The Wichita NAACP Blog

NAACP Launches a New-Media National "Rapid Response System" to Help Citizens Report Police Misconduct

2009-07-06T12:22:00.004-05:00

Part of sweeping new Civil Rights initiative on crime and safety

An innovative national program to help fight crime in American cities and towns will be unveiled Monday, July 13th at the NAACP Centennial Convention in New York City.

The initiative includes a bold new online effort, the NAACP Rapid Response System (RRS); a quick, effective way for citizens to report instances of police misconduct, and to help public safety officials move beyond the “tough on crime” policies that have lost their effectiveness.

The Rapid Response System will be available starting July 6, through the NAACP website (www.naacp.org). The user-friendly online RRS form will allow residents to send instant texts, emails, or video reports of police abuse to the association via cell phone.

Benjamin Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP, said the initiative is part of a wider Criminal Justice strategy called "Smart and Safe,” that the NAACP will be launching during its Centennial Year.

“Nationwide, more than 26,000 citizen complaints of police officer use of force were filed with state and local law enforcement agencies in 2002. However, because many incidents are not reported, this number does not capture the full magnitude of the problem,” Jealous said.

“Research has shown that there are many barriers to reporting incidents of police misconduct, including intimidation at police departments and a lack of trust in the integrity of the system, among other reasons. This breakdown leads to an absence of public safety and a deterioration of the quality of life in many communities of color. But public safety is a civil and a human right; and so we want a more accurate count of these incidents,” Jealous said.

"We know that most of police officers around the nation are excellent public servants. But the few who violate people's rights are often not held accountable. We hope to improve the relationship between our community and law enforcement officers -- which is the best way to create the trust needed for police to effectively solve crimes," Jealous said.

The Rapid Response System will be demonstrated for attendees at the NAACP Centennial Convention July 11-16th at the New York Hilton. More information on the full Convention schedule is available at www.naacp.org.

The NAACP supports the "Democracy Restoration Act" Voter Re-Enfranchisement for rehabilitated felony offenders

2009-07-05T15:08:00.003-05:00

The Democracy Restoration Act, expected to be introduced in the next few weeks, would allow ex-felony offenders to vote in Federal Elections once they are out of prison.

The Issue:
Almost 4 million Americans, or 1 in 50 American adults, are not allowed to vote because they have been convicted of a felony, regardless of the nature or seriousness of the offense. Three fourths of these Americans are no longer in jail. 13% of African American males – 1.4 million – are prohibited from voting.

Furthermore, state laws vary when it comes to defining a felony and in determining if people who are no longer incarcerated can vote. Thus it is possible that in some states, a person can lose their right to vote forever if he or she writes one bad check. Furthermore, the process to regain one’s right to vote in any state is often difficult and cumbersome. Most states require specific gubernatorial action, and in 16 states federal ex-felons need a presidential pardon to regain their voting rights.

The “war on drugs” has had a disproportionate impact on African Americans; between 1985 and 1995, there was a 707% increase in the number of African Americans in state prison for a drug offense, compared to a 306% increase for whites over the same period. Thus African Americans are disproportionately losing their right to vote, even after they have paid their debt to society.

Because voting is such an integral part of being a productive member of American society, the NAACP has worked closely with other like-minded groups to develop legislation that would allow felons who are no longer incarcerated to reintegrate themselves into society and vote in federal elections. Congressman John Conyers (MI) and Senator Russ Feingold (WI) are expected to reintroduce legislation (the “Democracy Restoration Act”) re-enfranchising ex-felony offenders once they are released from prison as early as July. Furthermore, re-enfranchisement for rehabilitated felony offenders may be part of the continuing election reform package also to be considered later in the 111th Congress.

Click HERE for the Action we need you to take

Tech Tags: Voter+Re-enfranchisement Congress Russ+Feingold John+Conyers NAACP

President Obama marks the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act: But safeguarding its protections will require work and not words

2009-07-03T13:52:00.010-05:00

"Forty-five years ago today, President Johnson signed into law historic legislation that moved America closer toward fulfilling the dream of our founding – a dream of opportunity, equality, and justice for all. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended legal discrimination, helping grant all Americans equal justice under the law – no matter what their gender or the color of their skin.

"The Civil Rights Act was born during Freedom Summer 1963, but its passage was only possible because generations of Americans of all backgrounds stood up, sat down, and marched in freedom’s cause. Once it was signed into law, a renewed pledge was made to all Americans not to deny any man a seat at a lunch counter, not to deny any woman an opportunity in the workplace, and not to deny any child a chance to make the most of their God-given potential.

"But while the Civil Rights Act opened doors of freedom and opportunity, we know that far too many inequities and barriers remain in the African-American community and across this country. And we must continue to break down these barriers in our laws, our policies, and our hearts so that we can not only fulfill the full promise of the Civil Rights Act, but perfect the union that our founders created two hundred and thirty-three years ago this week."

~ President Barack Obama

As can now be expected, the President has delivered an eloquent and timely statement marking the anniversary of this important event in our history. The passage of the Civil Rights Act was a watershed moment in the struggle for equality and social justice. It was the culmination of countless protest marches, boycotts, demonstrations, rallies, prayers, songs, and dreams. But now we must ask ourselves; 45 years since the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act, what remains of the promises and protections it once offered?

The protections afforded by the Civil Rights act have been under assault from hostile Judges and Courts, eroded by judicial decisions and interpretations carrying the force of law, and by the radical re-visioning of post-racial delusions.

Activist Judges:
In 1972, just 8 years after Senator Robert Byrd's 15 hour floor speech to prevent the passage of the Act, William Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court. Rehnquist was a former Law Clerk who had fought against equal accommodations in his home city of Phoenix and who would distinguish himself with memorandums arguing against Brown v Board, defending the doctrine of Separate but Equal, referring to the 'search' for discrimination as "pathological", stating that the majority may in fact withhold rights from the minority because the majority ultimately determines the rights of the minority, and claiming that the 14th amendment dealt only with slavery and was in fact misapplied when used to grant basic rights to all citizens. Rehnquist went on to rule against African American and Hispanic litigants in almost every case he heard in his 33 years on the Supreme Court.

Radical Decisions and Legal Interpretations
In 1979, Lilly Ledbetter went to work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber company in Gadson, Alabama. While she and her male counterparts stared at the same pay, through a process of annual 'merit' increases, a disparity between her rate of compensation and that of her male coworkers appeared and began to grow. By 1998, she was making roughly $6,000 less than the lowest paid man. Ms. Ledbetter filed suit alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act but her claim was ultimately denied by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took the position that a claim of pay discrimination on the basis of race or gender would have to be filed with the courts within 180 days of the original act (meaning that since she didn't file her claim back in '79, within the 6 months following the first evaluation wherein she was rated lower than her male co-workers, then her statute of limitations had expired and her claim was no longer valid). This despite the fact that the disparities in evaluations continued throughout her career and she continued to be paid at the discriminatory rate. In 2007, Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to restore the intent of the Civil Rights Act and to reinstate the "Paycheck Accrual" interpretation - that each paycheck paid at a discriminatory rate constitutes an act of discrimination each with a fresh statute of limitations. The bill, facing the threat of a Presidential Veto by then President George W. Bush and opposition from Presidential candidate John McCain, was defeated in 2008 through filibuster and cloture. It was reintroduced in the 111th congress and was the first bill signed into law by President Obama.

"Similarly Situated" - the establishment of impossible burdens
In 2000, April Clark filed a claim of discrimination against the US Postal Service. The case (known as Clark v Runyon) was originally found in favor of the USPS then appealed. In the appeal, April Clark waived her right to a jury and the case proceeded as a bench trial. The Judge in this case did not dismiss the claim under summary judgment but went on to rule that April Clark failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the plaintiff must show that she 1) was a member of a protected group, 2) was meeting the legitimate expectations of her employer, 3) suffered an adverse employment action, and 4) that similarly situated employees, who are not members of the protected group were treated differently. In this case, the Judge ruled that the April Clark had the burden of demonstrating that there were individuals similarly situated in all relevant aspects to her by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the individuals used for comparison had to have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards, and engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating or distinguishing circumstances. And that in this case, there were no employees who were similarly situated.

