclaim in my book (Civil Death in New York State) is the “civil death penalties” of the modern age. With the advancement of information technology, background checks have become more and more common; and with millions of Americans looking for work, employers are utilizing information technology to “sift out” applicants with any kind of criminal background. This ancient practice of “stigmatizing” and “ostracizing” people with a criminal history is helping this great country of ours go straight down the road of ruin. Mr. President, you said that we have been experiencing the greatest economic downturn since the great depression. Although there are signs that the economy is improving and unemployment is beginning to go down, Black people still have the highest rates of unemployment nationally and it gets worse when you break the numbers down statewide. In many large urban areas across the country, the unemployment rate for blacks is anywhere from 30% to 50%.

Since Black people are “targeted,” “arrested,” “prosecuted,” “convicted” and “incarcerated” at much higher rates than other ethnic groups in this country. I believe–as a consequence of that fact, Blacks are facing “job discrimination” at higher rates than other groups as well. This reality has given rise to a “great depression” in the Black community that has mostly been overlooked by mainstream civil rights organizations. In response to advocacy groups pressing for meaningful legislative change in the hiring process of formerly convicted people and all of the empirical studies which prove that employment is the greatest deterrent to recidivism, the “Ban the Box” movement is sweeping across the country.

The “Ban the box” movement was started by a group of formerly convicted people in Oakland, CA – called “All of Us or None.” Many experts studying the negative effects a criminal conviction could have on job opportunities have found that a person with criminal past have a much better chance of getting hired when they are able to get to the “Interview” phase of the hiring process. The list of states and cities that have passed Ban the Box legislation are steadily growing. Just a few of which are:

(1) Austin, TX; (2) Chicago, IL; (3) Connecticut; (4) Detroit, MI; (5) Durham, NC; (6) Hawaii; (7) Jacksonville, FL; (8) Massachusetts; (9) Memphis, TN; (10) Minnesota; (11) New Mexico; (12)Newark, NJ; (13) Philadelphia, PA (14) Providence, RI; (15) San Francisco, CA; (16) San Jose, CA; (17) Seattle, WA and (18) Oakland, CA. Mayor Michael Bloomberg (at the suggestion of myself and other advocates) implemented a ban the box ordinance by executive order for city hiring. Governor Deval Patrick signed into law one of the most progressive anti-discrimination laws in the country. the Massachusetts Criminal Offender Record Information Act (the “CORI Act”) among other things Bans the Box on public and Private employers, sets time limits on the access of applicants criminal records. The access of felonies is limited to those felonies committed within a ten-year period and misdemeanors within a five-year period. Information concerning convictions for murder, manslaughter, and certain sexual offenses are not subject to the time limitations. CORI also requires that employers retain records of their background checks. Employers that access criminal records through iCORI must obtain acknowledgment forms from applicants prior to viewing their criminal history on iCORI, and must retain those forms for a year following the date the CORI is requested.

Congressman Hansen Clark introduced H.R. 6220, the Ban the Box Act of 2012. Representative Clark’s Legislation would prevent employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until after the employer makes the applicant a “conditional offer” for the job. The employer would still have the right to “rescind” the offer if the applicants conviction creates an “unreasonable risk” to the employers business interest. Representative Clark wrote in a Washington Post Op Ed:

Earlier this month, the Washington, D.C. city council voted down a bill to protect people with criminal records from employment discrimination. Yet these protections against employment discrimination are not only urgently needed in D.C., they ought to be implemented on a federal level across the country… We can no longer tolerate this cycle of joblessness and incarceration that is devastating our communities and our economy. With 28.3 percent of arrests targeting African Americans, more than double their percent of the population, discrimination based on conviction records is a racial justice issue as well as an economic crisis.

The Empirical Studies Support a National Ban The Box Policy

In a study conducted by Professor Devah Pager et al (Princeton University) titled: “Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records.” They found that job applicants with convictions stood a much better chance of being hired when the applicant has an opportunity to build a “Rapport” with the employer in the interview phase of the hiring process. The National Employment Law Project (NELP) recently released a report titled: “65 Million ‘Need Not Apply’: The Case For Reforming Criminal Background Checks for Employment.” This report makes a powerful and compelling argument that the population of people with criminal convictions is so enormous that we as a country would be committing fiscal suicide to continue to support laws and policies which keep 1/4th of the population of our country unemployed or underemployed. In fact, many states are looking for ways to reduce their over-inflated corrections budgets by implementing common-sense policies which encourage employment of people with criminal past. NELP recently released another report titled: “Ban the Box: Major U.S. Cities and Counties Adopt Fair Hiring Policies to Remove Unfair Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Records.” The report documents the progress of the Ban the Box movement in States, Cities and Counties all across the country. According to the data in this report, New York State (if it were to pass a Ban the Box law) would become one in only a few states to pass the initiative “Statewide,” and along with Article 23-A of the Corrections Law, will make New York State the absolute “Leader” in anti-discrimination legislation in the country. Unfortunately, the ban the box bills in the New York State Senate and Assembly have been hopelessly “stalled” in Committees in both branches of our state legislature. The prison lobby has great influence over many of our state legislators because many of them serve in upstate districts where the prison industry is a popular source of employment for their constituencies.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) also recently released a report titled: “Misplaced Priorities: Over Incarcerate, Under Educate.” this report offers a clear look into the budgetary expenditures states and municipalities allocate to incarcerating citizens as opposed to educating them.

