Wed, 29 July 2009
 A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen FordTitle
VII of the Civil Rights Act still lives, despite the U.S. Supreme
Court's reversal of then Federal Appeals Court decision against white
firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. Another federal court has found
discrimination in testing applicants for the New York City Fire
Department. The New York test was filled with firefighting trivia
questions that have little to do with the actual job.
Courts Again Confront Racism in Firefighter Hiring
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“A
Federal District Court ruled that Blacks and Hispanics were
discriminated against in two entrance exams for the New York City Fire
Department.”
When
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, New Haven firefighters arrayed themselves in rows
of seats in the audience, like full-dress uniformed rebukes to her
legal judgment. The white and one Hispanic firemen were meant as visual
testimony to the claim that white men have become victims of so-called
“reverse discrimination.” The Supreme Court had earlier knocked down
Sotomayor’s ruling, as an appellate judge, that the City of New Haven
was justified in getting rid of a promotions test that had flunked
every Black fireman that took it.
Some
right-wingers may have wishfully thought that Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act was dead – that it was no longer a legal safeguard against
tests that resulted in disproportionately bad outcomes for Blacks. They
were wrong. Last week, a Federal District Court ruled that Blacks and
Hispanics were discriminated against in two entrance exams for the New
York City Fire Department. The judge ruled that the tests, administered
in 1999 and 2002, not only disproportionately failed non-white
applicants, but did so by asking questions that had little or nothing
to do with fighting fires.
The
tests were not quite as bad as the old Jim Crow voting test question,
“How many bubbles in a bar of soap?” – but many of the questions were
nearly as irrelevant. According to one constitutional law professor,
the New York test was similar to others in big cities around the
country, dealing with arcane firefighting details that only the
children and grandchildren of firefighters would be familiar with – in
other words, a kind of trivia for the families of firemen. Which is
just the kind of test a bunch of white guys who want to put their
relatives on the public payroll, would put together.
“The New York tests were designed to favor members of firefighting families.”
Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act is still in effect – at least until its
next confrontation with the right-wingers at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The legal reasoning goes like this: if a test results in a
disproportionate number of failures among Blacks or Hispanics, then it
must be shown that the skills and knowledge being tested are necessary
for doing the job. If not, then the test amounts to illegal
discrimination.
The
New York test was written and multiple-choice. The judge in the case
found that multiple-choice tests could measure only about half the
skills necessary to fight fires. The city’s own firefighting experts
believe that oral comprehension and oral expression are the most
important skills for firefighters on the scene, but the tests did not
measure these oral skills.
Clearly,
the New York tests were designed to favor members of firefighting
families, steeped in the lore and trivia of the profession, over
otherwise qualified applicants, many of them Black and Hispanic.
Police
and fire departments have remained disproportionately white, not
because whites are inherently better at fighting fires and crime, but
because the hiring and promotion systems have been rigged in their
favor. The Civil Rights Act was designed to un-rig the system. That’s
not reverse discrimination, that’s justice.
|
Wed, 29 July 2009
 A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford“R2P”
is the latest American device to justify military aggression and
regime-change in the developing world. “The doctrine is a warmed-over
version of so-called 'humanitarian' military intervention – another
excuse for big powers to make war on weaker nations.” The doctrine is
“reminiscent of the term 'protectorate' – a legalism for a country that
is run as a virtual colony of one of the big powers.”
“Responsibility to Protect” is Warmed-Over Imperialism
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“R2P allows Washington to act unilaterally whenever it decides that military intervention is in the best interest of humanity.”
The
United Nations last week began what will become a protracted debate
over the doctrine “Responsibility to Protect,” or R2P. The doctrine is
a warmed-over version of so-called “humanitarian” military intervention
– another excuse for big powers to make war on weaker nations. Its
primary champion in the Obama administration is UN ambassador Susan
Rice, who would use the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine to justify
U.S. military action in Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere. One important
opponent of R2P is Rev. Miguel D’Escoto, of Nicaragua, president of the
UN General Assembly.