In 2004, Otha Wheeler filed a claim of discrimination against Aventis Pharmaceuticals. She was terminated after claims that she had inappropriately toughed the genitalia of several male co-workers during 'horseplay'. While this fact was uncontested, Ms. Wheeler later noted that multiple employees engaged in this type of horseplay including one white male co-worker (Joe Harrell) who had touched the breasts and buttocks of several female co-workers and had been known to do so for more than a year, and a white female employee (Toni Conrad) who exposed her breasts to her co-workers while on the job. Mr. Harrell, the male employee who had touched the buttocks and breasts of his female co-workers, was eventually terminated (approximately a year after Otha Wheeler's termination and after Ms Wheeler's initial claim of discrimination). Ms. Conrad, the employee who exposed her breasts to employees while on the job, was only counseled and not terminated. The 8th circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier Courts order granting Summary Judgment. The court ruled that the even though Ms. Conrad, Mr. Harrell, and Ms. Wheeler were all in the same department, with the same supervisors, and all had engaged in inappropriate acts of sexual misconduct, the fact that Mr. Harrell's conduct had been ignored for more than a year until after Ms. Wheeler's claim of discrimination was simply unfortunate timing, and that since Ms. Conrad hadn't actually touched anybody, Ms. Conrad and Ms. Wheeler were not 'similarly situated'.

In 2003, The 8th Circuit Court of appeals heard an appeal in the case of George Philip v the Ford Motor Company. George Philip's original claim of discrimination against Ford was dismissed by an order of summary judgment. Mr. Philip alleged that after 10 years on the job, the plant physician placed him on disability. Ford Motors then elected to place him on a "no work available status" despite the fact that other similarly situated employees throughout the company were allowed to remain or rebid for their positions with any necessary accommodations. As a part of his case, Mr. Philip provided affidavits from the plant Physician, Dr. Zubieda Kahn, and from Nancy Schillinger, a Committeeperson for the United Auto Workers at the Twin Cities Assembly plant. Dr. Kahn testified as to a number of instances of possible disparate treatment by Ford. For example, Kahn testified that Human Resources Manager Jack Halverson had interfered with the medical placement of black employees and that the workers' compensation representative used derogatory language towards a black employee. Dr. Kahn also testified that Ford Company personnel failed to follow her medical recommendations regarding the placement of black employees. Nancy Schillinger's affidavit also suggests that black employees were treated differently. For example, she testified concerning specific instances where two Caucasian employees were treated differently based on race when they sought reclassification to driver-inspector positions (which was the same position that Mr. Philip was denied). The Court's ruling acknowledges that Mr. Philip's claim presented clear evidence of disparate treatment of black and white employees, but it ruled that because the examples cited were of employees with different supervisors or in different departments, they were not 'similarly situated' so his claim of discrimination was denied. The 8th circuit affirmed the earlier court’s ruling granting summary judgment.

The dissenting Judge in this case, Judge Donovan Frank, wrote in his dissent, "The positions of Philip and the white employees offered for comparison were reclassified, and should have been opened for bid and awarded on the basis of seniority. These employees are therefore similarly situated in all relevant respects. Applying the requirements of Runyon to non-disciplinary claims like Philip's places an inappropriate burden on plaintiffs to show similarities irrelevant to their claims."

Ricci v DeStefano - New Haven and the reinterpretation of Rights
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment. It also specifically prohibits the creation or implementation of employment standards, qualifications, or tests that by their design result in disparate outcomes among social groups. The reason for this protection is that employers who had discriminated in the past and who wanted to continue to discriminate could simply design tests or create requirements that were not job essential, but were really intended to screen out women or minorities. Things like unnecessary strength requirements to screen out women, or the introduction of culturally biased questions to screen out African Americans and Hispanics, and even the use of prohibitive sexual orientation requirements such as 'Dont ask Dont tell' are the types of non-essential measures that the disparate impact provisions of Title VII are designed to protect against.

Now comes New Haven: A city with documented cases of discriminatory hiring practices; even within its Fire Department. In a city that is 60% minority, they opted to go outside of the City's personnel department and to hire an outside consultant to design a new promotions test for the Fire Department. The result? 45 people took the tests, and while nearly 40% of the test takers were African American or Hispanic, only two of the minorities were eligible for promotion.

Now the outcome alone is not proof of discrimination. The City of New Haven had the option of performing a "validation study". The study had actually been suggested to the City by Fire Union President Pat Egan. A Validation Study is a process during which the test would have been professionally scrutinized to determine if in fact it was composed of job-essential questions. Had the test been validated and shown to be non-discriminatory, New Haven would have been able to promote the Fire Fighters and been protected from any future litigation -- no controversy. Had the test been submitted for validation and found to be invalid or found to be composed of questions or requirements that were not job essential, then the process would have identified those questions that needed to be stricken or changed and they could have reissued the test, again indemnified from litigation. But the City of New Haven elected to skip that step and to simply throw out the test, thus prompting the lawsuit. Skipping that step was an extremely consequential decision, the ramifications of which will be felt far beyond the boundaries of New Haven.

What the Supreme Court did, in essence, is use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to trump Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII, if an organization or agency enacts a test or qualification for employment that has a disparate impact on a particular group or sub-group, then that test or qualification should be changed. The New Haven ruling basically nullifies that protection by saying that it’s the rights of those who 'pass' the test that should not be abridged. The Supreme Court’s ruling infers that if a Police Department instituted a strength test that no female test takers were able to pass, the disparate impact protections afforded by Title VII should not be controlling. Instead, the rights of the men who DID pass should be upheld on the basis on the disparate treatment protections afforded by the 14th amendment. And that throwing out the test would be an act of discrimination against the men who actually met the unnecessary strength requirement.

Placed in more contemporary terms, it is analogous to saying that eliminating DADT (Don't ask, Don't tell) would constitute an act of discrimination against heterosexual recruits who might then be excluded if forced to compete on a level playing field with a larger applicant pool.

Justice Scalia took it a step further, indicating the direction he hopes the Court will move. Scalia expressed dissapointment that the Supreme Court did not use this case to challenge the validity of the Disparate Impact protections of the Civil Rights Act itself, saying that Title VII’s disparate impact provisions “place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes”. A practice which Justice Scalia calls "Discriminatory"...

More work ahead...
As an activist, and someone who believes in and fights for the establishment of level playing fields, it is troublesome to witness the constant attacks on and the gradual erosion of our Civil Rights protections. Now I know that there are many who argue that with Obama in the Whitehouse, we've reached some new post-racial landscape. But claiming that civil rights laws are no longer needed and therefore should be reversed or circumvented makes no more sense than arguing to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment because legal slavery has ended.What people fail to realize is that Civil Rights protections were not simply put in place as a remedy to past acts of discrimination... These are the legal safeguards put in place to ensure fair treatment and level playing fields for our children and grandchildren. As Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, along with Judges from the 8th and 10th circuits, and others continue to chip away at our hard-earned gains, it is those yet to come who will suffer; they are the ones who will be left unprotected.

In light of all this, I had an opportunity a few months back, to ask our new National NAACP President Benjamin Jealous a question during a conference call. I asked him if he thought that we as an Organization could return to our Legislative Advocacy roots and work towards the creation and introduction of new legislation (like Ledbetter) that would clarify the intent of civil rights law and protection. He asked if I had any suggestions -- and our team has been working on language ever since. I hope you haven't forgotten that exchange Ben, because I most certainly have not.

And while I am certainly happy to see our new President dutifully observing this significant milestone; it is clear to me that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in a state of disrepair. Repairing it, and reinstating its protections will require work over words, and leadership over language. And as a former Civil Rights Attorney and Constitutional Law Professor, I am prayerful that our new President decides to take this on...

Tech Tags: Supreme+Court Sotomayor Scalia Rehnquist DADT Ricci New+Haven Obama Civil+Rights Discrimination

Sound off: What do you think of the Congressional Resolution apologizing for Slavery?

2009-07-02T06:47:00.004-05:00

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.