The Community Service Society recently released a report titled: “Only one in Four young Black Men in New York City has a Job.” The CSSNY has taken a “Leadership” role as it pertains to “Cutting-edge” advocacy for the poor and disenfranchised in New York and around the country. The CSSNY remains as one of the “Top” advocacy organizations in New York.

A scientific study recently conducted by Professor Alfred Blumstein (Head of the Justice Department of Heinz College/Carnegie Mellon University) and Co-Authored by Kiminori Nakamura titled: “Redemption in an Era of Widespread Criminal Background Checks.” This report studied “Hazard rates” of formerly incarcerated individuals based on the amount of time that elapses after incarceration or conviction. Professor Blumstein and Mr. Nakamura found that the risk of recidivism decreases in 5 to 7 years, to almost equal the hazard rate of non-offenders. They recommend the removal of the “Brand” of “Offender” after 5 to 7 years, as one of the best ways to promote desistance. In a New York Times Op Ed titled: “Paying a Price, Long After the Crime,” Professor Blumstein and Mr. Nakamura wrote:

It is well established that the risk of recidivism drops steadily with time, but there is still the question of how long is long enough. By looking at data for more than 88,000 people who had their first arrest in New York State in 1980, and tracking their subsequent criminal histories over the next 25 years, we estimate the “redemption time” — the time it takes for an individual’s likelihood of being arrested to be close to that of individuals with no criminal records — to be about 10 to 13 years. We also found that about 30 percent of the first-time offenders in 1980 were never arrested again, in New York or anywhere else.

In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) updated it’s “Enforcement Guidance for the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” The EEOC concluded this about the use of criminal conviction records in hiring decisions:

Some states require employers to wait until late in the selection process to ask about convictions. The policy rationale is that an employer is more likely to objectively assess the relevance of an applicant’s conviction if it becomes known when the employer is already knowledgeable about the applicant’s qualifications and experience. As a best practice, and consistent with applicable laws, the Commission recommends that employers not ask about convictions on job applications and that, if and when they make such inquiries, the inquiries be limited to convictions for which exclusion would be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.

The EEOC has also clarified their policy position–that the exclusion by employers of people with a criminal record has a “disparate impact” on Blacks and Latinos.

Martin Luther King Jr. spent a large part of his civil rights struggle in defense of fair employment, equality and justice. Punishing a person by denying them a job, when that person has already paid their debt to society is “unjust.” Formerly incarcerated people are treated as “second class citizens,” which makes them “unequal.” Furthermore, to allow an employer to use a 10, 15 and oftentimes 20 year old offense in this climate of high unemployment when college graduates with no criminal background are having a hard time finding employment; and as an “only” reason to deny a person an income is simply unfair. Dr. King said:

In our society it is murder psychologically, to deprive a man of a job or an income. You are in substance saying to that man that he has no right to exist. You are in a real way depriving him of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, denying in his case the very creed of his society.

When you are sworn in with Dr. Kings Bible next week, please consider what Dr. King died doing. Dr. King was shot dead in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was fighting for the fair and equal treatment of sanitation workers.

Fiscal Implications of a National Ban the Box Law.

The benefits of a national Ban the Box policy are astounding. First, the unemployment rate will drop dramatically almost overnight. Second, tax revenue will be greatly increased by the employment of “millions” of able bodied workers. Third, crime in general will continue its historic decline because it has been established by advocates and social scientist alike that employment is the best answer to recidivism. Fourth, state by state will find that their over inflated prison budgets will be reduced when more of their citizens are employed. Fifth, Mr. President, you will be credited with bringing our economy back from recession to prosperity. Finally, fifth, but certainly not the least of these, “millions” of American citizens will be able to pursue a better life without the social stigma which arises as an added consequence of a criminal conviction.

