This piece was originally posted on August 18, 2010 on TheGrio.

The Schott Foundation for Public Education has released a new report, Yes We Can: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males, which shows that America’s public education system is disproportionately failing its black male students. In the report, there is an overarching message of hope in the fact that all children can learn when given the opportunity, but that doesn’t soften the blow of a national crisis in which America’s public schools graduated only 47 percent of its black male students in 2007-2008.

Among the 10 lowest performing large districts were cities that have suffered from double-digit long-term unemployment and have faced a particularly severe impact from the most recent fiscal crisis–including Detroit (MI), Milwaukee (WI), New York (NY), and Baltimore (MD)–echoing the correlation between under-education and a lack of financial empowerment and upward mobility in these communities.

Overall, a trend suggests that when black males are learning in environments that are not marked by a high incidence of segregation, or low educational performance overall, they are more likely to succeed. For example, in states such as North Dakota and Vermont, which experience overall success with respect to high school graduation, the report shows that 90 percent of black male students graduate from high school. But when they are learning in environments with high dropout rates or with large racial disparities in educational progress–where underachievement might be a normalized social experience–they are more likely to fail…

To read this article in its entirety, follow this link.

From an opinion piece that originally appeared on TheGrio

Last week, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), announced that he would consider introducing a bill to rescind a provision in the 14th Amendment which generally guarantees U.S. citizenship to those who are born within U.S. borders. Yesterday, Jon Kyl (R-AZ) agreed, saying that he is not interested in “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants, but rather, in “hearings” to consider the repeal of the provision.

The historical context for the “Reconstruction Amendment” they challenge should not get lost here. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was crafted in response to the prevailing legal sentiment in 1868–particularly in southern states–which had specifically challenged the right of African-Americans to be U.S. citizens. The citizenship provision intentionally liberated African-Americans and other people of color from the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which determined that people of African descent, particularly if they had ever been enslaved or descended from anyone who had been enslaved, were not entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. The provision–along with other sections of the Amendment–also protected African-Americans from having to live by the rule of oppressive “black codes” which restricted access to certain areas and which required African-Americans to carry passes (i.e. documentation of their status).

Repealing the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment would not only serve as a threat to the livelihood of immigrants–documented and undocumented–it should also be received as a threat to the very foundation of our nation’s civil and human rights law. It would dangerously stunt the growth of racial equality by implicitly returning to the doctrine of the Dred Scott decision and the idea that one cannot overcome the status of his or her previous condition–once a slave, always a slave. It would also reinforce the notion that if one is undocumented, he or she–and his/her descendants–may never enjoy the privileges of U.S. citizenship. Is this what we call progress?…

To read the rest of this article, follow this link

Originally posted on TheGrio on Thursday, July 29, 2010

Today, SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law, went into effect. However, in a partial victory for opponents individual protestors and civil rights organizations to the U.S. Department of Justice–the law will be implemented only in part, and without the mandate for immigrants to carry their papers at all times and for law enforcement to check the immigration status of those they subjectively suspect to be undocumented.

By “tabling” the most violative provisions of civil and human rights law until the courts have resolved the issues, Judge Susan Bolton confirmed that it was “not in the public interest” for Arizona to preempt federal enforcement of immigration law. This decision comes on the heels of revelations that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) set a quota to deport 400,000 undocumented immigrants by September 30, 2010.

Clearly, while Arizona’s law may be problematic, so to are federal enforcement efforts.
According to the ICE Chief John Morton, intentional deportation efforts would prioritize only those immigrants who present a danger to American safety (of which there are not 400,000); however, federal, state, and local efforts to assign quotas or create laws that implicitly encourage racial profiling and demeaning social policy suggest an alternate reality…

To read this article in its entirety, follow this link.

« Previous entries