Whereas, during the history of the Nation, the United States has grown into a symbol of democracy and freedom around the world;

Whereas the legacy of African-Americans is interwoven with the very fabric of the democracy and freedom of the United States;

Whereas millions of Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and the 13 American colonies from 1619 through 1865;

Whereas Africans forced into slavery were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage;

Whereas many enslaved families were torn apart after family members were sold separately;

Whereas the system of slavery and the visceral racism against people of African descent upon which it depended became enmeshed in the social fabric of the United States;

Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the ratification of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1865, after the end of the Civil War;

Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;

Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as ``Jim Crow'', which arose in certain parts of the United States after the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for Whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against people of African descent that was engendered by slavery;

Whereas the system of Jim Crow laws officially existed until the 1960s--a century after the official end of slavery in the United States--until Congress took action to end it, but the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day;

Whereas African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws--long after both systems were formally abolished--through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty;

Whereas the story of the enslavement and de jure segregation of African-Americans and the dehumanizing atrocities committed against them should not be purged from or minimized in the telling of the history of the United States;

Whereas those African-Americans who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws, and their descendants, exemplify the strength of the human character and provide a model of courage, commitment, and perseverance;

Whereas, on July 8, 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush acknowledged the continuing legacy of slavery in life in the United States and the need to confront that legacy, when he stated that slavery ``was . . . one of the greatest crimes of history . . . The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destiny is set: liberty and justice for all.'';

Whereas President Bill Clinton also acknowledged the deep-seated problems caused by the continuing legacy of racism against African-Americans that began with slavery, when he initiated a national dialogue about race;

Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed and a formal apology to African-Americans will help bind the wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery and can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help the people of the United States understand the past and honor the history of all people of the United States;

Whereas the legislatures of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the States of Alabama, Florida, Maryland, and North Carolina have taken the lead in adopting resolutions officially expressing appropriate remorse for slavery, and other State legislatures are considering similar resolutions; and

Whereas it is important for the people of the United States, who legally recognized slavery through the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so they can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all people of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

That the sense of the Congress is the following:

(1) Apology for the enslavement and segregation of african-americans. --The Congress--

(A) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws;

(B) apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws; and

(C) expresses its recommitment to the principle that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and calls on all people of the United States to work toward eliminating racial prejudices, injustices, and discrimination from our society.

A special ceremony marking final passage will be held in the next couple weeks...

Happy Birthday Justice Marshall: A brief remembrance of the man who ended legalized segregation...

2009-07-02T04:23:00.001-05:00

Born in Baltimore, Maryland on July 2, 1908, Thurgood Marshall was the grandson of a slave. His father, William Marshall, instilled in him from youth an appreciation for the United States Constitution and the rule of law. After completing high school in 1925, Thurgood followed his brother, William Aubrey Marshall, at the historically black Lincoln University in Chester County, Pennsylvania. His classmates at Lincoln included a distinguished group of future Black leaders such as the poet and author Langston Hughes, the future President of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, and musician Cab Calloway. Just before graduation, he married his first wife, Vivian "Buster" Burey. Their twenty-five year marriage ended with her death from cancer in 1955.

In 1930, he applied to the University of Maryland Law School, but was denied admission because he was Black. This was an event that was to haunt him and direct his future professional life. Thurgood sought admission and was accepted at the Howard University Law School that same year and came under the immediate influence of the dynamic new dean, Charles Hamilton Houston, who instilled in all of his students the desire to apply the tenets of the Constitution to all Americans. Paramount in Houston's outlook was the need to overturn the 1898 Supreme Court ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson which established the legal doctrine called, "separate but equal." Marshall's first major court case came in 1933 when he successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray. Applauding Marshall's victory, author H.L. Mencken wrote that the decision of denial by the University of Maryland Law School was "brutal and absurd," and they should not object to the "presence among them of a self-respecting and ambitious young Afro-American well prepared for his studies by four years of hard work in a class A college."

Thurgood Marshall followed his Howard University mentor, Charles Hamilton Houston to New York and later became Chief Counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). During this period, Mr. Marshall was asked by the United Nations and the United Kingdom to help draft the constitutions of the emerging African nations of Ghana and what is now Tanzania. It was felt that the person who so successfully fought for the rights of America's oppressed minority would be the perfect person to ensure the rights of citizens in these two former European colonies. After amassing an impressive record of Supreme Court challenges to state-sponsored discrimination, including the landmark Brown v. Board decision in 1954 (which finally overturned Plessy v Ferguson), President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In this capacity, he wrote over 150 decisions including support for the rights of immigrants, limiting government intrusion in cases involving illegal search and seizure, double jeopardy, and right to privacy issues. Biographers Michael Davis and Hunter Clark note that, "none of his (Marshall's) 98 majority decisions was ever reversed by the Supreme Court." In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson appointed Judge Marshall to the office of U.S. Solicitor General. Before his subsequent nomination to the United States Supreme Court in 1967, Thurgood Marshall won 14 of the 19 cases he argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government. Indeed, Thurgood Marshall represented and won more cases before the United States Supreme Court than any other American.

Until his retirement from the highest court in the land, Justice Marshall established a record for supporting the voiceless American. Having honed his skills since the case against the University of Maryland, he developed a profound sensitivity to injustice by way of the crucible of racial discrimination in this country. As an Associate Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall leaves a legacy that expands that early sensitivity to include all of America's voiceless. Justice Marshall died on January 24, 1993.

New Haven Court Ruling Creates New Legal Standard That Restricts Equal Employment Opportunity

2009-06-29T05:46:00.003-05:00

The Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is a step backward from the goal of equal employment opportunity. A narrow majority of the Court created a new legal standard that places additional hurdles in front of employers seeking to fulfill their obligations under this nation's core antidiscrimination law. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is disappointed that five Justices departed from well-established precedents that were properly applied by the courts below.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation imposes new burdens on employers and makes it more difficult to maintain a discrimination-free workplace," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

The four dissenting Justices, who joined an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, accurately explained the critical need for robust compliance with federal civil rights laws, especially in fire departments, which have historically and notoriously denied employment to African Americans, other people of color, and women. Justice Ginsburg criticized the majority for telling only half the story and ignoring that "[f]irefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow."

Although we have made some progress as a nation, discrimination in firefighting jobs remains a significant problem. Just this year, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into settlement agreements requiring Portsmouth, Virginia and Dayton, Ohio to cease using discriminatory procedures to hire firefighters.

"Faced with the reality of continuing racial exclusion, an employer has a responsibility to abandon unfair employment practices and adopt those that are fair and effective," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

While the Court's ruling unnecessarily invalidates New Haven's actions, the majority opinion does not forbid employers from careful and deliberate efforts to develop employment selection procedures that fairly predict workplace success without fencing out entire groups. The Court's majority recognized that "employers' voluntary compliance efforts . . . are essential to [our civil rights laws] and to Congress's efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination." LDF believes that ultimately, employers will be able to comply with this decision and continue to take vigorous steps to ensure equal opportunity for all workers.

Ward Connerly watch: Ward Connerly's anti-Affirmative Action initiative will be back on the ballot in Arizona

2009-06-28T11:32:00.006-05:00

Well it appears our old friend Ward Connerly is at it again. Connerly's effort to outlaw affirmative action programs and any special programs or preferences for women and minorities will be back on the ballot in Arizona next year.

On a 17-11 vote the Arizona State Senate gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment which purports to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by government on the basis of race, sex or ethnic origin. The measure, which already has been approved by the House, will now be placed on the 2010 ballot.

A similar initiative drive in 2008 failed when backers failed to gather enough signatures.

Federal courts have long-since outlawed numerical quotas that spell out that a certain percentage of school admissions, jobs or contracts must go to minorities or women. But judges have upheld various "affirmative action' programs designed to help those whose groups have been underrepresented. And the courts also have allowed certain bid preferences if the government can show that minority or women are not getting a share of contracts.

But Ward Connerly hopes to end all that. His deceptively simple language would formally prohibit any outreach efforts to women and minority owned businesses. It would also prohibit informational forums, such as "how to do business with the City" type forums if they were at all targeted towards providing information to under-represented groups. In short, it would prohibit any official efforts to address under-representation or disproportionalities in public employment, contracting, or education.

So if 99.3% of City contracting dollars were spent with firms headed by white males (as once was the case here in Wichita) that would be fair in the eyes of Connerly. But if that same City were to host informational forums designed to encourage more Women and Minority owned firms to bid on City contracts, that would be an offense to Connerly's sense of justice, hence the need for his tireless efforts to protect the strong and connected from the tyranny of the weak or disadvantaged.

Connerly talks mo' shit than a little bit about fairness and the elimination of preferences and unfair advantage, but make no mistake, Connerly is no 'King'... Ward Connerly is the President and CEO of Connerly & Associates, a California based lobbying firm. Connerly & Associates clients have included the Roofing Contractors Association of California, California Building Officials, the California Vendors Policy Committee, the Roofing Contractors Association of Southern California, and the Associated Roofing Contractors of Northern California. C&A also originates home repair loans, does housing rehabilitation consulting and administers community development block grants.

His efforts are funded by individuals such as:

John Moores: a San Diego-based software millionaire, developer and owner of the San Diego Padres, and chairman of JMI Realty. Moores contributed $400,000 to Connerly’s losing 2003 Prop 54 campaign in California, the so-called Racial Privacy Initiative, which sought to forbid the state from collecting statistics on race and gender. Moores worked with Connerly on the University of California board of trustees, and was censured by the board for releasing his own study criticizing UC admissions policies as favoring minorities. He resigned in November 2007.