In Conclusion

Mr. President, you have the power to solve the greatest civil rights challenge of our time. Mr. President, I can go on and on citing study after study, from one social scientist after another who support banning the box nationally. I am only one of your constituents out of over 300 million nationally. You may not even get to read this letter because of your busy schedule, but if I am blessed that you do read this letter, please consider my request. Please utilize your executive privilege and ban the box on public and private job applications. Please require that an employer make a “conditional offer of employment” before background inquiries can be made. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I wish you all the best in your second term as our President.

Eric M. Deadwiley is a Freelance Op-Ed Columnist, Investigative Reporter and Author of "Civil Death in New York State, How New York State Utilizes Criminal Conviction Records to impede the Economic Growth of Formerly Convicted People"

Contact: Eric M. Deadwiley

Email thedeadwileytruth@yahoo.com

Blog: http://civildeathinnewyorkstate.blogspot.com/

2012-01-16T15:16:00.000-08:00

If Unemployment overall is on the decline, why is Unemployment on the rise for Blacks?

By Eric M. Deadwiley

January 16, 2012

As the entire nation climbs out of the longest economic slump since the great depression, the black community is still suffering from extremely high unemployment. The unemployment numbers released last week showed a drop in the “national” unemployment rate from 8.7% in November, to 8.5% in December. Our economy gained over 200,000 private sector jobs in December alone. However, New York States unemployment rate rose from 8.9% in November 2010 to 9.1% in November 2011. The unemployment rate for blacks is much higher than the national or statewide average. Many community activist and Elected Representatives are requesting that our government take “targeted”–aggressive measures to bring economic opportunity to our neighborhoods. Yvette D. Clark, Congresswoman from the 11^th Congressional District said this: “We cannot forget that there are still 13 million Americans unemployed. The unemployment rate for African-Americans rose from 15.5 percent to 15.8 percent–an appalling statistic that demonstrates the urgency we have in creating more jobs and addressing the equitable distribution of our nation’s resources.”

According to Elena Volovelsky, a research Analyst with the New York State Department of Labor, the New York State Department of Labor does not keep statistics on unemployment based on race, which makes it almost impossible to prove misconduct or discrimination in the hiring practices of many New York City employers. The New York State Department of Labor should be collecting unemployment data based on race and ethnic background for statistical purposes. Furthermore, data should be collected to track the migration of residents from Upstate and Downstate New York Counties to ascertain if an inordinate number of those residents are filling positions in the Bronx and Kings Counties. A New York State Department of Labor Press Release of November 2011 Area Unemployment Rates showed that Bronx County leads in unemployment rates with a whopping 12.6%, with Kings County (Brooklyn) coming in second with a 9.5% unemployment rate. We should all question why Downstate Suburban Counties, such as Putnam, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk Counties (that have a much smaller employer base than New York City does) have significantly lower unemployment rates than we do. This inequitable distribution of resources and jobs lead representative hakeem Jeffries, State Assembly-member from Brooklyn’s 57^th Assembly District to introduce residency requirement legislation in the New York State Assembly.

New York City allows job applicants who live as far as 3 hours away to apply and obtain employment within the city limits. Critics of this policy have–for many years, made the argument that this policy ( along with many other policies, such as the content of the exams for certain position i.e., the Firefighters exam) have been used to keep our “tax funded” Civil Service positions and other “tax funded” “emergency/first-responder” departments with a majority white staff. What’s even more disturbing than these bad unemployment numbers is the lack of a sound safety net for struggling residents trying to keep a warm plate of food on their tables. One notable “chink” in the armor of our local safety net is the Human Resources Administration office located at 500 Dekalb Avenue in Brooklyn. I spoke to a woman named Deana (a Home Attendant for over 25 years) who told me that she had to apply for assistance from the Dekalb Ave office when the client she was attending to passed away. Deana explained the application process to me–which she described as “depressing.” She told me how she had to stand in a long line to get a ticket; and how she had to go from room-to-room and line-to-line which could last for up to 8 hours depending on how many other people are applying for assistance that day. She also told me that the building is like a “prison” with absolutely no free movement from floor-to-floor or from one room to the next without an escort. The “fingerprinting” process further solidifies the prison feeling. Deana said that “the process discourages people from applying for assistance.” I requested information from the Human Resources Administration about the “official procedure” clients must follow to receive assistance, but did not get a reply. These findings signals a troubling trend in the black community. Governor Cuomo, in his recent State of the State address suggested doing away with the fingerprinting requirement to obtain food stamps, which would be a good first step. However, more progressive measures must be utilized to stop the economic “hemorrhaging” in our communities. “Residency requirements,” and enforcement of existing Federal, State and City nondiscrimination/Civil Rights laws is also needed to bring economic prosperity to our struggling neighborhoods.

