What Black Parents Should Tell Our Sons?

What Black Parents Should Tell Our Sons? By Gary L. Flowers Executive Director & CEO Black Leadership Forum, Inc. July 18-25, 2013 Last week’s injustice to the life and legacy of Trayvon Martin takes its infamous place in the annals of United States history, along side the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling, the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling, the 1955 Emmett Till murder, and the 1963 fire hosing and Church bombing of Black children in Birmingham, Alabama, and the 2010 murder Oscar Grant while in handcuffs. Each was a singular moment in American history, yet reminded the world of the unequal justice and “open season” on Black people in America. As was the question of Black families then, today, following the targeting of Trayvon, Black parents sense another “open season” and are asking: What should we tell our sons? In an ideal America parents—of any color—should only tell their sons to be honest, hard working, faithful, fair, and respectful, among other virtues. Of course, the America in which we live, filled with the false notion of White supremacy, is a tale of two turnouts for boys whose names begin with the letter T. Imagine one is named Trevor. One is named Trayvon. Trevor is White, blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Trayvon is Black, brown-haired and brown-eyed. Both Trevor and Trayvon are typical teenage boys who are testing their proverbial “wings” in life. Both seemingly have much life in front of them. Both Trevor and Trayvon’s parents love them dearly. Yet, when each exits their respective homes, the feelings of their parents are virtually in two different worlds. The White parents have no fear their son will be racially profiled. The Black parents know that racial profiling of their son is a real and, perhaps, regular possibility. We know how Trayvon’s life so violently ended. Now that we have analyzed and been agitated to action by the acquittal of Trayvon’s murderer Black parents should tell their son’s the following ten things: 1. Dress like you wish to be treated. Police and “want-to-be” cops profile certain dress such as no belts, sagging pants, white tank tops etc. Although wearing a hoodie in the rain, as Trayvon did, should be free from profiling. 2. Take driver’s license photo with blazer, white shirt and tie (at least white shirt and tie), unless you choose cultural attire. 3. Give your name and ask their name, if asked for identification. 4. Be polite, without being pious; cordial, without being cowardly. 5. Pull over in nearest lighted area. 6. Turn on interior lights in car. 7. Place hands on top of steering wheel. 8. Announce intention to reach for wallet or identification. 9. Call Police immediately after traffic stop and identify location to ensure that there was an official stop recorded by Police dispatch. 10. Write detailed account of stop. Moreover, we must teach our sons competence, courage, commitment, and compassion. We must teach them Black history. We must teach them past legal gains can be reversed if each generation does not remain vigilant. We must teach them that American economic downturns most often lead to a rise in racism against Black people. We must teach them not to feel entitled to anything. We must teach them that an empty intellect makes the most noise. We must teach them that ideas are intellectual currency. We must teach that comfort breeds complacency. We must teach them that injustice, like Italian Dressing, must be shaken. We must teach them that the garden of the mind must be cultivated for weeds. We must teach them that a liar is worst than a thief. We must teach them a good reputation is worth riches. We must teach them their aspirations should exceed their grasp. Lastly, we must teach our sons that we are the composite of all whose memory we cherish. Trayvon’s tragedy is marbled in our memory, and should inspire all conscientious Americans to sharpen our swords against injustice, wherever it may be, and to whomever it may be targeted.

Policy Priorities: Where is the American Dream?

Policy Priorities: Where is the American Dream? By Gary L. Flowers Executive Director & CEO Black Leadership Forum, Inc. March 7-14, 2013 “At the banquet table of nature, there are no reserved seats. You get what you take and you keep what you can hold. If you can’t take anything you won’t get anything, and if you can’t hold anything you can’t keep anything. And you can’t take anything without organization” A. Philip Randolph Once upon a time the “American Dream” was thought to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as defined by an adequate-paying job, a house, and equal opportunity for a higher standard of life. In 2013, recent public policy decisions have sounded the alarm clock of unthinkable unemployment, home foreclosures, and a national feeling of regression for most Americans. New words such as “sequester” have added incomprehension to injury. Where did the American Dream go? In short, too few Americans have profited too much, at the expense of too many in the last 60 years. Tax policy has permitted “American” corporations to virtually pay no taxes while exporting jobs to low-paying countries around the world. “American” banks have been allowed to receive free “bailout” funding with no requirement to make new loans (or restructure them) to ordinary people who were targeted for sub-prime loans to generate more profits for the banks. Moreover, little regulation of hedge funds let them make huge sums of money by essentially betting against the American economy, which opened the door of despair for many. However, the adage “knowledge is power” prevails in understanding how our nation’s spirit of growth for all sectors of economy has been weighted to the wealthy. One excellent source is the People’s Guide to the Federal Budget by the National Priorities Project. The People’s Guide provides basic information in plain language for ordinary Americans to follow their tax money through the federal budget, separate substance from the “spin” of politicians, compare policy priorities in federal budget to those of most people, and increase citizen involvement in how government works at the national, state, and local level. The familiar phrase of “power to the people” is now exampled by the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 and Occupy Wall Street in 2011. In a similar way, the People’s Guide prepares people to affect progressive public policy. Another informational resource is Who Stole the American Dream by Hedrick Smith. In the book Hedrick Smith lays out a historical timeline which reveals how the “American Dream” was built and how it was decimated. For example, Smith’s timeline traverses Henry Ford’s common sense idea in the early 1900’s to pay workers a good wage in order to afford American products such as Ford automobiles. Ford’s policy led to the American auto industry providing annual wage increases, health benefits, and merit promotions that other American industries followed. One result was a CEO to worker income ratio of 40:1 in 1950. From 1945 t9 1973 employee productivity and pay rose over 90%. Smith’s timeline goes on the reveal the agreed personnel policy of leading American CEO’s in the 1960’s, commonly known as the “virtuous circle of growth”, or, in other words, a happy worker is a productive worker. In addition to progressive corporate policy, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations with outside agitation of civil rights and consumer rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ralph Nader helped to enact public policy in the form of consumer protections, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Immigration Act of 1965, Fair Housing Act of 1968, Equal Protection Agency, and Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA). Simultaneously to progressive public policy formation, Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater reversed progressive partisanship and planted the seeds to what would become today’s Tea Party. In 1971, conservative attorney Lewis Powell (from my hometown of Richmond, Virginia) issued the infamous “Powell Memo” calling for increased corporate policy activism to benefit the wealthy, thereby reversing the progress for ordinary Americans. Accordingly, corporate CEO’s organized the Business Roundtable in 1971 to raise an army of corporate lobbyists to benefit the greedy over the needy in nearly every American industry. From money management to manufacturing; from agriculture to automobiles a race to the bottom ensued for lower corporate taxes and workers’ wages. By 1998, regulations separating commercial banks from investment banks were repealed and a banking bonanza to bilk hard-working Americans began. Like the first 75 years of the 19th century two-thirds of the 20th century would see progressive policy yield to policy for the rich in the last 25 years. We, the ordinary people, must make extraordinary efforts to organize and affect the change we want to see occur by demanding of the government fairness and justice. For example, we should at least support: • Full-employment legislation sponsored by U.S. Representative John Conyers (House Resolution 870) • Moratorium on Home Foreclosures • Forgiveness of nearly all student loans for 5 years • Legislation for livable wages (based on costs in each city/town) • Expand Social Security and Medicare • Enact Employees Free Choice Act • Expand Parent-Plus Student Loan Program • Reinstate Jobs Council • Reinstate Defined Benefit Pension Plans • Maintaining Minority Business Development Agency in Department of Commerce When we fight together, we win!

Policy Priorities: Where is the American Dream?