“Responsibility
to Protect” is reminiscent of the term “protectorate” – a legalism for
a country that is run as a virtual colony of one of the big powers.
That’s how the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, took the colony
of South West Africa away from the defeated Germans, after World War
One, and gave it to white-ruled South Africa, under whom it would
remain until emerging as the independent Republic of Namibia, in 1990.
A
“protectorate” is what the British and French established in much of
the Middle East on the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, also after World
War One, so they could “protect” the oil and ports and other resources
of the region from the people who lived there. Palestine was a British
protectorate, but that didn’t protect the Arab majority from the
Zionists, who stole the land in 1948.
Haiti
is now a de facto “protectorate” of the United Nations, which fronts
for the United States, France and Canada. In fact, the new version of
protectorates – philosophically buttressed by the doctrine
“Responsibility to Protect” – was refined specifically to deny Haitians
sovereignty over their own country after the ouster of Haitian
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004.
“Africa has turned decisively against the notion of 'Responsibility to Protect.'”
UN
General Assembly president D’Escoto rejects the doctrine of
protectorates, under the guise of R2P. His country, Nicaragua, was
viewed, like all of Central America, as a protectorate of the United
States. The U.S. once considered Nicaragua as a dumping ground for
freed Black American slaves, and in the 1980s funded Contra terrorists
and mined Nicaraguan harbors in defiance of the World Court, which was
unable to provide protection from the Americans.
Africa
has turned decisively against the notion of “Responsibility to
Protect,” as it has witnessed the lopsided protectionist “justice” of
an International Criminal Court that indicts only Africans, but does
nothing to protect Africa from U.S. and European neocolonialism.
Among
those participating in the UN debate on R2P, is Noam Chomksy, who
describes the doctrine as “humanitarian imperialism.” That certainly is
what it would amount to in the hands of the United States. Susan Rice’s
version of R2P allows Washington to act unilaterally whenever it
decides that military intervention is in the best interest of humanity.
In practice, that’s no different than the Bush doctrine, or all the
other previous American doctrines that have justified regime change at
Washington’s political whim.
What
the planet really needs protection from, is the United States, which
remains, as Dr. Martin Luther King said more than 40 years ago, “the
greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”
|
Wed, 29 July 2009
 A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen FordAmerican
determination to arrest ever-increasing numbers of Blacks and to keep
them locked up for as long as possible is creating a rapidly aging
prison population. “Two-thirds of the prisoners serving life sentences
are Black or Latino” and “more Americans are under life sentence than
ever before – more than 140,000, compared to only 34,000 25 years ago.”
With Life Sentences Proliferating, U.S. Prisoners Get Blacker and Older
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“More than 20 percent of prison inmates are over 50 years old.”
The
truth about race in America is most clearly evident, not in the
unexpected election of a non-white man to the U.S. presidency – a
singular and temporary phenomenon – but in the steady march of
statistics from the criminal justice system. A new report from the Sentencing Project
shows that two-thirds of the prisoners serving life sentences are Black
or Latino. More Americans are under life sentence than ever before –
more than 140,000, compared to only 34,000 25 years ago.
The
racist nature of the system is seen in the ever-increasing proportion
of non-whites condemned to spend the rest of their years behind bars.
In New York State, whites make up only 16 percent of inmates serving
life terms, although whites are 60 percent of the population. Such
gross racial disparities obtain everywhere in the United States. The
inexorable growth in life sentences guarantees that the grotesquely
distorted racial outcomes of the U.S. criminal justice system will
continue to grow deep into the future, as today’s young inmates become
tomorrow’s sick, caged old men and women.