Eric M. Deadwiley

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVIL DEATH AND JIM CROW

2011-09-25T17:46:00.000-07:00

THE DEADWILEY TRUTH

OP-ED COLUMN

By Eric M. Deadwiley

September 26, 2011

The execution of Troy Davis, a man who many believed was an innocent man has ignited a discussion on the use of the Death Penalty as a form of punishment in the United States of America. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, out of 50 states: 34 states (including the U.S. Gov’t and Military) currently have the death penalty. As of 1976—up until this year, there have been 1,270 people in the U.S. executed. Out of those executions, 56% of those executed were White, 35% were Black and 7% were Hispanic. According to the U.S. Census 2010 data, blacks only represent approximately 12.6% of the United States population, yet, the Death Penalty Information Center reports that blacks represent 35% of those executed in this country; and out of those executed for “interracial murders” 255 blacks were put to death as opposed to 17 whites.

Out of a U.S. population of less than 13%, and a death row population of 3251 death row prisoners, blacks represent 42% of those prisoners. Out of all the Chief District Attorneys prosecuting death penalty cases, a “disturbing” 98% are white. These statistics are a clear reminder of the policies and practices that have defined the civil relationship between whites and blacks since the founding of this great nation. The “Death Penalty,” more than any other penalty—as a punishment for a criminal act, represents the very essence of “civil death.” The very act of a “state” putting a citizen to death—is and of itself, (by definition) a “civil death”. Civil death is the act, practice or policy of denying a person the rights provided in the Declaration of Independence. Civil death was–and–still is a practice of punishment and deprivation of civil rights to “any” person who commits a criminal act on the federal, state or local level.

Jim Crow, however, is a product of “States Rights” in the deep south, where mostly “black folk” were subjected to “restrictions” and “discriminatory practices” based on color discrimination alone. Blacks did not have to commit a crime to be restricted to seating in the “back of a bus,” entering through the back door of a Hotel or using separate “public bathrooms.” Black folk certainly did not have to commit a crime to be relegated to separate and inferior Schools i.e., Brown v. Board of Education. Civil death penalties (with very few exceptions) are practiced exactly as they were practiced back in the 17^th and 18^th Century. The practice of “branding” a person with a “letter” is still in place. When a person is convicted of a “class A” felony, that felony is “publically” disseminated all across the country; just as the letter “A” was sewn on the clothing of any person convicted of Adultery in 17^th century European colonies. The purpose of the letter was to make the person’s conviction “public”—so the greater society can know that the person is a convict.

Civil death penalties were in the past (and are currently) used against a person convicted of a crime. There are currently 2.5 million people in U.S. Prisons today. According to the Justice Department, there are currently over “82 million people with convictions on their public records. There are over six hundred thousand people released into society each year from prisons and jails all across the country. If you want to make an argument that the term “convict” is the new and updated version of the word “nigger,” you will get no argument from me. However, the policies of Jim Crow could “never” match the cruelty and uncivilized practices of “Civil Death.” Human beings often search for “politically-correct” terms to replace other terms that make us uncomfortable i.e., “Collateral Consequences” instead of “Civil Death” and “Correctional Facilities” instead of “Prisons.” It is my intention to focus attention on the real enemy that plagues the 82 million people in this country with criminal records. That enemy is the ancient, archaic and draconian practice of “Civil Death.”

Our country is headed towards a financial disaster which could collapse our economy to the level of a “third world nation.” We have a “tax revenue” problem that (if unchanged) can usher our nation into financial ruins. It is no longer practical or intelligent to keep over one fourth of the population of the United States “unemployed.” What we need is “progressive” legislative or judicial change to the thousands of civil death laws across the country. This is why I wrote the book, “Civil Death In New York State, How New York State Utilizes Criminal Conviction Records to Impede the Economic Growth of Formerly Convicted People” and “introduced” a “Ban the Box” proposal to the New York State Assembly, Senate and the New York City Council which prompted Mayor Bloomberg to issue an Executive Order removing the question (Have you ever been convicted of a crime?) from New York City job applications. Yet, Banning the box on job applications is not enough.

We need to aggressively advocate for “spent sentence” and “conviction set-aside laws for “rehabilitated” formerly convicted people who have spent more than 10 years crime and drug free. Black unemployment is at a 27 year high. We do not have any time to waste. High black unemployment is a direct consequence of civil death policies, not Jim Crow.

Eric M. Deadwiley is a Freelance Op-Ed Columnist and Author

Contact: Eric M. Deadwiley

Email thedeadwileytruth@yahoo.com

Blog: http://civildeathinnewyorkstate.blogspot.com/

SHAME ON YOU LARRY MERCHANT, HBO AND GOLDEN BOY!