By Gary L. Flowers Executive Director & CEO Black Leadership Forum, Inc. March 7-14, 2013 “At the banquet table of nature, there are no reserved seats. You get what you take and you keep what you can hold. If you can’t take anything you won’t get anything, and if you can’t hold anything you can’t keep anything. And you can’t take anything without organization” A. Philip Randolph Once upon a time the “American Dream” was thought to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as defined by an adequate-paying job, a house, and equal opportunity for a higher standard of life. In 2013, recent public policy decisions have sounded the alarm clock of unthinkable unemployment, home foreclosures, and a national feeling of regression for most Americans. New words such as “sequester” have added incomprehension to injury. Where did the American Dream go? In short, too few Americans have profited too much, at the expense of too many in the last 60 years. Tax policy has permitted “American” corporations to virtually pay no taxes while exporting jobs to low-paying countries around the world. “American” banks have been allowed to receive free “bailout” funding with no requirement to make new loans (or restructure them) to ordinary people who were targeted for sub-prime loans to generate more profits for the banks. Moreover, little regulation of hedge funds let them make huge sums of money by essentially betting against the American economy, which opened the door of despair for many. However, the adage “knowledge is power” prevails in understanding how our nation’s spirit of growth for all sectors of economy has been weighted to the wealthy. One excellent source is the People’s Guide to the Federal Budget by the National Priorities Project. The People’s Guide provides basic information in plain language for ordinary Americans to follow their tax money through the federal budget, separate substance from the “spin” of politicians, compare policy priorities in federal budget to those of most people, and increase citizen involvement in how government works at the national, state, and local level. The familiar phrase of “power to the people” is now exampled by the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 and Occupy Wall Street in 2011. In a similar way, the People’s Guide prepares people to affect progressive public policy. Another informational resource is Who Stole the American Dream by Hedrick Smith. In the book Hedrick Smith lays out a historical timeline which reveals how the “American Dream” was built and how it was decimated. For example, Smith’s timeline traverses Henry Ford’s common sense idea in the early 1900’s to pay workers a good wage in order to afford American products such as Ford automobiles. Ford’s policy led to the American auto industry providing annual wage increases, health benefits, and merit promotions that other American industries followed. One result was a CEO to worker income ratio of 40:1 in 1950. From 1945 t9 1973 employee productivity and pay rose over 90%. Smith’s timeline goes on the reveal the agreed personnel policy of leading American CEO’s in the 1960’s, commonly known as the “virtuous circle of growth”, or, in other words, a happy worker is a productive worker. In addition to progressive corporate policy, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations with outside agitation of civil rights and consumer rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ralph Nader helped to enact public policy in the form of consumer protections, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Immigration Act of 1965, Fair Housing Act of 1968, Equal Protection Agency, and Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA). Simultaneously to progressive public policy formation, Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater reversed progressive partisanship and planted the seeds to what would become today’s Tea Party. In 1971, conservative attorney Lewis Powell (from my hometown of Richmond, Virginia) issued the infamous “Powell Memo” calling for increased corporate policy activism to benefit the wealthy, thereby reversing the progress for ordinary Americans. Accordingly, corporate CEO’s organized the Business Roundtable in 1971 to raise an army of corporate lobbyists to benefit the greedy over the needy in nearly every American industry. From money management to manufacturing; from agriculture to automobiles a race to the bottom ensued for lower corporate taxes and workers’ wages. By 1998, regulations separating commercial banks from investment banks were repealed and a banking bonanza to bilk hard-working Americans began. Like the first 75 years of the 19th century two-thirds of the 20th century would see progressive policy yield to policy for the rich in the last 25 years. We, the ordinary people, must make extraordinary efforts to organize and affect the change we want to see occur by demanding of the government fairness and justice. For example, we should at least support: • Full-employment legislation sponsored by U.S. Representative John Conyers (House Resolution 870) • Moratorium on Home Foreclosures • Forgiveness of nearly all student loans for 5 years • Legislation for livable wages (based on costs in each city/town) • Expand Social Security and Medicare • Enact Employees Free Choice Act • Expand Parent-Plus Student Loan Program • Reinstate Jobs Council • Reinstate Defined Benefit Pension Plans • Maintaining Minority Business Development Agency in Department of Commerce When we fight together, we win!

Lincoln, the Movie: What's Missing?

Lincoln, the Movie: What’s Missing? By Gary L. Flowers Executive Director & CEO Black Leadership Forum, Inc. November 22 – 29, 2012 “ ‘Negro History’ is the missing segment of world history” Dr. Carter G. Woodson Dr. Carter G. Woodson was right when he essentially said that Black history is the missing pages of world history. Never was such so true than in the movie, “Lincoln.” While I, as a “weekend historian”, was impressed by Daniel Day Lewis’ portrayal of the 16th President of the United States of America my knowledge of history begged questions: Why were Frederick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman not portrayed or mentioned? Why was the Ancient Egyptian mathematical formula attributed to the Greek mathematician, Euclid? The movie, Lincoln, is politically presidential, yet porous on people who influenced the end of the American Civil War. The holes in the Steven Spielberg’s epic film are rooted in Hollywood’s tendency to omit key historical personalities and events from biopics. History reminds us that Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and Sojourner Truth all played significant roles in the American Civil War, and thus in the decisions of President Lincoln. For example, in the summer of 1863, Frederick Douglas was invited to the White House and introduced to President Lincoln by Secretary William Henry Seward and Senator Samuel Pomeroy (KS). According to David Blight’s Race and Reunion: Civil War in America Memory, Douglas, said, “I told him I was assisting to raise Colored troops to enlist in the Union Army but was troubled that the United States government would not treat them fairly in three ways. First, Colored troops ought to receive the same wages as those paid to White soldiers. Second, Colored soldiers ought t receive the same protection when taken prisoner. Third, when Colored soldiers perform great and uncommon service on the battlefield they should be rewarded by distinction and promotion as White soldiers are rewarded. Moreover, Douglas relieved public pressure on President Lincoln regarding the Civil War in his speech in Philadelphia three weeks after the President dedicated the Federal Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Douglas did so by saying, “We are not to be saved by the captain, but by the crew. We are not to be saved by Abraham Lincoln but by the power of the throne, greater than the throne itself, the supreme testing of ‘government of the people…’ of which the President spoke at Gettysburg. The ‘Abolition War’ and ensuing peace will never be completed until the Black men of the South and the Black men of the North shall have been admitted, fully and completely into the body politic of America.” Likewise, in October 1864, Sojourner Truth was invited to the White House to meet with President Lincoln. Following her “Ain’t I a Woman” speech at a women’s convention in 1853 she was a renowned abolitionist. The meeting of Ms. Truth and President Lincoln at the White House is documented in Berry Horton’s famous painting depicting the president showing Ms. Truth his bible. Another omission of the movie Lincoln involves Harriet Tubman. Her many trips delivering enslaved Black people from bondage to freedom provided Ms. Tubman with knowledge of the terrain of the Confederate states. As such, she contributed mightily to Union strategy in the Civil War. According to Benjamin Brawley’s Harriet Tubman , President Lincoln listened to the ideas of Harriet Tubman. And yet, neither of these significant Black historical figures was portrayed or even mentioned in the movie. At one critical point in the movie President Lincoln justifies his position on passing the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which would outlaw slavery on the basis that “all men are created equal…” cited the Greek mathematician Euclid’s theorem that “things equal to the same are equal to one another.” What was omitted in the movie is that Euclid did not originate the theorem by the fact that Black Egyptian mathematicians at the Library of Alexandria Egypt trained him in 300 B.C. When people erroneously condemn “Black History” as a separatists scholarly pursuit we need to look no further than movies made by Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, and other Hollywood directors who—consciously or unconsciously—omit the contributions of Black people to world history and, thus, give un-earned credit to White scholars as the progenitors of higher thought. We must re-insert Black History in the pages of world history.