Harlan Crow: Considered by Connerly “one of the most important” of his “major allies.” Crow, son of Dallas real estate tycoon Trammell Crow, owns Crow Realty Investors and is president of Crow Holdings, a real estate company.

Thomas L. Rhodes: Co-founder and director of Connerly’s organizations, who along with Zamrzla played a key role in Connerly’s decision to launch the “Super Tuesday” campaign. Rhodes has been vice chairman since 1998 (and a board member since 1996), of the Clearwater, Florida-based American Land Lease, which is engaged in the ownership, development and financing of residential land lease communities. Rhodes sits on the board of directors of the Bradley Foundation, which has contributed millions of dollars to Connerly’s ACRI.

John Uhlmann: Chairman of the Kansas City-based Jabez Territories LLC, which provides construction, general contracting and development services, and is another major backer of Connerly’s initiatives.

John Zamrzla: President and chief executive officer of the Western Pacific Roofing Corporation and a former president of the Chicago-based National Roofing Contractors Association. Zamrzla serves as Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) board chair. He has also been identified by Connerly as one of “the directors of the American Civil Rights Coalition.”

To be clear, Ward Connerly is no friend of Civil Rights, level playing fields, or fundamental fairness. He is simply a professional lobbyist, funded by Contractors, Developers, and Real Estate Executives, ALL of whom stand to benefit if Connerly can eliminate the competition by re-writing state constitutions and rolling back civil rights programs that help level the playing field for qualified minorities and women.

It is particularly telling that Connerly who publicly affects a moral opposition to preferences, never actually seeks to eliminate all preferences... His efforts in education have never addressed legacy preferences, specific geographic preferences, or preferences awarded to the alumnus of certain pre-determined 'Top" schools, all of which overwhelmingly accrue to the majority. All of which have escaped his scrutiny and his outrage in each and every campaign he's launched.

While he purports to be a man opposed to discrimination in contracting and employment, it is also peculiar that neither Connerly nor his "Civil Right$" institute have ever offered a bill, policy, or proposition to address the underlying institutional discrimination and/or disproportionalities that affirmative action plans were intended to counteract.

While appropriating the language and cloaking his agenda under the mantle of Civil Rights, Ward Connerly is merely continuing his antithetical, multi-state, highly funded, deceptive and disingenuous defense of the status-quo.

National HIV Testing Day

2009-06-24T20:48:00.002-05:00

Did you know that 25-30% of all Kansas HIV/AIDS cases are from the Wichita/Sedgwick County area? Getting tested gives individuals power to lessen the spread and affects of this disease. Additionally, early detection can provide a person with better treatment options—prolonging quality of life.

The Sedgwick County Health Department will recognize National HIV Testing Day by providing free, confidential, rapid-results tests at the Colvin Recreation Center, 2820 South Roosevelt on Friday, June 26, 2009. Free rapid tests will be available from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at this site. Results will be available within twenty minutes.

Free tests will also be available at the 2716 W Central Health Department location; however these tests will not be rapid results tests. Call the Health Department at 316-660-7300 with questions.

Supreme Court Ruling Leaves in Place Core Provision of the Voting Rights Act

2009-06-23T22:53:00.000-05:00

On Monday, the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5, the core provision of the Voting Rights Act.

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court recognized that "the historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable." Todays ruling, which was joined by seven other Justices, recognizes Section 5's critical importance in addressing voting discrimination faced by citizens throughout our country.

"Section 5 remains critical to our democracy and, however grudgingly, the Court acknowledges that in its opinion today. In an unusually harmonious opinion, today's decision upholds the constitutionality of an essential core protection in our democracy," said John Payton, NAACP LDF Director-Counsel. Payton observed that "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act protects and shields the rights of minority voters from discrimination. Section 5 has long been symbolic of our nation's long and unsteady march toward greater political equality. Without its protections, our nation would unnecessarily face the grave risk of significant backsliding and retrenchment in the fragile gains that have been made."

The Court's ruling ensures that minority voters will continue to have the safeguards provided by the Section 5 preclearance process. The Court expanded the number of places that can seek to "bailout" or exempt themselves from preclearance. However, no Section 5-covered jurisdiction can do so without demonstrating a clean bill of health for a ten-year period.

Writing the court's main opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Texas utility district should be eligible to seek an exemption from provisions requiring federal approval for any changes to local elections.

The court held that the Texas district could apply for exemption even though it does not register voters, like states, counties, parishes and other sub-units that were the primary targets of the Act.

The "bailout" provision has proven workable and achievable for those jurisdictions that have sought it. It remains to be seen how the Court's interpretation of the bailout provision will impact enforcement of Section 5. If, for any reason, today's ruling renders Section 5 unworkable in the future, Congress could always amend the statute.

"The utility district brought this case to tear out the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Today, it failed. The Voting Rights Act remains one of Congress's greatest legacies," said Debo P. Adegbile, LDF Director of Litigation, who argued the case on behalf of Appellee-Intervenors.

South Carolina State NAACP releases a public statement and calls for a proper apology for the Michelle Obama 'Gorilla' comment

2009-06-16T18:49:00.000-05:00

Dr. Lonnie Randolph, President of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has released the following statement in response to racist comments made by SC state political figure Rusty DePass:

"The NAACP condemns the statements of former South Carolina GOP activist and State Election Commission Chairman Rusty DePass linking First Lady Michelle Obama to an ape that recently escaped from a local zoo. We demand a proper apology from Mr. DePass to Mrs. Obama and to the citizens of South Carolina who are terribly offended by his remarks.

"Mr. DePass’ remarks are a chilling reminder of the pervasive nature of racial bias in South Carolina which readily infects all aspects of everyday life. This unfortunate fact informs us that we must all work to eliminate such offensive references as they do influence our thoughts, our conversations, our choices, and our actions toward others. We clearly have more work to do to ensure that the symbols and attitudes that we promote in our society respect the dignity of every American regardless of their race or ethnicity.”

Action Alert: NAACP calls on the US Senate for swift enactment of expanded Hate crime prevention and protection legislation

2009-06-16T07:12:00.000-05:00

The ISSUE:
Hate crimes remain a festering and horrifying problem in the United States. This form of domestic terrorism is designed to intimidate whole communities on the basis of personal and immutable characteristics – and can spark widespread neighborhood conflicts, even damaging the very fabric of our society. Although there are laws on the books that help deter hate crimes and protect their victims, significant gaps remain unfilled. Sadly, the number of hate crimes in America continues to increase, and the number of "hate groups" (an organization that promotes hate or violence towards members of an entire class of people, based on characteristics such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation) in the United States increased to 926 in 2008, up 54 percent since 2000. Just last week, our nation was horrified to witness another hate crime at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

Currently, the federal government is allowed to intervene in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes only if they occur on federal property or if the victim was participating in one of six very specific activities, such as voting. The "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" (H.R. 1913, introduced by Congressman John Conyers, MI) would expand existing hate crime prevention laws and allow the federal government to assist the local authorities in the investigation and prosecution of crimes motivated by hate, regardless of where or what the victim was doing at the time the crime occurred. It would also expand the definition of a hate crime to include those motivated by the victim's disability, gender or sexual orientation and it would provide money to states to develop hate crime prevention programs. H.R. 1913 passed the House of Representatives on April 29, 2009, by a vote of 249 yeas to 145 nays. We are now awaiting Senate action, where Senator Kennedy (MA) has introduced companion legislation, S. 909.

In short, this proposed hate crimes prevention legislation would allow the federal government to work with state and local authorities to prevent or, if necessary, punish hate crimes to the fullest extent possible. While the NAACP believes that states should continue to play the primary role in the prosecution of hate crime violence, a federal law is needed to compliment state statutes and assist the states in securing the very complicated and expensive cases through prosecution.

Please Click here for the action we need you to take...

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT MATTER!!!
If you have any questions, call Hilary Shelton at the Washington Bureau at (202) 463-2940.

NCLB + Title I + The Stimulus package = a Loophole: Increased vigilance required in education

2009-06-15T06:38:00.002-05:00

I’ve never been a big fan of the No Child Left Behind Act. I can certainly appreciate and even applaud the goals of the bill. But as a practical matter, its reliance on high-stakes testing as a catalyst for improvement is an ineffective means to increase educational attainment. In truth, the achievement gap can no more be closed by testing than a fever could be cured with a thermometer. Reform is a matter of methodology, not measurement, and in that respect NCLB falls short.