2011-09-20T15:13:00.000-07:00

THE DEADWILEY TRUTH
OP-ED COLUMN

By Eric M. Deadwiley
September 20, 2011

I have been a faithful Boxing fan ever since my father introduced me to the sport in the
70’s. From the first time I watched a Boxing match–“I was hooked” on the sport–which some
affectionately call the “Sweet-Science.” Over the years, I have become a faithful fan to many
fighters like Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Muhammad Ali, Alexis Argüello, Julio Caesar
Chaves and yes, Mike Tyson. These great fighters and others personified the best in athleticism
and perseverance in a sport that can literally end a person’s life with one well-placed blow. We
didn’t care about the “ethnic background” of the fighter back then. The days of applauding an
athlete for their skills and talent are long gone.

What we are seeing today is an over emphasis on an athlete’s national origin and the abandonment of a natural love for the sport. This dichotomy was openly showcased in Saturday night’s Welterweight fight between Floyd Mayweather and Victor Ortiz. Floyd Mayweather came into the fight as a heavy favorite because of his experience and speed–matched up against an experienced slugger who is 10 years younger. The fight started off just as many boxing analyst had expected, with Mayweather “peppering” Ortiz with straight right hand shots and using his defensive skills to avoid counter attacks by Ortiz. It was in the second round that Referee Joe Cortez first warned Ortiz about leading with his head. To put it plain, Ortiz was attempting to head-butt Mayweather early on in the fight. The was obviously a strategy being implemented in the Ortiz camp.

In all of my years watching boxing matches, I have never seen a fighter “literally” launch himself into the air like a missile to head-butt another fighter. Joe Cortez “rightfully” took a point away from Ortiz for the intentional head-butt. What was not readily seen or recognized by all of the analyst which included Emanuel Steward, Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant, was Mayweather rubbing on his bottom teeth which could indicate that a tooth may have been knocked loose from the head-butt. Floyd Mayweather rightfully scolded Larry Merchant for–not only looking past the intentional head-butt of Ortiz, but also not giving him any credit for the knock-out victory. This is not the first time Larry Merchant dismissed the opponent Mayweather just beat, and disrespectfully match him with a new opponent which Merchant and others are claiming Mayweather is “ducking.”

When Mayweather fought and easily defeated Juan Manuel Marquez, Larry Merchant, Jim Lampley and others quickly dismissed the victory with claims that Marquez was a “smaller” man which prompted Merchant along with Shane Mosley to approach Mayweather after the fight to press Mayweather to fight Mosley–who they said was a naturally big Welterweight. After Mayweather defeated Mosley, they quickly dismissed that win–claiming that Mosley was a “washed up” fighter; as seen in the 24/7 HBO special where Oscar De La Hoya (Golden Boy Promotions) was talking to Victor Ortiz, telling him that when Mayweather fought Mosley and him, they were past their prime. These bogus claims were never made against Pacquiao who also fought them and other fighters Mayweather had defeated around the same time. There appears to be a blatant disrespect for black pugilist like Floyd Mayweather Jr. Sports analyst Jim Gray also often denigrated the accomplishments of black fighters in his post-fight interviews. Floyd Mayweather Jr earned the right to demand respect from any person who would have the audacity to step in a ring, after he just put “his” life on the line and dismiss his victory. Larry Merchant deserved to be chided by Floyd Mayweather.

Everyone wants to see a “Super-fight” between Floyd Mayweather Jr and Manny Pacquiao because they are pound-for-pound the best fighters in the sport. HBO need to stop promoting racially charged matches where “petty nationalism” accounts for 99% of the fans enthusiasm for a fighter. We must go back to respecting the “art” of boxing. These men and woman put their lives on the line when they glove-up and enter into the ring for our entertainment. They deserve our utmost respect. What will happen if Floyd Mayweather eventually defeats Manny Pacquiao? Who are they going to say he is ducking then, Wladimir Klitschko? I would still be a fan to both fighters no matter who wins the fight. In the meantime, Golden Boy Promotions, HBO and Larry Merchant should clean up their acts.

Eric M. Deadwiley is a Freelance Op-Ed Columnist and Author

Contact: Eric M. Deadwiley

Email thedeadwileytruth@yahoo.com

http://civildeathinnewyorkstate.blogspot.com/

2011-09-01T09:09:00.000-07:00

THE DEADWILEY TRUTH

OP-ED COLUMN

IS AL SHARPTON CONNECTED TO ATTACKS ON DESSENTERS OF OBAMA?