Chicago Teachers Have the Right Answer

Chicago Teachers Have the Right Answer By Gary L. Flowers Executive Director & CEO Black Leadership Forum, Inc. September 13-21, 2012 Last week, emboldened educators in Chicago who are members of the American Federation of Teachers finally euphemistically said enough is enough and put their collective feet down on the streets by striking against the city of Chicago, and the so-called “reform” of national education favored by the White House and United States Department of Education. Beyond mischaracterizations by the corporate-owned media teachers in Chicago are not looking for a free ride on the reform bus, but are challenging the very structure of American education. In short, the chalk board is divided into two sides: One that enhances and sustains public educators—from pay to preparation, to pensions, and another that would privatize the $600 million American education system to the highest bidder for profit. The question to be answered is whether public education should be privatized? Unfortunately, it seems that Mayor Rahm Emanuel, current Chicago Mayor and former White House Chief of Staff is on the wrong side of the issue. The Chicago teachers have the right the answer. A review of American public educational history is useful. In 1853, against the will of the wealthy and corporate barons the United States established a public school system for all students (in theory). Prior to that only White children of the rich and resourced were privileged to be educated to a high school or college level. Following the American Civil War the Federal Government launched the Reconstruction Period in which public school for Black and White students—albeit separate and unequal—existed. In 1896, The United States Supreme Court ruled in the Plessey v Ferguson case that a racially separate national school system was Constitutional. By the 1930’s Charles Hamilton Houston and Black Civil Rights lawyers challenged the racially separate and unequal national education system that culminated in the seminal Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, decided in 1954. After Brown, the idea of privatization began by White parents who did not want the children to attend public schools with Black children. White business leaders and clergy aligned to establish all-White, private academies. In the 1960’s such “leaders” realized that their public taxes were going to schools in which Black children were being educated. Thus, the first of education voucher ideas appeared to allow White parents to opt to send their kids to virtually all-White public schools in addition to their private schools. By the 1970’s, courts instituted mandatory busing to public schools to enforce the “all deliberate speed” phrase included in the Brown case. In the 1990’s the concept of Public Charter Schools was developed across the country. The idea was to use public funds to create private schools with private sector money and private investors. Yes, “Public Charter” schools have private investors who seek financial dividends. Public education should be an American right and not a private privilege. In the name of “reform” Charter schools arose as the public school system and it teachers were vilified as failing to educate students. The problem was never the public schools and public teacher unions, but rather the lack of full funding by the federal government and support for public unions that represent public teachers. Currently, the federal government only contributes 9% of public school funding. The other 91% is allotted by state and local educational entities. In many cities Public Charter Schools are used as an alternative threat to public teachers should their test scores not rise. In effect, the White House’s “Race to the Top” educational program forces teachers and school districts to compete for funding. Predictably, teaching the tests to students, and cheating on tests has resulted. Enter Chicago teachers. By standing up to give the right answer Chicago teachers are challenging the entire public school and public union debate. In a revealing sense, the fight that public unions fought in Wisconsin against a right-wing Republican Governor last year is playing out in Chicago against a Democratic Mayor, and by silence the Democratic White House. Hmmmm! If American pubic school students are to compete with their counterparts from China, India, Japan, Germany, and other world powers our nation must declare public education a matter of national security. As such, teachers need to be paid well with livable pensions, public teacher unions need to be supported, facilities need to be upgraded to 21st century standards, and the White House and Congress should support legislation rewards—not punishes—public educators. The children of the resourced will usually do well. But how about the masses of students and the people that teach them? Mayor Emanuel and the White House must get to the head of the class and answer the public/private question right.

United Airlines' Unfriendly Skies for Black Pilots

United Airlines’ Unfriendly Skies for Black Pilots By Gary L. Flowers Executive Director & CEO Black Leadership Forum, Inc. May 31-June 7, 2012 Last week twenty-four long-term employees of United Continental Holdings, United Airlines, and Continental Airlines filed a lawsuit in San Francisco, California alleging race discrimination, retaliation and harassment in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and State Fair Employment laws. I vividly remember United Airlines television commercials of the 1970’s featuring the phrase “Fly the friendly skies of United.” In 2012, the skies appear to be anything but friendly for Black pilots as they seek an employment policy from United Continental that allows them to be promoted to the management ranks, as their White colleagues are so often elevated. The issue basis for the lawsuit is not new. In 1976, a consent decree was issued to United Airlines for race discrimination against African American employees. The 1976 consent decree stalled in 1995. In 2010, African American pilots and Operations Supervisors who were members of the United Coalition for Diversity filed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints for discrimination. Following the EEOC complaints, United Airlines hastily hired three African Americans for management positions. But that is not the point. United Airlines—the world’s largest airline—does not know its own history relative to promoting Black pilots. In an official 2012 United press release one of the Blacks quickly hired for the management position of Chief Pilot for the Northeast Region, Captain James Simons, Jr., was falsely touted as the “first” African American Chief Pilot at United Airlines. Wrong! Actually, Captain Alfonzo “Rick” McCullough was the first Black Chief Pilot at United. Ironically, in 2012--the same year that Americans lauded the much-heralded feature movie, Red Tails, which highlighted the competence, courage, and commitment of Black pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen in the 1940’s who faced blatant racial discrimination—Black pilots are still fighting for equal opportunity as their colored colleagues did some 70 years ago. United airlines cannot salute the Tuskegee Airmen in magazine ads and simultaneously refute evidence of current racial discrimination. Like the Tuskegee Airman today’s Black pilots are extremely competent. While piloting airplanes may have been their passion through U.S. Air Force and other training routes to the Captain’s chair those who filed suit are extremely qualified to serve in management. For example, 22 of the plaintiffs have Bachelor’s degrees, 3 have earned Masters of Business Administration (MBA’s), 1 has a Masters of Science, and 1 has a Masters of Arts. Yet, by being passed over for management positions at United and Continental Air Lines none of them seem to “qualified” for jobs their less-credentialed White colleagues now occupy. And America wants to claim we are a “post-racial” nation! Predictably, African Americans and people of color are woefully underrepresented in managerial ranks in proportion to their total numbers in the United workforce. Worst still, there seems to be an air (pun intended) of retaliation for “whistleblower” pilots. Of the 13 pilots who filed EEOC complaints in 2010 none of them have been promoted to management despite filing scores and scores of applications. The three Blacks who were hired in 2010 either did not complain or were brought in from outside of United’s ranks. What United pilots are seeking can be summed up by the words of Captain Leon Miller who said, “The struggle for inclusion at United Airlines is a long-standing issue that many have tried to address over a long period of time…we must break the glass ceiling and stop retaliatory actions, and make a corporate culture change that is truly inclusive.” Amen. In 2001, following evidence of racial discrimination at the automaker Toyota USA I had the experience of organizing informational pickets in 24 American cities with the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. As a result, Toyota admitted being a bad actor in the transportation industry and committed to a 10-year 8 billion dollar diversity plan throughout the company. While airlines are somewhat different than automakers the principle developing a measurable plan for inclusion is in the best tradition of American ideals. United may learn a lot from the Toyota model. The United States of America was founded on the principle of I pluribus unum (out of many, we are one). The same should hold true for Black pilots in the so-called friendly skies of United Airlines.

Supreme Court Arguments on Health-Care Law

Supreme Court Arguments on Health-Care Law
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
March 25-31, 2012

This week, the Supreme Court of the United States hears arguments on the Affordable Care Act (health care reform) proposed by the Obama Administration. Since his inauguration, President Obama has framed health care reform as his signature domestic policy priority.

A brief recent history of health care reform in the United States of American reveals that our nation is one of few global nations, which allows private health-care companies to profit from providing health services. In most other industrialized countries around the world, government, referred to as a “single payer” system, provides health care. Under such a system all citizens qualify for health care paid for by the government. Good idea.

I believe health care should be a right of every citizen, rather than a privilege for those who can afford to pay for health services. I do not believe “health profiteers” commonly known as health care insurance companies should exist. Think about it: Why should we pay health insurance companies (in the middle) when paying directly to health providers such as doctors and hospitals is cheaper?

In 2009, the debate over health care reform in America briefly focused on a “public option” for Americans, which would have allowed citizens to choose purchasing government-issued health care or buy health care services from a private provider. Ultimately, the Obama Administration chose neither a single-payer system nor the public option, but offered a plan to financially penalize people who do not buy health insurance from private providers.