Nationally,
one out of every ten prisoners is a lifer; in California, one out of
five. In Alabama, Massachusetts, Nevada and New York, at least one out
of every six inmates is doing life. Seven states and the federal prison
system have done away with parole, altogether. That means, in Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania and South Dakota, the actuarial
tables of life and death ensure the prisons will be filled by an ever
more geriatric – and ever Blacker and browner – cohort of captive men
and women, grandmothers and grandfathers. Already, more than 20 percent
of prison inmates are over 50 years old.
“The grotesquely distorted racial outcomes of the U.S. criminal justice system will continue to grow deep into the future.”
The
states have a constitutional obligation to care for the health needs of
this aging population – but of course, they do not live up to this
obligation. California’s prison health care apparatus is so inadequate,
it’s been ruled unconstitutional, but the state is crying broke.
Prisoners over 50 cost California between $98,000 and $138,000 a year,
but despite its poverty, the state remains determined to throw as many
Black and brown people in prison for life as possible.
The
sheer irrationality of U.S. prison policies points to race hysteria as
the engine of incarceration. How else could we have arrived at a
situation in which one out of every three Black males is under some
form of criminal justice custody. These numbers reflect much more than
bad laws; they reveal white society’s general intentions for Black
people: to remove as many as possible from circulation, by any means
necessary, with no possibility of return. When compared to the enormity
of America’s prison Gulag, housing a million Black inmates, the
presence of one Black male in the White House amounts to a mere
diversion, especially when that Black president offers virtually no
hope to ameliorate the conditions for, or lessen the numbers of, the
one million locked inside.
America’s
draconian prison policies are motivated by race, not rational concerns
about safety. Otherwise, the penitentiaries would not be rapidly
filling up with old Black and brown men – and an increasing number of
older women – who are less and less dangerous, but more and more
costly, by the year.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
|
Wed, 22 July 2009
 A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen FordThe
first man in modern day America to be imprisoned for “predicting what
God might do” was released, last week. However, Rev. Edward Pinkney's
conviction on voter fraud charges still stands, despite the 13 errors
committed during his trail. The appeals court ruled the errors were
“harmless” - a bizarre excuse for depriving Benton Harbor, Michigan of
its premier Black leader and minister.
Rev. Edward Pinkney: The Preacher Who Dared to Invoke God
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“In
confrontations between a Black man and a racist state apparatus, the
damage inflicted can never be fully, or even substantially, repaired.”
When
Rev. Edward Pinkney was freed from prison, last week, some hailed the
Michigan appeals court decision as a great victory. Only in a society
in which racial insult and oppression is general – an everyday fact of
life – would Rev. Pinkney’s release after spending nearly a year in
eight different Michigan prisons, be considered a triumph of
justice. Rather, it is only a partial rollback of a series of
horrendous wrongs.
Rev.
Pinkney became what the American Civil Liberties Union described as the
first man in modern times to be imprisoned for “predicting what God
might do.” (Actually, I thought that much of the job description of a
minister consisted of predicting and anticipating God’s point of view.)
Specifically, Pinkney wrote an article for a Chicago newspaper that
predicted the judge who convicted him of voter fraud would be cursed by
God. On top of that, Pinkney expressed the opinion that the judge was
racist, dumb and corrupt.
For
this exercise of his freedom of speech and religion, Rev. Pinkney’s
probation on the voter fraud conviction was revoked. He now faced three
to ten years hard time. So began his Odyssey from one Michigan prison
to another, as state authorities tried to bury the Baptist minister
deeper and deeper in their dungeons. A national legal and political
campaign ultimately culminated in Pinkney’s release, but as is usually
the case in confrontations between a Black man and a racist state
apparatus, the damage inflicted can never be fully, or even
substantially, repaired.
“Power always holds itself harmless while committing great crimes.”
The
first item on the loss side of the ledger, is the fact that Pinkney’s
home town, predominantly Black Benton Harbor, Michigan, has been
deprived of this Black leader and preacher’s services for well over a
year. The white power structure against which Rev. Pinkney tirelessly
organized, succeeded in getting him off of the streets for a
significant period of time.