By Eric M. Deadwiley

September 1, 2011

President Obama is using a risky strategy in his attempts to allure disenchanted black Voters back to him in 2012. Our President is utilizing the black media, specifically—High profile black radio hosts to bolster his re-election campaign. The President has granted—“highly sort-after” access to himself and members of his Cabinet to popular Radio Host like the Rev. Al Sharpton, Host of “Keeping it Real” (and recent Host of “Politics Nation” on MSNBC),” Steve Harvey, Host of “The Steve Harvey Show,” Tom Joyner, Host of “The Tom Joyner Morning Show" and Michael Baisden, Host of “The Michael Baisden Show.” All of whom have “huge” following’s on their radio shows.

Although, this is a campaign strategy used by most politicians to reach the masses of black voters, President Obama is receiving assistance from these hosts that far exceed what some would characterize as a “a simple bias” towards the first black President. These hosts have been like “attack-dogs” towards anyone who has the audacity to criticize the President for his policies (or lack-of policies) as they pertain to black folk. The recent attacks on Tavis Smiley and Professor Cornel West for their open criticisms of the President’s policies towards the poor have been often distasteful if not bordering on “libelous.”

Steve Harvey recently referred to Tavis Smiley and Professor West as “Uncle Toms.” Tom Joyner took it a step further by saying that Professor West was Tavis Smileys “Piece,” implying that Tavis Smiley and Professor West are involved in a homosexual relationship. Michael Baisden has taken a more “even” tone to the controversy. There have been attacks on Minister Louis Farrakhan for his “open” criticism of the President and his support of embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Columnist and Author Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a negative Column about Min. Farrakhan in “The Grio” which is a Columnist/Opinion website sponsored by MSNBC. Mr. Hutchinson “claims” that Minister Louis Farrakhan is supporting Moammar Gadhafi because of contributions made by the Libyan leader to the Nation of Islam in the past.

There appears to be a growing legion of black Columnist, Talk Show Host, Activist and Scholars who are connected to Al Sharpton and standing in line so they could have “access” to America’s first black President and all of the “gifts” and “privileges” it brings. In fact, most (if not all) of these people attacking anyone critical of the President’s policies towards black folk–have revenue sources which are connected to the others, and can all be traced back to one person–the Rev. Al Sharpton. Rev. Sharpton has an “unholy” alliance to President Obama, and it appears he’s being “paid well” for his allegiance. Rev. Sharpton has attended most (if not all) of the “Bill signing Ceremonies” and “social events” of the President. Rev. Sharpton has enjoyed “unprecedented” “access” to the President’s Cabinet member’s i.e. Arne Duncan U.S. (Secretary of Education) and Valerie Jarrett (Senior Advisor). Rev. Sharpton has a “syndicated” talk show on 1600 WWRL and 98.7 KISS FM, where Michael Baisden and Steve Harvey host shows. Rev. Sharpton’s National Action Network Sunday rallies are broadcast on 1190 WLIB–a “sister” station to 107.5 WBLS, where The Tom Joyner Morning Show is broadcast on weekday mornings. Earl Ofari Hutchinson writes for The Grio and often acts as a “contributor” to Rev. Sharpton’s show. While the “masses” of black and brown folk are suffering unacceptably high unemployment and foreclosures, President Obama is using “House-Negro” politics to divide black people.

The Deadwiley Truth in this story is that (unlike the black leadership of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s) black leadership today can be “bought off.” Our “so called” leadership today goes against the interest of the black and brown community for their own selfish needs and desires much like the house Negro did in the times of Chattel Slavery. Civil Rights Leaders were never synonymous with “wealth.” The Rev. Al Sharpton has used the pains and struggles of the black and brown community to launch himself into the pinnacles of wealth and power. Maybe Dr. King was sending a message to black people and America when an “earthquake” cracked the Washington Monument (indefinitely closing the National Mall) and Hurricane Irene effectively shut down the King monument site for events scheduled by Rev. Sharpton and President Obama. Maybe Dr. King (from the grave) is telling us that these people do not represent him or what he stood for. Maybe we should all listen.

Eric M. Deadwiley is a Freelance Op-Ed Columnist and Author

Contact:         Eric M. Deadwiley

Email               thedeadwileytruth@yahoo.com
Blog:               http://civildeathinnewyorkstate.blogspot.com/

New York Supermarket Chain Discriminates Against Black Applicants

2011-02-23T21:20:00.000-08:00

THE DEADWILEY TRUTH

OP-ED COLUMN

By Eric M. Deadwiley

February 23, 2011

The Food Bazaar Supermarkets have been a local staple in the Bedford-Stuyvesant/Williamsburg sections of Brooklyn for many years now. Every week around Thursday or Friday, supermarket flyers are left at the doors of all the local residents notifying us of the "Sales" the supermarkets are promoting for the week. Often, the sales are reasonably priced and feature foods (mostly) purchased by their "Black" or "Hispanic" customer base – such as "Beef Oxtail," "Pork Shoulder," "Collard Greens" and "Waxed Yuca." Furthermore, the supermarket chain has an extensive line of "International" food items which are purchased by many different ethnic groups. It would be safe to say that the Food Bazaar is a well organized business offering a legitimate service to their (mostly) minority patrons and should be an asset to the communities they cater too. However, it is not until you walk through the supermarket doors – when you notice a “Break-down” in the “Harmoniously ethnic variety” which is found in the stores food items.