Immediately thereafter, individual states filed lawsuits asserting that the Obama plan would unconstitutionally force Americans to purchase health care. The states argued that the federal government was going too far, and it should allow states to choose how and from whom citizens would buy health care. Thus, sets up this week’s argument between the federal government and states in the Supreme Court. At issue, is the constitutionality of the “individual mandate”, and whether private insurance companies can refuse to cover people because of their medical history or charge higher premiums for those who have had previous conditions. In a practical sense, the arguments center on the power and authority between states and the federal government to regulate services to the people.

The portion within the Affordable Care Act that has garnered most attention is the “individual mandate.” Under the law, effective in 2014, the 33 million American citizens and their descendants who currently do not have health insurance must be covered. If not, people would have to pay a penalty, referred to as a “shared responsibility” payment. The name “shared responsibility” comes from the fact that medical payments of uninsured people who get sick are born by the government and taxpayers. Therefore, the proposed penalty provides an incentive for individuals to “share” in the responsibility of health care costs. The Obama Administration argues that individuals who pay the penalty are not in violation of the law. However, those who do not secure health insurance and do not pay the “shared responsibility” payment would be lawbreakers. Hmmm?

If the federal government can “strongly insist” that individuals purchase private health insurance it should rescind the anti-trust protections that health insurance companies now enjoy, allowing such companies to unfairly collude on health care premiums. In short, Congress should regulate excessive profits by health care companies as it does for other American industries. As long as there is a profit incentive within our nation’s health care industry America will remain a sick society.

Where Would Dr. King Stand on Wal-Mart Workers?

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 21-28.2011


This week the nation and the world celebrate the life and legacy of Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. with the dedication of his memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

For Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King should not only have a national memorial in Washington, but also should have his face on Mount Rushmore, rather than stone images of American presidents whose policies were antithetical to the ideals of Native Americans (Sioux, Lakota) on whose sacred land the faces of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln were forged.

History reminds us Dr. King is the true architect of American democracy. For example, Washington said freedom fighters that formed the Black Republic of Haiti should “…starve to death.” Jeffersonian Democracy as it was called only permitted White males to vote and own land. Teddy Roosevelt was a rabid racist who supported the bigoted movie “Birth of a Nation”. And while Lincoln moved the policy pendulum closer toward racial equity with his Emancipation Proclamation and his support for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it took 95 years for freedom, citizenship, and voting to be enforced by federal law. Enter Dr. King.

Dr. King is the architect of American Democracy because he influenced progressive public policy for ALL Americans, regardless of race, religion, or resources. As Dr. King marched outside on Main Streets of America President Lyndon Johnson coerced in Congress for the passage of seminal legislation in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act that still impact American justice today. More than any other quality Dr. King was a “man of the people.” At 26, fresh out of graduate school with a PhD he, along with Mrs. Rosa Parks, led the Montgomery. Alabama Bus Boycott to challenge federal law’s application to state laws of racial segregation in transportation. He walked with the people for 381 days. At 34, he marched with students in Birmingham, Alabama to secure a public accommodations bill in Congress. At 39, he brought dignity to sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee by advocating for their right to organize and receive fair wages.

Today, the workers at Wal-Mart—the world’s largest company—face such issues as respect, fair-paying jobs, and a voice in workplace policies similar to those faced by Memphis garbage workers 1968. To date, Wal-Mart officials have taken a rigid stance against worker’s right to organize, which assures lower wages. Predictably, the poverty-level jobs do more harm than good for individual employees as well as the communities in which they live.

However, recently Wal-Mart hourly workers gathered at the corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas to petition for improved working conditions. The “Associates” believe that Wal-Mart is stronger as a global company because of the collective values its workers embrace—hard work ethic, compassion for one another, and honesty. Together workers have launched the “OUR Wal-Mart” Campaign that calls on company executives to do the following:
• Practice the words of founder Sam Walton in “…listening to everyone in your company…”
• Allow workers to join OUR Wal-Mart partnership without workplace retaliation
• Ensure confidentiality through “open door” policy by written resolution to worker issues by allowing co-worker witness testimony
• Recognize that most hourly worker earn less than $10 per hour, rather than the $13 per hour promoted by Wal-Mart
• Recognize that most hourly worker are given less than 40 hours per week, rendering ineligible for full-time benefits
• Work closely with “Associates” to partner for the good of the entire company

I believe if Dr. King were alive today he would reiterate the words prophetically proclaimed at Mason Temple in Memphis on the rainy night of April 3, 1968 (the night before he was assassinated). On that night, Dr. King essentially said, “…God sent me here to say you are not treating his people right…” He went on to say that while companies such as Coca Cola and Sealtest Ice Cream have the right to make a profit they also have a moral and Godly duty to treat their employees with respect deserved. Dr. King would call for partnership over protest, dignity over dollars, and collectivism over confrontation.

Wal-Mart may well represent “America, Incorporated.” As such, the same American ideals espoused by Dr. King, Congress, and the White House over the past 50 years should be basis for a corporate giant partnering with its common workers. In order for our nation to rise out of recession Wal-Mart, the White House, and the workers must put partnership first.


In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
1090 Vermont Ave., NW
Suite 1290
Washington, DC 20005

Consciousness Over Cookouts

Consciousness Over Cookouts
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
July 26-July 3, 2011


“Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I [we] forget…’may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!...to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.’”

Frederick Douglas
July 4, 1852

As the United States of America celebrates another Independence Day (July 4), recognizing a principled stand by early American colonists against the tyranny of England’s King George, we should learn from the words of Frederick Douglas who in 1852 eloquently cited the hypocrisy of our nation to celebrate the liberty of independence amidst the institution of slavery.

While African Americans are free from the brutality of physical bondage our minds, in the words of Douglas, seem to “…chime in with the popular theme…” of hot dogs, hamburgers, John Phillip Sousa, and fireworks.

In short, we need to place consciousness over cookouts.

Douglas’ contemporary, Harriet Tubman, reminds today’s African Americans that worse than the institution of slavery may have been the reality of many Black people who did not recognize their state of enslavement.

July 4, 2011 may well mark the most perilous position for Black people in America since slavery. For example:

• The first generation less educated than the previous since 1865
• 76% of seniors testing positive for HIV
• 70% of un-wed births
• 60% of U.S. home foreclosures
• 50% high-school drop out rates
• 50% of U.S. jail population

Yet, despite a fearsome fire burning our heritage house of honor we joyfully eat, drink, and be merry cooking outside in the yard. We must put the family fire out.

What must we do short of cancelling cookouts? First, we must know our history—tragic and triumphant. Second, we raise our conscious level from the basement of “Dancing with the Stars” and “American Idol” to the rooftop relevant pursuits that lift one another. Lastly, we must turn to each other and not on each other. WE is a lot stronger the ME.

If Black people to not recognize that all of us—the wealthy and the without—are still seen as the wretched by most of America we should have another cookout. Only this time we may find ourselves served up as seared slaves again.


Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
1290 Vermont Ave., NW
Suite 1290
Washington, DC 20005

The NAACP is Right: Public Schools Should Be Supported

The NAACP is Right: Public Schools Should Be Supported
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
June 5-12, 2011


Last month, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)) filed a lawsuit in New York on behalf of students and their parents. In the words of Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO, the lawsuit was filed because “Students are being grossly mistreated, their parents are being deeply disrespected and the entire community stands to suffer.” As a member of the Black Leadership Forum, I fully concur with NAACP’s educational position in New York.

The issue at hand is whether public school students in New York (and in other jurisdictions” are being treated as “second-class” students to charter school students.

For starters, and contrary to charter school advocates, public schools are not equal under the law. Public schools receive funding from the public sector (i.e. federal, state, and local government). Conversely, charter schools receive money from private investors who profit from the success of schools.