But one thing that NCLB Has done, and done quite effectively, is it has kept the achievement gap and the disparities between high poverty urban schools and their suburban counterparts at the forefront. Under NCLB, districts are forced to generate and respond to disaggregated data, to make that data available to parents, and to take deliberate and conscious steps towards improving student achievement and eliminating disparities. Title I schools (those being schools with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged students) face stiff sanctions under NCLB if they are not able to show that all sub-groups within the school are meeting established standards referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Title I schools are subject to these penalties and sanctions because they receive allocations of Federal funds specifically intended to mitigate the challenges posed by urban poverty. Non-Title I schools are exempt from NCLB sanctions, but may be subject to guidance provided from the State.

NCLB Sanctions

First Year a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress
No Sanction

Second Year a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress
No Sanction

Third Year a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress
“On Improvement”
The school must write a School Improvement Plan and must offer parents Choice

Fourth Year a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress
“On Improvement”
The school must offer Choice and Supplementary Educational Services

Fifth Year a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress
“Corrective Action”
The school must offer Choice, Supplementary Educational Services, and take at least one of the following Corrective Actions:
replace school staff relevant to the failure
institute and implement a new curriculum
significantly decrease management authority in the school
appoint outside experts to advise the school
extend school year or school day
restructure internal organization of the school

Sixth Year a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress
“Restructuring”
The school must offer Choice, Supplementary Educational Services, and a plan to restructure that accomplishes at least one of the following:
Reopens school as a public charter school
Replaces all or most of school staff, including the principal
Enters into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the school
Presents some alternative major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement

Seventh Year a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress
“Implement Restructuring Plan”
The school begins operations under an alternative governance plan

While the “Carrot and Stick” approach of Title I funding coupled with NCLB sanctions, is an ineffective means of improving educational attainment, it does provide additional measures of transparency and accountability, and a concrete mechanism for forcing institutional reform. Hence, it is in some ways both a blessing and a curse…

Concordantly, school districts rarely request the full amount of Title I funding for which they'd qualify .

Any school wherein 75% or more or the students qualify for a free or reduced lunch is classified as a Title I school and therefore receives supplementary funding from the Federal Government. However, any school with a “free or reduced” student population of 35% or greater Could be classified as a Title I school if requested by the Local School district. But most districts opt to maintain the 75% Title I threshold, forgoing the potential of additional supplementary funding, because of the harsh sanctions and scrutiny that Title I funding often imposes.

But as our economy languishes, many school districts (including my own) facing budget shortfalls, find themselves faced with a myriad of difficult decisions. In response, the Obama administration has released 2 years of increased funding for Title I schools under the American Recovery and Reinvestment act (ARRA). And given the current economic climate, for many districts, this funding could not have come at a better time.

In order to take advantage of this additional funding and to maximize the potential allocations, many districts (including my own) are choosing to reduce their Title I thresholds below the mandatory 75%. Here in Wichita, USD259 has chosen to reduce their Title I threshold to include any school wherein the ‘free or reduced’ student population meets or exceeds 55% -- which encompasses a full 35% of the district. And the same scenario is being replicated in districts across the country.

As an advocate, I would ordinarily be pleased with the additional transparency and accountability that a shift to Title I provides, …but you see, there’s just one little problem with the timing…

The increased funding provided by ARRA is only available for two years. And if you scroll up and take another look at the Title I table, you’ll note that there are No Title I sanctions for the first two years of the program. So while the ARRA funding provides districts with the incentive to increase their number of Title I schools, that funding ends two years into the program, before any sanctions or mandatory reforms would be applied. And there is no prohibition against a district lowering their Title I threshold, applying for and using the additional ARRA/Title I funding, then raising the threshold back to 75% at the end of the two year period, before any mandatory NCLB reforms were prescribed.

So fellow NAACP’ers, advocates, and activists, we need to keep our eyes on this… We need to make sure that we are paying attention as new educational data becomes available over the next couple years. And we need to make sure that where problems are identified, that our local districts move forward with programmatic change and reforms even after the funding ceases and the thresholds are increased….

Stimulus Funding now available to assist Non-Profits!!!

2009-06-14T11:06:00.000-05:00

Non-Profit Organizations can now apply for federal economic Recovery Act funds to strengthen your capacity to meet your community's needs.

Please see this federal notice and links below. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, $50 million was approved to help non-profit organizations. Note the fairly quick deadline: July 7. Please forward this widely to make sure that service providers get a chance to apply for these funds.

Dear Partners and Colleagues,

The Federal Government recognizes the important work carried out by nonprofit organizations to address the needs of disadvantaged and hard-to-reach populations suffering economic hardships and intends to empower these organizations to be part of economic recovery through the new Strengthening Communities Fund. The Strengthening Communities Fund is now available and applications are due July 7, 2009. Please share this information with your list-servs, networks, and partner organizations. We apologize for any cross-postings.

The Strengthening Communities Fund

Objective: The objective of the Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF) is to enable nonprofit organizations to contribute to the economic recovery and help Federal, State, local, and Indian/Native American Tribal governments ensure that the information and services described in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) reach disadvantaged and hard-to-serve populations.

Program Focus: The focus of this program is to build the capacity of nonprofit organizations, whether secular or faith based, to address the broad economic recovery issues present in their communities, including helping low-income individuals secure and retain employment, earn higher wages, obtain better-quality jobs, and gain greater access to state and Federal benefits and tax credits, including ARRA benefits.

Grant Program: SCF is made up of two separate grant programs.

1. Nonprofit Capacity Building Program: The SCF Nonprofit Capacity Building program will make one-time awards up to $1 million to experienced lead organizations to provide nonprofit organizations -- or project partners -- with capacity building training, technical assistance, and competitive financial assistance. A minimum of 55% of the Federal funds awarded must be provided to project partners through a competitive process. The grant period for this award is 24 months. To read the full program announcement for the SCF Nonprofit Capacity Building program visit: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2009-ACF-OCS-SI-0091.html

2. State, Local, and Tribal Government Capacity Building Program: The SCF State, Local, and Tribal Government Capacity Building program will make one-time awards up to $250,000 to State, city, county, and Indian/Native American Tribal government offices (e.g., offices responsible for outreach to faith-based and community organizations or those interested in initiating such an effort), or their designees, to build the capacity of nonprofit faith-based and community organizations to better serve those in need and to increase nonprofit organizations' involvement in the economic recovery. Grantees will use program funds to provide free capacity building services to nonprofit organizations and to build their own capacity to provide such services to nonprofits. The grant period for this award is 24 months. To read the full program announcement for the SCF State, Local and Tribal Government Capacity Building Program visit: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2009-ACF-OCS-SN-0092.html

For more information about this new program, visit http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/scf/

Open Letter to the Wichita City Council: Concerning the proposed Vietnamese Veterans Memorial

2009-06-08T11:37:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow, the Wichita City Council will take action on a proposal to erect a memorial to the veterans of the South Vietnamese Army who fought alongside the Americans in the Vietnam war. Some who have expressed opposition to the proposal have suggested that Wichita's Veterans Memorial park is only for "our" veterans and not "theirs". Some have suggested that the nearly 8,000 Vietnamese men and women who live in our city should 'just be happy we let them come here'. And still others have suggested that if a memorial is to be erected, then it should be placed in the Planeview area (which is a section of the city with a large Vietnamese population).

But as an organization that is deeply rooted in the American tradition, one that is intimately familiar with the virtues of sacrifice and struggle, one that fights for the unfettered and uniform application of the rights and liberties that our military men and women have fought and died for, and one that seeks the full and unqualified recognition of the inherent equality of all persons, we could not sit by and ignore those who would advocate such sentiments. What follows is a letter that was sent to Mayor Carl Brewer and all of the members of the Wichita City Council, on behalf of the Wichita Branch of the NAACP.

To the Honorable Mayor Carl Brewer and members of the City Council,

I am writing you today to express our support for the proposed Vietnamese Veterans Memorial to be erected within Veterans Memorial Park. It is consistent with our values that we would recognize and honor the sacrifices of the men and women who fought along side of our troops during the Vietnam war. The proposal before the City Council seems a fitting tribute to this history of shared sacrifice and it recognizes all who bravely fought in defense of freedom during that conflict.

As a Veteran and the child of a military family with roots going back to the Korean war, I appreciate the service and the risks undertaken by the members of the South Vietnamese Army as they fought against the spread of communism. These men and women fought, bled, and many died, along side men like my Father, in defense of the very ideals that we as Americans still hold dear. In honoring them, we honor ourselves...

And as a proud representative of the nation’s largest, oldest, and most consequential civil rights organization, we are proud to stand in support of the members of the Vietnamese community who have brought you this proposal. There are nearly 8,000 Americans of Vietnamese origin, many of whom are veterans of the conflict, who are an integral part of our city. We feel it would send a tragic message were we to segregate our tributes by denying them space within the Veterans Memorial park.