The
appeals court that freed Rev. Pinkney refused to order a new trail on
the original voter fraud charges. The court acknowledged that Berrien
County committed 13 separate errors in the case, but declared these
errors were “harmless” and would not have altered the verdict.
“Harmless” errors. Power always holds itself harmless while committing great crimes.
One
of the crimes Rev. Pinkney fought so hard to resist is gentrification.
Benton Harbor’s lakeside location makes it a prime real estate
attraction to the wealthy. When the leader of the anti-gentrification
movement is forced to spend all his energy and time avoiding doing hard
prison time, the gentrifiers win.
And
so the net effect of Rev. Pinkney’s release last week is a mitigation
of loss, rather than a victory. As the great Amilcar Cabral advised,
Tell no lies and claim no easy victories.
|
Wed, 22 July 2009
 A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen FordThe
Employee Free Choice Act has been gutted and may expire entirely, a
victim of Barack Obama's signature style of governing to the Right of
the Democratic center. “Although candidate Obama paid lip-service to
the Employee Free Choice Act, he pointedly failed to deploy the powers
of the presidential 'bully-pulpit' on behalf of the key “card check”
provisions that would have forced companies to recognize unions as soon
as a majority of workers signed a union card.”
Another Obama Promise Broken -- The Right To Organize Betrayed
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“He eviscerates the labor and progressive agenda by withholding crucial White House support for measures he nominally endorses.”
The
“card check” portion of the Employee Free Choice Act appears dead, yet
more proof that a promise from Barack Obama is essentially worthless.
The
word “transformational” should be purged from any discussion of the
Obama presidency, as should any positive comparison between Obama and
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If FDR’s presidency can be summed up in a
few words, it was a period in which the power of labor was greatly
enhanced in effective partnership with the man in the White House,
while a safety net was established that allowed working people the
security to exercise those new powers.
Barack
Obama seeks something quite different: an accommodation that leaves
labor at an extreme disadvantage with the vastly expanded powers of
finance capital and management, while the social safety net objectively
ceases to exist. Such is the clear result and intent of Obama’s grossly
lopsided actions – not words, but actions – during his first six months
in office. Of the nearly $13 trillion committed to economic
resuscitation since the financial meltdown, most of it under President
Obama, 90 percent has gone to buttress the bankers, while unemployment
and home foreclosures combine to wipe out all vestiges of security for
the rest of us.
“He has methodically empowered the right-wing of the Democratic Party as arbiters of federal legislation.”
President
Obama has been an active player in this debacle. He has methodically
empowered the right-wing of the Democratic Party as arbiters of federal
legislation. As with health care, Obama signals loudly that he prefers
to avoid confrontation with capital, thus giving the nod to those
Democrats politically closest to Republicans that they are free to seek
compromises with Big Business at the expense of Democratic
constituencies. Although candidate Obama paid lip-service to the
Employee Free Choice Act, he pointedly failed to deploy the powers of
the presidential “bully-pulpit” on behalf of the key “card check”
provisions that would have forced companies to recognize unions as soon
as a majority of workers signed a union card. Effectively, and
purposely, that allowed a handful of right-wing Democrats to conspire
with Republicans to kill card check, while President Obama pretends the
outcome was none of his doing.
Accepting
defeat, and fearing to antagonize Obama by laying it at his feet, where
it belongs, labor leaders now concentrate on salvaging other parts of
the legislation, such as binding arbitration and streamlining the union
election process. Unfortunately, Obama has privileged the same gaggle
of Democratic right-wingers to handle negotiations to keep some
portions of the Employee Free Choice Act alive in the Senate.