With such a backdrop, charter school students in New York seem to be favored over public school students who are stigmatized as “regular students.” For example:
• Charter students are placed in public school buildings causing extreme challenges for space
• Public students must eat lunch at 10:00 am so that charter students may eat lunch a 12 noon
• Public schools are restricted to four hours of library time compared to seven hours given to charter students
• Public students in some New York schools are forced to learn in basement hallways in order to make room for charter students

In addition to the issue of imposing charter schools within public schools the New York Public School system has failed honor the law by informing public school parents prior to making changes within the school district such as school closures.

I further agree with the NAACP and Benjamin Jealous when he asserts, “When one set of students is perceived as getting preferential treatment over another, or the city refuses to work with parents to fix problems at a school before closing it, the inequity leaves all our children suffering.” Yet, the educational issue in New York is much deeper.

The United States of America has never fully embraced a strong public school system. When public schools were established in 1853 the wealthy elite in many instances opposed public schools. After all, their children were educated in private academies.

Over the years, opposition for public schools has never waned. During the Reconstruction Period following the American Civil War public schools were burned and terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan on their un-Godly view that African Americans should not be educated. In 1954, southern Whites opposed the racial desegregation order of Brown v. Board of Education by creating private academies that only allowed Whites to attend. Twenty-five years later when the Brown ruling was enforced with mandatory busing of public school students, mass opposition to public schools reared its ugly head in American cities such as Boston, Massachusetts when African Americans and Latinos were bused to mostly White school districts. In each historical era in this nation’s history public has been under constant attack.

The broader American policy question is whether all students—regardless of race or resources—have a right, rather than a privilege to a high quality education. More particularly, the federal government must take a righteous stand against the privatization of public education by 1) Increasing the federal allotment to public education from the current 9%; and 2) Enshrining the right to high quality education for all American students in the U.S. Constitution.

As long as privateers pervert public education via charter schools while the federal government stands idly by, and public students and their parents are inferiorly treated, American education system is in need for remediation.

Progressive Values Must Shape Federal Budget

Progressive Values Must Shape Federal Budget
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
April 17-24, 2011

Contrary to television “talking heads”, all budgets are not all the same. How private citizens construct budgets is vastly different from how government should do so. Household budgets at their best are balanced by not spending more than revenue received. Government budgets are different in that, by providing services to the public, there is not a “zero/sum” construct. Some programs within a federal budget must be preserved for the good of the nation.

In short, politics can be defined as who gets what, and when. Therefore, budgets drafted by politicians are moral documents, filled with the values of who and what is-important.

Such is the backdrop for the raging debate in Congress over America’s federal budget in how to address spending cuts to the “debt ceiling” (America’s credit card) and retain our nation’s bond rating in order to produce lower long-term deficits

There are two budgetary views that receive most of the news coverage by commercial television outlets: Those of Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

The Republican budgetary proposal seems to value war and the wealthy. As though imitating “reverse Robin Hood” the Grand Ole Party would take from the poor and give to the rich. The idea of “trickle down” economics where the rich get richer, and somehow stimulate the economy to share there money with the less fortunate has been proven untrue over the past 30 years. In the spirit of President Ronald Reagan who coined the phrase “starve the beast”, Republican leaders today intend to use the federal budget to dramatically reduce programs established for the dispossessed and downtrodden. Another popular phrase used by Republicans is to “shrink the size of government.” Yeah, right!

If such a philosophy of “smaller government” were taken to its nonsensical conclusion, we would have less post offices, interstate highways, traffic lights, and police and fire departments. Not good.

Democrats, on the other side of the political aisle, seem to favor cutting programs for the poor underprivileged within the national budget, but by less than the Republicans’ plan. Thus, top Democrats propose to place “everything [programs] on the table for cutting.” The one major point of the Democrat’s plan I believe will be beneficial to the nation is the proposed repeal of Bush-era tax cuts to millionaires (top 2% wealthy in the nation.

In the 1970’s I remember one of my grandmother’s favorite television shows was “The Price is Right”. On the show, contestants were asked to decide whether they wanted to take a chance on winning the contents behind sealed doors. The show’s host would euphorically ask: “Do you want door number one or door number two?”

In today’s budget proposal battle, the nation may well need “door number three”, by way of the proposed budget offered by the Progressive Caucus of the United States Congress. Unlike proposals thrown by the Democrats and Republicans, the Progressive Caucuses “People’s Budget” would preserve needy domestic programs and cut programs for the greedy. For example, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Planned Parenthood would be left in tact. Moreover, the “public option” would give Americans the choice of selecting a health plan provided, in part, by the government that would cost less than those provided by private health providers. Under the “Peoples Budget” would cut costly programs such as military ones within the Department of Defense and millionaires would be forced to pay their fair share in taxes. Sounds good to me.

The American people should value the People’s Budget offered by the Progressive Caucus within the Congress. Ask your representative is he or she is a member of the Progressive Caucus.


In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.

Reintroducing Rosa!

Reintroducing Rosa: Mrs. Park’s Fight to Prosecute Rape of Black Women
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
May 8-15, 2011


Traditionally Black History is presented with accounts of luminaries such as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, Gabriel Prosser, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks. In nearly every instance the narrative is narrowly offered, and skewed to heroics of Black men.

Mrs. Rosa Parks is no exception. To read most history textbooks students have been fed fiction as to who Mrs. Parks was and how she came to be the Mother of the Modern Civil Rights Movement. I vividly learning the limited lesson that Mrs. Parks was a “poor seamstress who was simply too tired to move to the back of the bus”, as racially segregated laws required in most American cities, from 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case) to 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education court case).

In reality, Mrs. Parks was no “shrinking violet” in response to racial segregation. First, Rosa Parks sought to attend, and completed college at the Philander School, which was a training ground for activists who wanted to challenge “Jim Crow” laws. Secondly, after finishing her studies, Mrs. Parks returned to her home of Montgomery, Alabama and immediately challenged the racist voting laws of Alabama by applying for the right to vote. In 1943 and 1944, Rosa Parks was told she failed the voting examination. In 1945, Mrs. Parks not only memorized the questions, but the answers to the exam repeated them to voting officials. As a result, she passed and was granted her right to vote in Alabama—twenty-years before African Americans could vote via the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and ten years prior to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Moreover, Mrs. Parks intentionally chose to be a part of history. Rosa Parks was elected to serve as the Secretary of the Montgomery Chapter of the NAACP. As such, she regularly met with Attorney Fred Gray (lawyer to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) to strategize on challenging racist laws. In fact, James Blake, the bus driver on whose bus Mrs. Parks refused to move was well known within the Black community of Montgomery as a virulent racist, who regularly verbally insulted African Americans, particularly Black women. Rosa Parks deliberately chose the exact bus and the date (December 1, 1955) to enter the annals of world history.

However, one major role Mrs. Parks played in history has not been sufficiently revealed until recently in the form of the book, The Dark End of the Street, (2010) by Danielle McGuire. Due, in part, to male dominated Civil Rights historians the role of Black women has usually been relegated to secondary status. In her book, Ms. McGuire exposes wide-spread cases of rape by White men of Black women, few of which went to trial, and despicably even less resulted in conviction. All-White juries from 1896 to well into the 1960’s simply refused to honor justice and convict Whites of crimes against Blacks (Let me not mention the “legal” rape of Black women by White “Founding Fathers” such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and others).

In one particular case in 1944 a young, married African American woman named Mrs. Recy Taylor was walking home from church with family members on a dark road when a car full of White men slowly passed and returned. At gunpoint, Mrs. Taylor was taken and gang raped by 6 of the 7 men. Like countless Black women raped by White men prior to the 1960’s Mrs. Taylor was let go by her captors and threatened by life if she told. Unlike most she immediately and courageously told her family and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Mrs. Parks was assigned by the NAACP to investigate the rape case and organized a portion of the Black community to call for the rapists to stand trial. She won the battle of bringing the men to court twice, but all-White juries never convicted the rapists. Nonetheless, Mrs. Parks’ organizing skills and activism led to a network of community organizers upon which the historic Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful. Who knew?

Actually, many historians knew of Mrs. Parks’ work on the Recy Taylor case but declined to write about such due to the violence of rape, and the need to first dismantle racial segregation via federal legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

America cannot move “beyond race” until our nation moves into a frank discussion of the lasting effects of the false notion of White Supremacy.