In closing, we reiterate our support for the proposed memorial, and we thank you in advance for your consideration of this request…

Best Regards,

Kevin Myles
President; Wichita NAACP
Political Affairs Chair; Kansas State NAACP
www.wichitanaacpblog.com

Bridging the Digital Divide: The Wichita NAACP "E-Literacy" Campaign gets underway with the distribution of 17 free computers

2009-06-06T21:14:00.005-05:00

The Wichita NAACP E-Literacy campaign officially got underway this afternoon with the distribution of 17 free computers. The objective of this campaign is to gather used computers from various companies as they upgrade their equipment, prep the computers with the necessary software and or operating systems, and redistribute them to organizations or programs designed to promote technological literacy to youth or seniors. Dr. Tony Turner, Uzo Ohaebosim, and others came out to help carry, set up, and prep the computers for distribution.

The first ten computers were donated to First United Christian Church for a program named the MLK Project. The program is designed to work with youth who have struggled academically by helping to improve their study and research skills. Eight more computers were donated to St. Paul AME Church who will use them to create a computer lab for the youth of their congregation.

Action Alert: Missouri NAACP calls for a Board of Inquiry and seeks clemency to stop the execution of Reggie Clemons

2009-06-05T21:48:00.000-05:00

NAACP National Board Member Harold Crumpton and NAACP Missouri State Conference President Mary Ratliff are requesting Governor Jay Nixon appoint a Board of Inquiry and grant clemency to Reggie Clemons who is on death row scheduled to be executed on June 17, 2009.

Clemons, 37, is an African-American man sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of two young women who drowned after plunging from the Chain of the Rocks Bridge into the Mississippi River. There was no physical evidence linking Reggie to the crime for which he received the death penalty: no fingerprints, no DNA, no hair or fiber samples. Reggie’s case is filled with many injustices, including police brutality, gross prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective defense counsel.

“Reggie Clemons was tortured by police into making a statement that was used against him at trial. But even after five hours of violent interrogation, he never confessed to murder,” stated NAACP National Board Member Harold Crumpton. “The two eyewitnesses failed to link Clemons to the murder. One of them initially confessed to the killing, and the other one got a sweetheart deal for his testimony. The other evidence was Clemons’ confession which was induced by hours of torture.” Crumpton said.

“Governor Nixon should convene a Board of Inquiry immediately and grant clemency for Reggie Clemons. More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed in the U.S. were convicted by all-white juries. Although St. Louis is more than 50 percent African American, there were only two black people on Reggie’s jury,” stated Mary Ratliff, NAACP Missouri State Conference President.

“It is wrong to put to death someone who clearly might be innocent. Our nation and our State are better than that. It is not only unjust for Reggie but for the families of the victims who deserve to have the real killers punished. Executing the innocent is a mistake that cannot be rectified,” stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous.

The Missouri State Conference of the NAACP is calling on supporters to fax (573-751-1588), send letters and emails to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon and to sign a petition for clemency for Reggie Clemons at http://www.justiceforreggie.com.

Full Video and Transcript of President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo

2009-06-04T07:21:00.001-05:00

Click here for a full transcript of the speech...

USD259 releases its list of proposed budget cuts

2009-06-02T21:17:00.000-05:00

USD259, facing a 27 million dollar shortfall, released its list of proposed budget cuts at the school board meeting last night. There are 127 items under consideration; several of which would directly affect the minority, low SES, and/or otherwise under-served communities. It is critically important that we take the time to carefully review these proposals and make our opinions and voices known.

Click HERE for an annotated copy of the proposed budget cuts...

Once you've taken the time to review the proposed cuts, please take a an additional moment and send an email to the members of the Board of Education and share your thoughts, questions, or concerns.

Lynn Rodgers: lynnwrogers@sbcglobal.net
Connie Dietz: connie.dietz@wichita.edu
Lanora Nolan: lnolan@bnolan.com
Barb Fuller: barbfuller259@yahoo.com
Betty Arnold: betty.arnold@dol.ks.gov
Jeff Davis: jdavis101@cox.net
Kevass Harding: revkevass@aol.com

The Kansas Human Rights Commission issues "Probable Cause" determinations in 2 Kansas Racial Profiling Cases

2009-05-30T17:14:00.000-05:00

The Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) has issued findings of Probable Cause in two recent Racial Profiling cases. The most recent was a case involving the Kansas Highway Patrol.

The complainant in this case was driving a late model SUV which had been modified with a tinted cover placed over the headlights. The Officers in the case spotted the driver and turned around to follow. The complainant, after seeing the officers turn around and visually seeing the expression on the face of one of the officers, pulled over to the side of the road voluntarily, without lights, sirens, and without having been ordered to do so. The complainant, who was black, questioned the officer as to why he had been stopped and he was told that he was stopped because he had a film over his headlights which was a violation of Kansas Statute. The driver was then ticketed for the infraction.

The driver asked the Officer for his name and badge number, and was told that it would appear on the citation. The badge number did appear on the citation, however the Officer's name did not.

Upon investigation from the KHRC, it was learned that less than 35 minutes later, the same Officers were involved with another traffic stop, this time of a white motorist with the same type tinted cover placed over their headlights. And while the two drivers were similarly situated, the officers simply asked the white motorist to remove their headlight covers and allowed him to continue with a verbal warning.

The KHRC's report closes by saying, "The end result is that two similarly situated drivers, one African American and one Caucasian, who violated the same traffic law only minutes apart, received disparate treatment as evidenced by one receiving a ticket and one receiving a warning from the same officer."

The second case involved a driver in Junction City Kansas who was stopped and ticketed for "failure to signal 100 yards before exiting a highway." The driver, who is a Hospice Chaplin, was driving a late model Cadillac with California plates. The car belonged to his Uncle, who was a retired 33-year veteran of the California Sheriff's Department, and the complainant was returning home from his Uncle's funeral.

The Officer followed the complainant for several miles during which time he ran a National Crime Center Information Check (or NCIC) Once the check had come back clear, the Officer continued to follow the vehicle until finally pulling him over for an alleged failure to signal 100 feet prior to exiting.

During the subsequent KHRC investigation, the respondent stated that the real reason for the stop was because the vehicle had California Plates. The Respondent stated that due to the amount of Drug Traffic on Interstate 70, officers had been instructed to pay special attention to out-of-state plates.

As a part of the investigation, the KHRC requested validation of the Police Department's directive to Officers that they should stop or investigate vehicles with out-of-state plates. The Department provided no evidence of any statistical information or training modules that had been compiled or shared with Officers, and produced no documentation of policies or directives for officers to stop or investigate vehicles with out-of-state plates.

The KHRC also requested to view the dash camera recording of the stop. The Department advised that since there was no citation issued, they disposed of the video. In it's place, the Officer wrote a narrative of the stop after the complaint was filed and the narrative was maintained.

When asked during the course of the investigation, the Officer advised the KHRC that he did not follow every vehicle with California plates.

