Friday, June 8, 2012
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.
Monday, March 26, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
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
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
Friday, June 10, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