In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.

The Wisdom of our Mothers and Fathers

“Remove not the ancient landmarks for which our mothers and fathers set”
Proverbs 22: 28

As Black History Month for 2011 comes to a close we must keep our collective ears open to the voices of our cultural mothers and fathers whose wisdom is as relevant today as it was in the past. Their voices cry out for people of conscience, particularly African Americans to place justice and wisdom at the forefront of our family’s focus.

I watched with interest an airing of The Injustice Files last week on the Discovery Channel. The Injustice Files is the work of filmmaker Keith Beauchamp, producer of The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till and CBS EYE Productions, which reveal the circumstances of three racially motivated unsolved murders of African Americans prior to 1969. Brilliantly, Beauchamp weaved together whatever he could find—family interviews, police records, eye witnesses—into a compelling expose. The Injustice Files serves as much as a history lesson as it does to inspire people today to come forward with information that would lead to the prosecution of murders and the legal closure of countless of acts of racism and domestic terrorism.

Prior to the Injustice Files Beauchamp’s most critically acclaimed work brought new attention to the heinous murder of Emmett Till in 1955. Till, a 14-year old boy from Chicago was visiting relatives in rural Mississippi and allegedly flirtatiously whistled at a White woman—a cultural crime in the American deep south of 1955. The woman’s husband and brother-in-law took Emmett Till from his uncle’s house in the middle of the night.

The vicious torture and murder of Emmet Till, according to Mrs. Rosa Parks, inspired her to take a more active role in the Civil Rights Movement by refusing to surrender her seat to a White man (thus, challenging the application of federal law on buses in Montgomery, Alabama) just six months after Till’s victimization. As Mrs. Parks did in 1955, people of conscience today must pursue justice by reforming public policy.

The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007 was introduced to establish an Unsolved Crimes Section within the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Since then, funding issues have stymied progress of the Act.

If “cold cases” such as the ones featured in The Injustice Files are to be solved federal legislation must have enforcement provisions to meaningfully aid prosecutors and families in court. In particular:
• Congress should appropriate funds necessary for fulfillment of Emmett Till Act
• Congressional oversight hearings are needed to examine activities of law enforcement officials relative to Emmett Till Act
• The relationship between federal and local prosecutors must be better defined
• The relationship between Ku Klux Klan members and local police and sheriffs must be revealed
• A “Family Bill of Rights” must be defined in information sharing between law enforcement officials and families
• Families must be given status updates on a regular basis by law enforcement officials
• A full accounting of unsolved disappearances, “accidents”, “suicides”, “self defense” must be compiled
• Cases determined “outside of jurisdiction” of Emmett Till Act must be covered by new legislation

Federal legislation must be matched by state, county, and municipal policy that emboldens prosecutors and families and imprisoned murderers. The collective voices of our ancestors direct us to pursue justice in unsolved murder cases.

In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.

Reagan Robbed the Poor and Raised the Rich

Reagan Robbed the Poor and Raised the Rich

“…sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless…you might say, by choice”
President Ronald Reagan


Last week, many Americans celebrated the 100th year of President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s birth. In honoring Ronald Regan’s impact on the United States of America his policies have been mislabeled as good and positive. In reality, Reagan era policies have had a net negative on our nation and its promise to grant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens, regardless of color or cash in hand.

My mother always admonished me that if I did not have anything good to say about someone, then say nothing. Thus, Ronald Reagan made three significant contributions to public policy formation: 1) Projection of national pride, 2) Discipline of message. and 3) Generational training of young policy students. That said Reagan’s policy legacy leaves a lot to be desired.

As a high school student government leader in 1980, at the beginning of the
“Reagan Revolution”, I instinctively recognized that a massive cold front would be in the political forecast for many years. And I was correct.

Sure enough, in 1988, at the end of an 8-year Reagan Administration the nation was not better off for most Americans. In particular, Reagan and his cohorts:
• Dismantled labor unions
• Decreased living standards
• Deregulated financial industry
• Decreased wages by freezing minimum wage at $3.35 per hour for 8 years
• Increased gap between rich and poor
• Increased number of Americans in poverty
• Increased homelessness
• Appealed to racist people in America

In 1994, by my third year in college President Reagan had been re-elected to a second term. In doing so, he announced his plan for a second term in Philadelphia, Mississippi at the Neshoba County Fair. As a student of civil rights history I was keenly aware of the secessionist symbolism of Philadelphia, MS as a chosen venue. In 1964, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Mickey Schwerner were brutally murdered while registering African American residents of Philadelphia to vote. Later, trial evidence would reveal that after leaving Meridian, MS the three civil rights workers were followed by Neshoba County Sheriffs and pulled over. Those present have testified that the Sheriff “released” the three only to be followed and murdered by a mob of Ku Klux Klansmen and other racists. The bodies Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner were found week later in the dirt of an earthen dam. With such a notorious history Ronald Reagan selected Neshoba County to launch his bid for re-election to the White House.

On Sunday, February 6, 2011 I read an article in The Nation written by Peter Dreier that compellingly drove the point of Reagan’s regressive public policy ideas. In response to Reagan supporters’ insistence that he was the “Great Communicator”, Dreier researched a quote from President Reagan in which he said, “I was not the ‘Great Communicator’ as much as I communicated great ideas.” Great ideas? Really?

I, like Peter Dreier, believe that great ideas should have positive outcomes. Not true in the Reagan repertoire. Dreier correctly concludes that today’s dismal economy and widening wealth gap are due, in large part, to the you-are-on-your-own political and policy choices of Ronald Reagan rather than mere social and economic forces.

Today, for example, Republican Governor Cristie decries “big government” as the reason states and local governments are facing budget deficits. Contrarily, it may well be the fact that under the Reagan Administration federal assistance by 60%, resulting in the elimination of revenue sharing to cities; cuts to funding for public service jobs; reduced funds for public transit; severely weakened legal services for the poor; anti-poverty programs; and lowered federal funding for Section 8 rent subsidies housing. Accordingly, as federal funds decreased, homelessness increased.

Today’s mindless mantra of Tea Party conservatives that “government is not a solution to our problem…government is the problem.” Actually, good governmental policies benefit society; and bad policy hurts future generations. As the Reagan Administration robbed the poor and raised the rich in the 1980’s, such policies continued in the 1990’s and 2000’s with the George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations.

In particular, the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry by the Reagan Administration (with the help of Neil Bush—brother and son to presidents Bush) looted the S & L industry of $130 billion dollars. In turn, the Clinton Administration deregulated the banking industry by letting the Glass-Stegall Act expire. By 2008, the second Bush Administration had allowed American corporations to eliminate domestic jobs in return of international tax credits. Moreover, two undeclared wars had given obscene profits to war companies such as Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.

In short, Reagan Administration policies of the 1980’s penalized the poor and pumped up private profiteers, which are still reaping benefits, to the demise of the most Americans.



In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.

The History of Watch Care Church Service

The History of Watch Care Church Service
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director and CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
December 26-January 2, 2010

For all Christians, the Christmas holidays are the most sacred spiritual time of the calendar years.

For African American Christians, the week after December 25 holds immense significance as well.

On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln, following a decisive Union military victory over confederate forces at Antietam, Maryland, penned and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation would free enslaved African Americans in confederate states that seceded from the United States of America such as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

The Emancipation Proclamation was to be effective January 1, 1863. As such, Christmas of 1862 and the week following was the most important week of enslaved African Americans who had fought, bled, prayed, strategized, and died for their legal emancipation. Yet, their spirits were reminded of freedom through song.