The KHRC's report concludes with the statement: "Lacking tangible evidence or reliable training to base what is a very non-specific practice of stopping some California cars for interdiction, we must consider the contention by the Complainant that his race was a factor in the officer's decision to stop that particular car from California. While "sole factor" is a very high standard to attain, our function as defined by the KSA 22-4611 and KHRC policy is to determine if there is "Probable Cause" to believe that the officer based his decision to stop this particular car from California based solely on the race of the occupants. We do that in this case."

~~~

The Wichita Branch NAACP worked in concert with Citizen's for Equal Law Enforcement and Senator Donald Betts to draft and lobby for passage of the Kansas Racial Profiling act. We currently serve as a point of intake for Racial profiling complaints filed under the statute and we continuously monitor all Racial Profiling cases filed throughout the State. We are currently assisting one of the aforementioned complainants in their efforts to obtain legal counsel.

Message from NAACP President Ben Jealous on Troy Davis -- Lift the Gag Order, Let Troy Speak

2009-05-30T03:32:00.004-05:00

A few hours ago, I met with Troy Davis on death row.

As you know, he is facing the death penalty in Georgia for killing a police officer -- but since his trial, seven out of nine witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony. And with no physical evidence to link him to the crime, it is likely he is innocent.

Besides the fact that Troy is facing execution for a crime that he may not have committed, he also told me that he is being denied the right to speak out on his own behalf despite the fact that others in his position are allowed to do so.

Please contact Commissioner Brian Owens of the Georgia Department of Corrections to demand that he remove the gag order on Troy Davis.

In my meeting with Troy, I discovered that 60 Minutes, Dateline, and the Associated Press have all been denied media access to Troy. When Georgia won't let the media talk to the accused man, it is a flagrant abuse of his First Amendment rights.

In fact, the case of Troy Davis highlights how broken our criminal justice system is... and why we must reform it. Today, more than 60% of the people in prison are people of color. African Americans make up more than 40% of those on death row. This summer, the NAACP will launch a campaign to reform our country's criminal justice system with the goal of making our communities safer, improving police performance, saving money, and keeping more of our young men and women out of prison. But Troy can't wait for this summer. We need your help now.

An innocent man may be executed. You and I must work together to reform our country's criminal justice system, and we must start by saving the life of one man. Please contact Commissioner Brian Owens of the Georgia Department of Corrections today and demand he give Troy the right to speak.

Sotomayor vs. SCOTUS: Revisiting Race and the Courts

2009-05-29T21:52:00.002-05:00

Over the last few days, conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Gordon Liddy, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich have taken to the airwaves to accuse Judge Sotomayer of being a racist. Representative Tom Tancredo intimated that her membership in the group La Raza was enough to prove that she was in fact a racist. Former Speaker Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have gone so far as to say that Judge Sotomayer should be forced to withdraw her nomination due to her alleged racism. They each went on to commit the cardinal sin of equivalence

Newt Gingrich tweeted a message to his followers which read: "White man racist would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

Rush Limbaugh told his listeners, "She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court," Limbaugh said, later adding: "How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive."

...Oh really?

While I believe the charges against Judge Sotomayer to be preposterous, I won't use this space to offer my limited defense... certainly the confirmation hearings will bear out the truth. But I would like to challenge the false equivalencies suggested by Speaker Gingrich and Limbaugh; particularly the claim that a White male nominee who was a racist would be forced to withdraw from consideration.

The claim itself seems so ridiculous that I can only assume that perhaps Speaker Gingrich and Limbaugh have forgotten what racism from the bench actually looks like; so I've put together this little primer... Consider these pearls from former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice William Rehnquist:

Wrote memorandum supporting Plessy v. Ferguson.
In Plessy the Court endorsed state supported segregation and established that Jim Crow “separate but equal” principle was constitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist served as a clerk to Justice Robert Jackson. The memo “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases” advised Justice Jackson to affirm Plessy in future segregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. The memo stated “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by my ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.”

Justice Rehnquist wrote a proposed constitutional amendment designed to limit the enforcement of Brown v. Board of education

According to Justice Rehnquist, the amendment was designed to permit northern schools to preserve de facto segregation through “neighborhood schools.” Justice Rehnquist believed the amendment would allow gerrymandering of schools districts even if the neighborhood plan was “adopted by the local school board at least partly because they would make some schools largely white, and others largely black.”

Wrote memorandum endorsing Texas’ “Whites Only” Primaries

Terry v. Adams was case about the rights of blacks to vote in a “private” Texas primary. Justice Rehnquist while clerking for Justice Jackson wrote in a memo “I take a dim view of this pathological search for discrimination. . . and as a result I now have a mental block against the case.” In a second memo he wrote: “The Constitution does not prevent the majority from banding together, nor does it attaint success in the effort. It is about time the Court faced the fact that the white people of the south don’t like the colored people: the constitution restrains them from effecting thru (sic) state action but it most assuredly did not appoint the Court as a sociological watchdog to rear up every time private discrimination raises its admittedly ugly head.”

Owned property containing restrictive covenants barring the sale of his property to nonwhites and Jews.

Justice Rehnquist, a sophisticated lawyer, professed ignorance of the restrictive covenant.

Voted to grant Bob Jones University tax exempt status

Blacks students could enroll at the school but only if they were married to other blacks or promised not to date or marry outside the black race. Bob Jones University applied for tax exempt status and was denied. Bob Jones University sued to restore its tax exemption and won. The case then went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court in a 8-1 decision held that the university’s policy violated deeply accepted views of elementary justice and that it could not enjoy tax exempt status. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger, held that nonprofit private schools that prescribe and enforce racially discriminatory admission standards on the basis of religious doctrine do not qualify as tax‑exempt organizations under the Internal Revenue Code, nor are contributions to such schools deductible as charitable contributions. The sole dissenter was, you guessed it, Justice William Rehnquist.

Rehnquist's Record

Chief Justice Rehnquist further distinguished himself by voting against minorities in EVERY Civil Rights case that came before the Court in his 30 year tenure.

CBCF Releases Resource Guide on Recovery Act for African Americans

2009-05-27T13:40:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON –The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) has prepared a resource guide - www.cbcfinc.org - for African Americans to highlight some of the major provisions within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that are critical to their community.

Commonly called the Economic Stimulus Package, ARRA is the most comprehensive economic recovery legislation in the United States since the New Deal of the 1930s. ARRA provides federal funding to states and local communities for projects and programs that will address budget shortfalls for critical issues, such as employment, housing, and health care.

“CBCF fully supports ARRA because it provides vital resources for improving the circumstances of African Americans and all Americans who have been disproportionately affected by the current economic crisis,” said Elsie L. Scott, president and chief executive officer for CBCF. “Our guide allows readers to quickly reference where funding is going for education, health, economic development and social welfare – all areas that can stimulate and boost the economy by creating and saving jobs in the private sector.”

A major source of job opportunities will come from training programs and projects. For example, $16.8 billion is allocated for energy efficiency and conservation block grants, including funding for weatherization assistance, $636 million for business loans programs and $50 million for YouthBuild to provide disadvantaged youth with education and employment skills, youth development and training activities.

“One of the most important aspects of the Act is that it is intended to quickly disburse funds to revitalize and improve our most economically vulnerable communities,” said Alana Hackshaw, Ph.D., and author of the guide. “This represents a major step forward for many in African-American neighborhoods. With the federal agencies working with those who are responsible for urban policies and the system of transparency and accountability among states and local communities in order to prevent waste, fraud and abuse of funds, we can begin to turn the economy around,” she said.

The guide is also available as a PDF.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Inc. was established in 1976 as a nonpartisan, nonprofit, public policy, research and education institute to help improve the socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans and other underserved communities.

NAACP announces new Diversity Job Board

2009-05-27T07:00:00.000-05:00

The NAACP and Personnel Strategies Inc. (PSI) announced today a partnership to produce a diversity job board to be featured at www.naacp.org. The job board, entitled www.NAACPJobFinder.com, promotes career opportunities to NAACP members and visitors from across America. The www.NAACPJobFinder.com will showcase opportunities from a cross section of industries and locations.

“The NAACP job board addresses our principal objective to ensure political, social and economic equality for all citizens. It also provides a more comprehensive approach to providing racially diverse, qualified job seekers access to a broad range of the nation's top employers,” said NAACP President Benjamin Jealous. “With so many Americans out of work we hope we can provide new resources and opportunity.”

The NAACP boasts one of the Nation’s most diverse and active membership websites. It is anticipated that during the 2009 NAACP Centennial, a large number of visitors will be registering and searching the positions at www.NAACPJobFinder.com. For employers, this represents an exception branding opportunity to promote their diversity initiatives and acknowledge the NAACP Centennial.

“PSI has worked with the NAACP producing NAACP Diversity Job Fairs since 1993. Providing a state of the art job board technology that reaches a truly diverse market of motivated and socially active candidates should be a great tool for employers. We will also be reaching thousands of candidates who each year attend a NAACP Diversity Job Fair,” says Mike Hall, President of PSI. “We like the online and onsite solutions being offered by this partnership.”

2009 marks the NAACP Centennial Celebration. The NAACP Headquarters, based in Baltimore, MD, along with its 1,700 units nationwide, will host celebrations and observances throughout the year ending with the Annual Convention in New York on July 11-16. The NAACP National Convention Centennial Celebration Diversity Job Fair will be sponsored as part of the Convention on July 14-15, 2009 at the New York Hilton.