The
presidential pattern is unmistakable; in fact, it has become Obama’s
governing signature. He eviscerates the labor and progressive agenda by
withholding crucial White House support for measures he nominally
endorses, and then passes de facto leadership to the most backward
elements of the Democratic Party. The conclusion is inescapable: Barack
Obama is the most active and critical member of the right wing of his
party. With Obama at the helm, “card check” never had a chance.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
|
Wed, 22 July 2009
 Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen FordAlthough
nobody but Americans believes Washington was not behind the late June
coup in Honduras, Barack Obama brings his own touch to subverting one's
hemispheric neighbors. “Obama makes democratic noises – and then
refuses to back them up with any actions that would cause U.S. clients
in the Honduran military and oligarchy to relinquish power.” And he
does it all with a straight face.
Bush and Obama: Different Styles of Coup-Making
Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“Bush would ratchet up the aggression with threats of regime-change all around.”
There
should be no doubt about U.S. involvement in the military coup in
Honduras, June 28. Nothing happens in the Honduran military without
U.S. knowledge and consent. Honduras is the original “banana republic,”
once a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United Fruit Company (now
Chiquita Brands) and for the last three generations a U.S. staging area
for subverting governments throughout the hemisphere.
What
the U.S.-backed Honduran coup illustrates is the difference between
Barack Obama and George Bush. President Bush would likely have set the
coup in motion with bombastic statements from the White House and State
Department charging Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya with
conspiring with Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez and other leftist
leaders to undermine governments in the region friendly to Washington.
Rather than simply defend the local necessity of the coup, Bush would
ratchet up the aggression with threats of regime-change all around. But
of course, that’s one of the reasons Bush isn’t there anymore, and why
after eight years of Bush’s counterproductive rants and threats U.S.
corporations threw their money to the Democrats – specifically, the
fresh new face of Barack Obama.
“Obama’s State Department continues to avoid even using the word 'coup.'”
Obama
keeps the drama out of regime change, by pretending to be opposed to
coups in principle. So Obama makes democratic noises – and then refuses
to back them up with any actions that would cause U.S. clients in the
Honduran military and oligarchy to relinquish power. Obama’s State
Department continues to avoid even using the word “coup” to describe
the military’s arrest and forced exile of President Zelaya. If the
Americans acknowledged that a coup had occurred, they would be legally
obligated to cut off millions of dollars in military and economic aid
to Honduras. Latin American heads of state made it a point to meet
directly with President Zelaya, to show their solidarity with his
elected government. Obama sends underlings, to signal to the coup
plotters that he’s got their back. Alone among members of the
Organization of American States, the U.S. continues to maintain an
ambassador in the Honduran capital. His name is Hugo Llorens, a Cuban
exile and Republican holdover and multinational corporate political
operative. Llorens has admitted to having participated in meetings
where coup plans were discussed, although he claims he was simply an
observer. Historically, in Latin America, the U.S. embassy has been
ground zero for regime change. There is no reason to think the latest
coup in Honduras is any different.
President
Obama may have trouble pulling off his innocent act. The European Union
is threatening to suspend $92 million in aid to Honduras, which caused
Secretary of State Clinton to make a call, pretending to pressure the
civilian coup leaders.
In
the end, it is even possible that the U.S. will allow Zelaya to return,
although in a weakened condition. The coup will have served as a lesson
to Latin America, that the U.S. is still in the regime-change business,
even if Barack Obama denies it with a straight face.
|
Wed, 15 July 2009
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
President
Obama has done students in need of loans a good turn, and surprised BAR
by oving to snatch $15 billion a year out of the jaws of the banks.
“For decades the bankers have been getting risk-free federal money at
taxpayer and student expense, by handling student loans already
guaranteed by the federal government, collecting fees and then selling
the loans to the U.S. Treasury.”
Obama’s Good Move on Student Loans
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“It
is a shameless, $15 billion a year gift to the banking industry for
risking literally nothing while siphoning off money that should have
gone to students’ education.”
It’s
not often that we have good things to say about President Obama. It is
even more rare that the good news about his administration has to do
with banks. So it is welcome to hear that the White House is making
good on its commitment to eliminate the multi-billion-dollar banking
boondoggle in dispensing college loans.