The “Negro Spirituals”, developed as sacred songs of African Americans who were forcibly converted to Christianity by un-Godly Whites who disrespected the religions and cosmology of Africans legally designated as “slaves.” Regardless of earthly bondage and inhuman degradation enslaved African Americans established Spirituals to uplift their souls, in the words of James Weldon Johnson, “…felt in the day when hope, unborn, had died…”

During enslavement many states outlawed gatherings of the enslaved. Nonetheless, African Americans gathered in “camp meetings” after sunset (and 14-hour work days) in secluded and wooded areas to feed their souls through song. For example, singers long for freedom in “There Will be a Great Camp Meeting in the Promised Land”. Likewise, “In dat Great Getting’ Up Morning” the writer prophesizes freedom from bondage and wishes that the freed “fare ye well.” Similarly, the Spiritual “My Soul Be at Res” featured the lyric: “One of deese mornin’s my soul be at res.”

Leading up to January 1, 1863 our enslaved ancestors sang and prayed, and sang and prayed. On December 31, religious leaders asked the faithful to have “camp meetings” or church services to “watch” for freedom in the morning. The idea was to spiritually ensure that President Lincoln’s promise of emancipation would fulfilled.

And thus “Watch Care” service was established.

Emancipation Day featured feasts of the diet of the day in 1863—collard greens, black-eyed peas, pig’s feet, and yams.

Today, many African American communities celebrate Emancipation Day




In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.

Double Standard for Black Politicians

Double Standard for Black Politicians
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 21-28, 2010


The United States of America boasts to the world community that it is a nation of equality under the law for all citizens, regardless of color or conviction. Yet, for African American elected officials such has hardly been the case.

In 1865, following the end of the American Civil War the Freedmen’s Bureau was established by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress the protect the rights of newly freed African Americans. By 1870, Congressional Amendments stretched to U.S. Constitution to guarantee—on paper, that is—the right to be free (13th), citizenship (14th), and to be free from racial discrimination at the polling place (15th) for Black people. Moreover, citizenship afforded African Americans the right to hold elective office. Within our family, my paternal great grandfather, Lawrence Clayton, was elected Constable in Surry County, Virginia in 1882.

In total, 22 African Americans were elected to Congress following 1870. However, the forty years that followed saw the number of Black Congressmen dwindle to zero by 1910. In the words of the late Dr. Ronald Walters, White Nationalism accounted for the lost of Colored Congressmen in the white marble halls of the U.S. Capital.

By White Nationalism, I mean the use of double standards in the targeting of Black elected official for removal of office. Following the 1870 15th Amendment prohibiting racial discrimination in voting the demise of Black Congressional Representatives dropped sharply after the presidential election of 1876. Known as the Hayes/Tilden Compromise, the loser, won; and the winner, lost. Under the agreement, Rutherford Hayes agreed to remove federal troops in the south which were dispatched to protect newly freed African Americans.

From 1870 until 1901, voter disenfranchisement schemes eliminated Black Congressman from office. Schemes such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and voter roll purging of convicted felons were common. In some cases, an “eight box law” was used to confuse voters by forcing voters to place an individual ballot in separate boxes.

As Black voters were disenfranchised the number of Black Congressmen declined. History repeats itself. While literacy tests and poll taxes are uncommon the purging of felons and relocating polling places are used today.

Currently, Congressman Charles Rangel, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters…Sub-Committee Chair on Financial Services Committee are facing rulings from the House Ethics Committee. In the case of Congressman Rangel…

In the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections voters in Congressman Rangel’s district overwhelmingly re-elected the 21-term Congressman, providing a ringing affirmation of Rangel’s approval rating on the ground.

What smells funny in the Rangel case is that no corruption was found and none of the 13 charges were criminal in nature. So far, the ethics committee concluded that Congressman Rangel was essentially sloppy.

Congresswoman Waters is charged with three counts breaking House Rules by setting a meeting with African American banks, one of which her husband was on its Board of Directors. Despite lacking strong evidence of wrong doing, the Ethics Panel investigating the case announced on Friday that Congresswoman Waters’ hearing has been continued until the end of November.

Unlike most Members of Congress facing investigations, earlier in the process, Congresswoman Waters invited the media for a six-hour press conference to answer all questions. The press conference was regarded as a success.

If the Committee fails to conclude either the Rangel or Waters case both cases would be taken up in the 112th Session of Congress under Republican control.

The double standard, which screams today is that Black Members of Congress in overwhelmingly African American districts (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and others) have been investigated with flimsy evidence. On the contrary, White Congressional Representatives facing criminal charges have been treated more fairly.

If America politics is to be great, the double standard for Black Congressional Representatives must end.

Preaching the Politics of Privilege

Preaching the Politics of Privilege
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 24-31, 2010

“…the detection of national White-majority interests can be achieved by understanding the sources of White racial alienation that led to the development of an intellectual rationale of polices of ‘failure.’…this rationale was used as a pretext for attacks upon policies oriented toward Black group interests and on the federal government which supported them…the federal government must be weakened…Whites who control that system have always utilized their power to create a subclass of Blacks who are especially attentive to their political needs.”

Dr. Ronald Walters
White Nationalism, Black Interests

Politics is widely defined as who gets what, when, and how much.

The mid-term elections for United States Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governorships scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 2010—whichever American political party prevails—will determine the who gets what, when, and how much.

My interpretation of the connection between politics and religion is simple: Religion determines politics rather than politics determining religion.

Such an interpretation was tested last Sunday for me while visiting my parents and sister in Richmond, Virginia. While sitting with my family I surfed television channels and found the Sunday Broadcast of Grove Avenue Baptist Church. What caught my eye was the introduction of Bishop Earl Jackson as the morning speaker. Bishop Earl Jackson, who is African American trained lawyer who took classes in Divinity School, and founder of Exodus Faith Ministries, presented quite an interesting case for religion as a predicate for politics to which I distinctly disagreed. Having been raised in a Christian household I found his inferences un-Godly.

Bishop Jackson asserted that the “Founding Fathers” (Smith, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al.) were “ordained” by God to establish a Democratic Republic in America. If so, their God ordained ethnic annihilation, economic exploitation, rape, and the false notion of White supremacy. Captain John Smith was sent to America by the Virginia Company of London to make a profit on the land, albeit the presence of Native Americans. Nearly all of the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention legally enslaved Africans. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote of the racial inferiority of dark-skinned people. Moreover, the religion of racial superiority led the founders to use violence to achieve their greedy ends. I do not believe anyone’s interpretation of God condones rape, pillage, and plunder in the name of religion.

To further support his point, Bishop Jackson cited the Biblical Book of Ephesians, which calls for believers to put on the “full armor of God.” The last time I checked giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans; voting against extending unemployment benefits; and repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not in accordance with Christian belief of “…do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before God”, found in the Book of Micah, Chapter 6, verse 8.

Bishop Jackson finally revealed his political hand more directly by encouraging Christians to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for “Godly” candidates and implied that Tea Party candidates were worthy of elective office because of their religious beliefs. Yet, such Tea Party candidates have admitted experimenting with witchcraft, donned German Third Reich uniforms, and supported taking up arms to enforce their political views. Wow, what a God they serve!

I agreed with Bishop Jackson’s point that Americans, by way of the upcoming elections, are fighting a pitch battle for the soul of our nation. One side believes in suppression and one team believes in liberation. On the paradox of the “Founding Father’s” support of slavery, Bishop Jackson said, “If slavery is what it took to get me here, I am glad to be here.” Seriously?

The “Founding Fathers” and their Tea Party descendants have let their belief of politics of privilege, exploitation, and race superiority determine their religion. Both their politics and religion bend toward the false notion of White supremacy, from their portrayal of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus to their “Anglo-first” political views on immigration and other issues.

Tea Party and their White nationalists cohorts often exclaim, “God bless America.” I believe America must bless God by electing righteous candidates who believe in the policy of people over profits; inclusion over exclusion; and helping the “least of these” within our nation. Who gets what, when, and how much should not be predicated on privilege, but on the Godly principles of justice and equity.

Vote conscientiously. God is watching.