PSI is the nation’s leading producer of Diversity Job Fairs. In 2009, PSI Job Fairs will be produced in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. PSI is the only job fair producer selected by the NAACP to brand its events as NAACP Diversity Job Fairs.

Reflections on the 5th Annual Leadership 500 Summit

2009-05-26T23:13:00.002-05:00

Sunday morning marked the end of our 5th Annual NAACP Leadership 500 summit. This initiative, launched by Roslyn McCallister Brock some years ago, continues to grow and deepen with each passing year. The idea behind the summit is to call together young professionals from around the country who are between the ages of 20 and 50 to discuss the critical issues facing our community and to put together strategies for action. This year, we were joined by 6 of the 7 youth members of the NAACP's National Board of Directors and a host of other 20, 30, and 40 somethings, for a series of workshops and lectures dealing with economic development, political affairs, educations, military and veterans issues, and families.

I was honored to once again serve as a member of the planning committee, and as such I would personally like to commend and honor sister Rosyln, Paula Brown-Edme, Barbara Brown, Sabu, Mike, Tonya, Rose, Faith, Leon, Hilary, Mama Dukes, and EVERYONE else who worked so hard to make this event a sucess... Through your efforts, you are touching thousands of lives, and I feel blessed to have been a witness...

I was able to take down just a few notes from some of the sessions that I'd like to share with you here:

Family connectedness workshop
Maintaining Family Connectedness in tough economic times

Rev. Kenneth Cooper – Spoke about the loss of family connectedness many are experiencing and how it coincides with a more general loss in communication. He talked about how houses used to have front porches where families could congregate and get to know their neighbors, but how as of late, houses are more apt to have decks out back which we surround with privacy fences. He also spoke about how once routine conversations around the dinner table have been too often reduced to text messages and that it is incumbent upon all of us to work to maintain the space for our communities to communicate.

Dr. Lisa Loury –Dr. Loury spoke about how our lives have become increasingly busy and our connectedness is challenged by our time constraints. She also spoke about the need for fundamental honesty with our children during these economic times. And how we could take advantage of these current economic challenges and use them as an opportunity to serve as Role Models for our children about about how to make difficult and complex decisions.

Diana Morales MPD – Also spoke about Role Modeling, and she expounded on the growing sense of separation due to increased reliance on technology. But then she also spoke about the distance between our families that is both physical and symbolic. About how our families are spread further and further apart as opposed to the older extended family model. She spoke eloquently about the loss of hope in our community and the need for leaders to work on lifting people up. She shared her testimony about her personal family and their struggles as emblematic of how many family members have to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. She spoke specifically about changes we can make in our own lives like expanding our definition of “Family”; being better neighbors; getting more sleep; getting involved in community; maintaining physical activity; eating well; creating a gratitude Journal (writing three things down each day that you are thankful for), and taking care of our Mental Health and maintaining peace in our lives and families. She also suggested that if we have things we feel the need to worry about, that we should set a “worry time”. (Not worrying about issues during meetings or family activities, but rather determining a time that you would willingly set aside for worry – “I’m going to worry between 12 and 12:15 and that’s it).

Dr. Terri Kennedy – Spoke about embracing the concept of simplicity (knowing what you value and organizing your life around it). And the need to express and experience ‘Gratitude’ (and to articulate that gratitude). Spoke about the need for creating family rituals. Towards the end she summarized her presentation with the saying, “Success is an attitude not an event.”

Cpt. Richard Tatum – Spoke about the loss of morality. Also spoke about the need for discipline, love, and faith. Referenced that in recent times, our faith has been placed in our finances, and we must get back to placing our faith in God. Lastly, he spoke about the power of intention; the fact that change and manifestation do not come by accident – but by conscious intention. “If you have no faith, it’s hard to have courage in the midst of a storm”.

Economic Empowerment workshop
Resiliency 101: Professional survival tactics during an economic downturn

Facilitator: Dr. Randall Pinkett: Stated that a down economy can be the best time to start an entrepreneurial enterprise. Spoke about the myth that staring a business requires other people’s money. But 80% of companies are started with the founder’s money. All of the panelists were representative of the 80% who started their businesses with their own money. He also spoke about the power of networking and developing relationships. He cited a recent study which determined how people were connected with their current employment: Internet 7%, agencies 9%, advertisements 9 % Relationships 74%

Sirena C. Moore (President; Elohim Cleaning Contractors): They focus on Construction site cleaning. The business was started with her Father and no money. Business did 2million in sales last year with 83 employees, no debt, no lines, and no loans. She spoke about the need for businesses to go the extra mile to be successful. She also spoke about the importance of having empowering beliefs. She said that when she and her father started their company, they bought only what they could afford to purchase in cash, she didn’t get a regular salary until her 3rd year, and they only introduced one salaried employee per year until they were financially viable.

Armando Seay (Founder and Executive Vice President of Development; Ross Technologies): Ross Technologies has been doing fine during this economic downturn through its focus on facilitating the information needs of Public sector clients such as the CIA, FBI, and various defense agencies. Armando also spoke about the need for start-up businesses and employees to be exceptional and to learn to be indispensible. But he also warned about the possibility of ‘overplanning’ stating that “once you’ve done your research, once you’ve built your plan, at some point, you just have to start.” Once his company started receiving contracts, he paid out 8 payroll’s before he ever received a check from one of his contracts. “Know what you don’t know” – he spoke about identifying your weaknesses and finding people who are strong in those areas who can come in and assist you.

Tammy Edwards (Asst VP – Federal Reserve Bank of KC): Leads a team of economists who research the Financial needs of low and moderate income communities through community development efforts. Spoke about the Community Reinvestment Act. And as banks and organizations began to function under the CRA they began morphing into more community development type organizations. She spoke about doing the work that is most important to you – in her case it was working to find methods of closing the economic gap between our communities. She also spoke about the need to form your own personal Board of Directors (People with different strengths and different experiences who can help you find and take advantage of opportunities by clarifying your strengths, weaknesses, and abilities) This concept was not solely a ‘networking’ concept, but rather a call to find people who you care about and who care about you, who are willing to be real with you… Finding the intersection between passion and gifts.

James Lindsay (President/CEO; Rap Snacks): Company formed 15 years ago with $40,000.00. The company did $5million dollars in sales last year. Research your field beyond your business plan. Fully develop your marketing plan through market research, your operating strategy, and your exit strategy.

N. Scott Phillips (IBM Corp): Talked about leveraging corporate organizations to assist minority businesses. He also talked about exercising your influence over your environment. He discussed the concept of branding and that individuals need to “manage” their personal brand. (are you perceived as a problem-solver? Are you perceived as one who can understand change and adapt?). Spoke about the need to surround yourself with good people. (Bankers, accountants, insurers, etc… folks you should bring in to guide and assist you on your personal board). He also strongly suggested that people volunteer and work in the community to build relationships. Do your research on people, know who can help you, know who is going to be in a room, learn who you can access…

Civic Engagement Workshop:
Meeting New Challenges in the era of Change

Facilitator: Leon Russell; Office of Civil Rights
Paris Dennard (Senior field representative RNC): Worked at the White House with President Bush for 3 years. Talked about Social Conservatism. Asked the question, “are we best served by placing all of our trust in only one party?” Said the President should be held accountable for not considering any black people for the Supreme Court stating that he believed that a Republican President would be scrutinized for not doing so…

Allyn Brooks LaSure (Deputy Associate Administrator EPA): Talked about the lack of Diversity within the health care debate and the various other critical debates facing the community. Allyn also talked about having organizations like the NAACP stand at the guard to see who the folks are in the room after the meeting is over. He talked about the importance of knowing who is in the room when decisions are made to allocate the actual dollars.

Melanie Campbell (CEO and Executive Director National Coalition in Black Civic Participation): Talked about the fact that HBCU’s stand to lose approximately 85 million dollars. She also talked about that fact that there is a push for African Americans to stop talking about or dealing with the issue of race, while at the same time, other communities are increasingly consolidating behind identity politics. She also talked about the need for us to push for more inclusion of African Americans in the administration.

Letter from NAACP President Ben Jealous regarding the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

2009-05-26T20:28:00.000-05:00

I was at the White House this morning when President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court -- and it was a thrilling moment.

She is a brilliant legal mind and a distinguished judge -- and she would be the first Hispanic, and the third woman, to serve on the Court.

At the NAACP, we are excited to have a nomination that brings us one step closer to the inclusive democracy that is the hallmark and promise of our nation. I am writing now to ask you to help ensure that she is confirmed. Here is what you can do:

Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Ask to speak with one of your senators.

Once you are connected, tell the person answering the phone that you "urge the Senator to ensure that Judge Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation is swift and fair."

Do the same for your other senator.

The nomination of the first Latina to join the Supreme Court is a moment that we should celebrate. Judge Sotomayor has the life experiences, as well as the judicial temperament and legal mastery, to be a successful and effective Supreme Court justice. She also has an established and proven commitment to civil rights.

You have probably already heard about her life story: she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx, her father died when she was nine, and her mother worked two jobs. She went to Princeton and Yale. She can understand the reality of all Americans from diverse backgrounds.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings first; once they have recommended her, the full Senate will vote. Please call (202) 224-3121, ask for your senators, and tell them to confirm Judge Sotomayor.

Thank you for your support!

Benjamin Todd Jealous
President and CEO
NAACP