For
decades the bankers have been getting risk-free federal money at
taxpayer and student expense, by handling student loans already
guaranteed by the federal government, collecting fees and then selling
the loans to the U.S. Treasury. It is a shameless, $15 billion a year
gift to the banking industry for risking literally nothing while
siphoning off money that should have gone to students’ education.
The
Obama White House first promised to cut the bank middlemen out back in
February. But we have all learned to take Obama’s political promises
with several spoonfuls of salt, since he often fails to follow through
with pressures on Democrats in Congress. This time appears to be
different. The chairman of the House Education Committee, California
Representative George Miller, is introducing legislation to enable the
government to loan money directly to students, thus theoretically
freeing up $87 billion over the next ten years for direct distribution
to students. President Obama says he wants the savings directed to Pell
grants for low-income students.
“The student loan business has become a racket because of corruption of politicians by businessmen.”
The
banks are crying like somebody stole from them, although they’ll still
be eligible for contracts to do some of the paperwork associated with
student loans. But that’s not free money, which is the kind the
bankster class has gotten used to receiving under both Republican and
Democratic administrations. Some of the nation’s biggest banks have
already opted out of funding loans to students at community colleges.
Citibank and JP Morgan Chase picked up their marbles and left the
community college student loan game after the federal government
stopped reimbursing banks for paying students’ processing fees. These
mega-banks say the processing – at about $20 per student – cuts too
deeply into their profits.
The Washington-based New America Foundation recentlyissued a report
that recommends elimination of 35 so-called student loan guarantee
agencies. These outfits rake in about one and a half billion dollars a
year performing contradictory functions. They are paid a fee to help
borrowers avoid defaulting on their loans, but they get an even bigger
fee by collecting on the loan if the borrower defaults.
Clearly
this is a racket, just as the bank middlemen arrangement is a racket.
But a more accurate term is: corruption. The student loan business has
become a racket because of corruption of politicians by businessmen. A
thoroughly corrupt society is one in which the theft occurs in the
bright light of day, as part of the normal workings of the system. By
that standard, the United States is a deeply corrupt nation, where $15
billion dollars in education money is siphoned into bankers’ pockets
year after year for doing very little at no risk. Such monumental
corruption would make any Nigerian general very proud.
|
Wed, 15 July 2009
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
The
Obama administration is clearly trying to keep Congress from taking
legislative action against derivatives, the “financial weapons of mass
destruction” that set off the economic crisis. “Geithner claims he
wants credit-default swaps brought under control, but only through
stricter regulation, not by law.” California Congresswoman Maxine
Waters wants derivatives banned outright, and has submitted legislation
to that effect. But so far, she has no co-sponsors.
Maxine Water vs. Fatal Derivatives
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“When it comes to making rhetoric into law, Obama’s team sides with the money bags.”
President Obama’s sent his dog-and-pony show
on banking regulation to Capitol Hill, last week, with Treasury
Secretary Tim Geithner as Master of Obfuscation. The Obama
administration spews lots of rhetoric about reining in the investment
banks and hedge funds so that they don’t get another chance to destroy
themselves and what’s left of the economy. But when it comes to making
rhetoric into law, Obama’s team sides with the money bags that were his
biggest campaign contributors and now run his economic policy.
Geithner
promised he would control derivatives, the Wall Street inventions that
billionaire George Soros has called “financial weapons of mass destruction.”
The explosion of derivatives is widely acknowledged to have set off the
global economic crisis. Credit-default swaps are among the most
volatile and dangerous types of derivatives. Geithner claims he wants
credit-default swaps brought under control, but only through stricter
regulation, not by law. Amazingly, Geithner argues that passing
specific laws would make it easier, rather than harder, for the high
rollers to break the rules – a totally illogical and dishonest
position. Instead, he wants regulators to keep the players in line –
but Geithner refuses to say which part of the bureaucracy the
regulators should come from, and the Obama administration won’t offer
anything more definitive until September.