In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc

Minimum Wage Must Be Livable Wage

Minimum Wage Must Be Livable Wage
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 17-24, 2010

“How would you like to be making $200,000 a year today after 25 years on the job? Well, if you started with the pay of an average worker 25 years ago that is what you would be making today—if you got the same kind of raises that the CEO’s of American companies got for the post 25 years.”
Jack Rasmus

The American ethos holds that working people should have the same basic options for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those of wealthy people. Regrettably, those who make minimum wage and those who make maximum wage are worlds apart.

In 1965, CEO’s in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker. In 1978, the ratio of CEO to worker compensation increased to 35 times more for the CEOs. By 1989, CEOs made 71 times more than their average employee. If you are already upset, it gets worse. In 2000, the ratio in favor of CEOs went to 300 to 1. In 2005, CEOs “only” made 262 times the average worker.

The concept of a minimum wage began in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890’s. By 1912, the State of Massachusetts enacted a minimum wage for women and children. The first federal minimum wage in the United States of America was the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in 1938, with a .25 cent per hour wage and a maximum 44-hour worker week for laborers.

Since then, the issue of minimum wage (and now livable wage) has been hotly debated. The idea that anyone would argue against the minimum wage baffles me. Rather, the issue for most American workers is whether the wage they earn can pay the bills. Unfortunately for most, the answer is no.

Consequently, the “living wage movement” was launched in 1994 by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). While the national minimum wage was $4.25 per hour the City of Baltimore increased pay for city workers to $6.10 per hour. Following the example of Baltimore, many cities across the nation saw the development of living wage coalitions. In fact, over 140 American cities have adopted living wage laws.

Simply put, if the prevailing minimum wage does not afford a worker to pay minimum wages than wages should be increased to pay living costs in each city. It does not take an economist to figure out a fix to the issue.

Violations to minimum wage rates are most common in the apparel and textile manufacturing industries. Violation rates were substantially lower in residential construction, social assistance and education, and home health care.

Critics of the living wage say that the idea sounds better than its practical effect by displacing jobs, discouraging hiring, and not positively affecting the quality of life for workers. Really?

Reality retorts that when workers make a living wage the entire economy benefits.

If for no other reason, America should pay workers a livable wage pursuant to our American creed of providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.

Public Education Should Not Be Privatized

Public Education Should Not Be Privatized
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 26-October 2, 2010


Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and seating of a Constitutional Convention, the issue of public education in our nation has always been a divisive issue. In nearly every colony restrictive codes existed which prohibited public education for all people of color and virtually all poor White people. The rationale in against public education 18th Century America rested on the notion that an un-educated enslaved Black or indentured White made for a better worker who had few options other than hard labor.

As colonies were formally federalized into the United States of America the question of whom among the nation’s citizens should be educated and at what quality of instruction divided public policy makers. Initially, only White males were considered American citizens, and thereby entitled to be educated through colonial educational policy. While a Constitutional Amendment (14th) was enacted in 1868 to grant citizenship to newly freed African Americans another Amendment (10th) granted states control over public education. Legislators—federal and state—across the nation were sharply split over public education. One school of thought (slave owners, Confederates) was that public education should be reserved for Whites only. The other school of thought (abolitionists and educational liberators) held than all children—regardless of race, religion or resources—are entitled to public education.

Against such a polarized philosophical background the public school system in the United States was established in 1852. However, unlike other industrialized countries around the world that completely funded public education the American system was established with limited federal funding, resulting in control of educational policy primarily posited in state, county, and municipal government. Yet, confederates and capitalist never die.

Following the American Civil War and the erosion of federal authority in favor of states’ rights public education was declared “separate, but equal” in the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson in 1896. State control and racially segregated schools persisted until the landmark High Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Following Brown, many White Americans, rather than allow their children to attend pubic schools with students of color (particularly in former slave states in the south), removed them and formed all-White private academies. However, upon realizing that their public tax dollars were helping to fund racially mixed public schools the “voucher” plan was conceptualized to allow “some” public students to attend special public schools funded by private financiers.

Today, the issue of private funders of public schools can is being debated in cities such as Washington, DC and Newark, NJ. In Washington, DC the outgoing mayor, after dismantling School Board, lost his reelection bid in large part due to his education “reform” plan for public schools that included private funding. In fact, when private corporate funders realized that the outgoing mayor would probably lose his party’s primary CEO’s essentially threatened to pull potential funding if the presumed incoming mayor would not retain the Public School Chancellor who supported private funding for public schools.

Two weeks later, ironically, Mark Zuckerberg, Executive Founder of Facebook appeared on the world-renowned Oprah Show to announce that he would donate $100 million dollars to the public school system of Newark, NJ. His reason: the “leadership” in Newark. Ironically, the mega money will help to restore control of school system to the current mayor of Newark. Hmm? Fancy that: The public votes out a mayor in the nation’s capital largely for supporting private funding for that school system, and in a matter of days, a privateer grants big money to same type of public school system in Newark rejected by the people in Washington, DC.

Ultimately, the public should fund the American public school system to do so; the federal government should increase federal outlay for public schools (currently set at only 9%). Such an increase in funding could go a long way to incentivising potential teachers in college, and improving public school facilities and faculty. If the federal government would support legislation to fiscally value public schools, privateers would not have an inroad to unofficially influence educational policy. Not to do so would render the public school system in the United States of America “open to the highest offer.”

Congressional Black Caucus at Forty

Congressional Black Caucus at Forty
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 12-19, 2010

“I recently wrote about the attempt of the Congressional Black Caucus to get legislation out of the House of Representatives that targets job creation to local areas through direct funding. This legislation is being held up in the House and Senate by politicians who care more about posturing in and election over how frugal they have been with money by supporting deficit reduction over the pain people are suffering.”

Dr. Ronald Walters
June 24, 2010

“Political players who are on the field get their uniform dirty. The loudest voices from players tend to be by those on the sidelines with clean uniforms.”

Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr.

In 1971, members of Congress visualized a caucus within the United States House of Representatives to legislatively advocate for the political and policy interests of African Americans. At that time—recently after Chairman Adam Clayton Powell was pushed out of Congress, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, followed by destructive riots—there were only 13 Black members of the House and zero members of the U.S. Senate. Predictably, meaningfully influencing federal legislation by individual Representatives was arduous, to say the least, for the most skilled legislators.

Consequently, Representatives Shirley Chisholm (NY), John Conyers (MI), Charles Rangel (NY), William Clay (MO), George Collins (IL), Ronald Dellums (CA), Charles Diggs (MI), Augustus Hawkins (CA), Ralph Metcalfe (IL), Parren Mitchell (MD), Robert Nix (PA), Louis Stokes (OH), and Walter Fauntroy (DC) founded the first ethnically based body in Congress and named it the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). And for forty-years the CBC has served as the “conscience of the Congress.”

Separate from the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) this week (Wednesday, September 15-18, 2010) will host the Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) will assemble the best and brightest political minds in the world to advance the interests of Black Americans.

Now some decry that the CBC’Fs Annual Legislative Week is frivolously filled with epicurean events that only focus attendee’s attention to “eat, drink, and be merry.” Those who believe such have either never attended the ALC or are inclined to seek parties and playtime wherever they go. After all, most people find what they seek. That said, for those who seek a better understanding of public policy priorities in the Black community and political strategies for people of color spending time with the Congressional Black Caucus is immensely enriching.

For example, the 2010 ALC will feature 90 “Brain trusts” on the most salient issues impacting the Black community at the federal, states, county, and municipal level. Proceeds from the weeklong Conference help fund CBCF Internships for students interested in public service.

Regrettably, perhaps our brightest political light for the past forty years has been extinguished in the death of Dr. Ronald Walters. Dr. Walters was the engine of a plethora of political campaigns, most notably the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. If Reverend Jackson was the “conscience of the nation” Dr. Walters kept the “political pulse of the nation.”

Whether 1971 or 2010, if the words of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Dr. Ronald Walters and the example of the Congressional Black Caucus direct America, particularly Black America, they do so to increase civic participation and political awareness. In other words, either join those of us on the battlefield of justice or surrender your right to criticize. Please join us!





In linking leadership,

Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.