In a community which has a diverse population of mostly Black and Hispanic residents, the positions at the Food Bazaar Supermarkets are being held by more than 98% Hispanic workers. Most if not all “Cash Register” positions are filled by Hispanic woman; with the only exception being that Hispanic men occupy the more labor intensive positions such as the “Stock” and “Butcher” positions. Even the “Fish Market,” “Delicatessen,” “Post-Office” and “Lottery” are run by Hispanic’s. It is not presently clear whether the Security Guards who are Black are actually hired by the Food Bazaar directly or are hired by a private security firm. In a complaint sent to the owners of supermarket chain, local resident and well-known Photographer Mel Wright wrote: “I would find it hard to believe that in this dismal economic climate, African-Americans are not applying for jobs at your store.” There are calls for “Boycotting” the stores if the management does not change their hiring practices. For now, residents in the Bedford-Stuyvesant/Williamsburg community await a response from the stores management. I intend to make this an on-going (The Deadwiley Truth) story; and intend on investigating the Food Bazaars hiring practices and get back to the community as to my findings.

Eric M. Deadwiley is a Freelance Op-Ed Columnist, Ghost-writer, Contributor and Author of "Civil Death in New York State, How New York State Utilizes Criminal Conviction Records to impede the Economic Growth of Formerly Convicted People"

Contact: Eric M. Deadwiley

Email edeadwiley27@yahoo.com

Blog thedeadwileytruth.blogspot.com

Why is New York State rejecting the “Ban the box” movement?

2011-02-14T17:20:00.000-08:00

THE DEADWILEY TRUTH

OP-ED COLUMN

Why is New York State rejecting the “Ban the box” movement?

By Eric M. Deadwiley

February 14, 2011

The “Jig is up New York!” I am referring to the absolutely “Ridiculous” assertion – parroted by politicians, political pundits and (some) Non-Profit Advocacy groups, that New York State has the best anti-discrimination laws (that protect formerly incarcerated people) in the country. Their assertions are due to New York States “Infamous” and now “Debunked” Article 23-A of the Corrections Law – which is suppose to prevent job applicants with criminal records from being discriminated on by employers. Empirical studies have proved conclusively that most employers will not hire a person who fills in the “Box” on most job applications. The “Box” I am referring to is the section on most job application which requires a person to divulge if they have ever been convicted of a crime. Thus, the name “Ban the box” was created by a group of formerly convicted people in Oakland, CA – called “All of Us or None.” Many experts studying the affects criminal convictions have on job opportunities have found that people with criminal past have a much better chance of landing a job when they are able to get to the “Interview” phase of the hiring process.

In fact, a study conducted by Professor Devah Pager et al (Princeton University) found that job applicants with convictions stood a much better chance of being hired – when the applicant has an opportunity to build a “Rapport” with the employer. Article 23-A of the Corrections Law (as it stands now) only allows the applicant to challenge an employer if the employer actually denies the applicant – and admits that the denial is based on the applicants prior criminal record. Thus, employers have learned to “Ignore” or “Discard” applications where the “Box” is checked yes, or simply deny the applicant for reasons not related to their criminal conviction. There is simply no way to prove that an employer is discriminating on an applicant under Article 23-A of the Corrections Law unless the employer out-right admits to it! Most employers would much rather use a “Fabricated” reason for denial – than risk a discrimination lawsuit. Not to mention the fact that there is no law against “Ignoring” an application. Many employers request an online application which is the same as posting your application into a “Black hole.”

This is why New York State Assembly bill #A03809 sponsored by Assembly-member Jeffrion L. Aubry of the 35^th Assembly District has to be passed as soon as possible. This bill (if passed and signed into legislation by Governor Cuomo) would effectively close the “Loop-hole” in Article 23-A of the Corrections Law. This bill is by no means a new bill. This bill has been introduced 3 years in a row. The past two years this bill “Died” without leaving the Corrections Committee which Assembly-member Aubry chairs. The list of states and cities that have passed Ban the Box legislation are steadily growing. Just a few of which are: (1) Austin, TX;

(2) Chicago, IL; (3) Connecticut; (4) Detroit, MI; (5) Hawaii; (6) Jacksonville, FL;

(7) Massachusetts; (8) Memphis, TN; (9) San Francisco, CA; (10) Seattle, WA and

(11) Oakland, CA.

Durham, NC; New York State; New Jersey State; Omaha, NE and Washington, DC either have legislation pending or have groups currently pushing for ban the box legislation. However, New York State is void of bona fide “Ban the Box” advocacy. Nothing less than a dedicated coalition of legislators, community activist and advocacy groups can move this bill forward in a weak Assembly and a Republican lead Senate. In fact, Assembly-members representing districts with some of the highest concentrations of convicted people are not co-sponsoring or multi-sponsoring the bill.

The co-sponsors of the bill are:

* AD (Assembly District) * (Assembly Districts with large populations of convicted people)

*William F. Boyland; 55th AD *Karim Camara; 43^rd AD Richard N. Gottfried; 75^th AD

Ellen Jaffee; 95^th AD *Hakim Jeffries; 57^th AD Brian Kavanagh; 74^th AD

*Vito J. Lopez; 53^rd AD *Joan L. Millman; 52^nd AD *Daniel J. O’Donnell: 69^th AD

*Annette Robinson; 56^th AD *Keith L.T. Wright; 70^th AD

The Multi-sponsors of the bill are:

*Barbara M. Clark; 33^rd AD *Jeffry Dinowitz; 81^st AD Deborah J. Glick; 66^th AD

*Carl E. Heastie; 83^rd AD Andrew Hevesi; 28^th AD Alan Maisel; 59^th AD

John J. McEneny; 104^th AD Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes; 141^st AD

J. Gary Pretlow; 87^th AD Bob Reilly; 109^th AD Michelle Schimel; 16^th AD

Harvey Weisenberg; 20^th AD

Assembly-members not currently sponsoring the bill:

*Inez D. Barron; 40^th AD *Darryl C. Towns; 54^th AD *Joseph R. Lentol; 50^th AD

*Carmen E. Arroyo; 84^th AD *Nelson L. Castro; 86^th AD *Vivian E. Cook; 32^nd AD

*Vanessa L. Gibson; 77^th AD Dov Hikind; 48^th AD Earlene Hooper; 18^th AD

*Rhoda Jacobs; 42^nd AD *Guillermo Linares; 72^nd AD Margaret M. Markey; 30^th AD

Nettie Mayersohn; 27^th AD Grace Meng; 22^nd AD Michael Miller; 38^th AD

*Joan L. Millman; 52^nd AD Francisco P. Moya; 39^th AD Catherine Nolan; 37^th AD

*Felix Ortiz; 51^st AD *N. Nick Perry; 58^th AD *Jose Rivera; 78^th AD

*Peter M. Rivera; 76^th AD Samuel D. Roberts; 119^th AD *Robert J. Rodriguez; 68^th AD

Linda B. Rosenthal; 67^th AD William Scarborough; 29^th AD Sheldon Silver; 64^th AD (Speaker)

Aravella Simotas; 36^th AD Eric A. Stevenson; 79^th AD Matthew Titone; 61^st AD

Michele R. Titus; 31^st AD Helene E. Weinstein; 41^st AD David I. Weprin; 24^th AD

Civil Rights/Advocacy Organizations that is silent on the Ban the Box issue:

The National Action Network (NAN)

The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU)

The New York Bar Association

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

The National Urban League (NUL)

These are just a few of the organizations and Assembly-members “Irresponsibly” sitting on the side line of this much needed legislation. Make no mistake – that human beings must earn a living so they can provide shelter for themselves, their families (which often includes children), pay bills and enjoy the rights and liberties our state has to offer. If formerly convicted people are “Unreasonably” denied employment, unfortunately, they will find a way to survive beyond “Legal” means. Yes, I am saying that God-fearing, law-abiding and hard-working citizens like “You” will become victims of “Robberies,” “Burglaries,” “Car-thefts,” “Drug-dealing,” and “Homicides.” These are just a few of the maladies New Yorkers will have to endure if New York States version of the Ban the Box initiative is not passed this year. It is time to hold these elected representatives, civil rights and advocacy groups culpable for some of this crime and despair. “Silence” is not an alternative. Your silence makes you “complicit” in New York States pain.

Eric M. Deadwiley is a Freelance Op-Ed Columnist, Ghost-writer and Author of "Civil Death in New York State, How New York State Utilizes Criminal Conviction Records to impede the Economic Growth of Formerly Convicted People"

Contact: Eric M. Deadwiley

Email edeadwiley27@yahoo.com

Blog: thedeadwileytruth@blogspot.com