“We are supposed to trust the same regulators that have always been in bed with Wall Street.”
Geithner’s
mission, as directed by the president, was to discourage the Congress
from interfering with Wall Street through legislation. Instead, we are
supposed to trust the same regulators that have always been in bed with
Wall Street – the guys that allowed Bernie Madoff to operate with
impunity decade after decade – and to trust the Obama economic team,
made up of the same people that set the derivatives Frankenstein on its
path of destruction under President Bill Clinton.
The
Obama team says it will force the high rollers to back their
derivatives with more capital, so that they will be less likely to
implode. But the derivatives market is nominally valued at $592 trillion, about
12 times the value of all the goods and services produced per year on
the planet Earth! It would require far, far more money than exists in
the entire world to make the planet safe for derivatives. They must be
abolished, before they implode again.
Black
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters has introduced legislation to do
just that: ban credit-default swap derivatives. “Preventing all
credit-default swaps is essential,” said Congresswoman Waters, “to
bringing stability to the market and preventing a similar crisis in the
future.”
The
crisis set off by derivatives has stripped African Americans of
hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth – a catastrophe of historical
proportions that has undone much of the economic progress of several
generations. Congresswoman Waters’ bill, HR 3145,
has no co-sponsors, as yet. We shall see how the rest of the
Congressional Black Caucus responds. This is a clear choice of doing
what is necessary to protect Black America, or going along with Barack
Obama and his Wall Street friends.
|
Wed, 15 July 2009
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
An
anti-imperialist ethics professor has no rights that his university is
bound to respect. That's the lesson from a Denver District Court that
refused to reinstate Ward Churchill, despite a jury's finding that he
was fired from the University of Colorado because of his political
statements. “There is no such thing as academic and political freedom
if you can be fired for exercising it.”
Ward Churchill: Academic Freedom Denied
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“His real crime was in declaring that U.S. society, as well as the U.S. government, was no innocent victim.”
Academic
freedom has long been more of a myth than a reality in the United
States. Like so many “freedoms” Americans celebrate, it tends to fail
the test when confronted with the larger public’s freedom to exact
vengeance against those it hates, and the freedom of large institutions
to exclude those who question the role of those institutions, from
within.
The
political activist and ethics professor Ward Churchill’s freedoms were
negated earlier this year by a Denver District Court that ruled he was
not entitled to get his job back at the University of Colorado, even
though a jury had earlier decided Churchill had been fired for his
political views. There is no such thing as academic and political
freedom if you can be fired for exercising it.
Churchill’s crime was in writing an essay the day after September 11th,
that tried to put the attacks in the context of U.S. foreign policy’s
effects on other peoples in the world. He used the term “little
Eichmanns” to describe some of the people who died in the World Trade
Center – not a very politic thing to do, but certainly not as harmful
as what George Bush unleashed on the world in the aftermath, or the
wave of racist, fascist-like assaults on anybody vaguely Middle
Eastern-looking that continue to this day.
Ward
Churchill was made to pay for his impolitic political statements,
despite his disavowal of organized terror and his admission that
families of 9/11 victims might have been hurt. His real crime was in
declaring that U.S. society, as well as the U.S. government, was no
innocent victim – that imperialism is a system based on crimes and
terror and sometimes the superpower criminal gets terrorized back. In
much, if not most, of the world such opinions are thought to be
self-evident. In the United States, they are broadly considered a kind
of treason, beyond the pale and beyond the protection of the
Constitution.
“Ward Churchill was made to pay for his impolitic political statements.”
Certainly,
the Denver District Court mangled the Constitution in finding that
Churchill did not deserve reinstatement or compensation for his lost
professorship. To justify their decision, the court ruled that the
university’s board of regents had acted as judges in dismissing
Churchill, and therefore, their decision was beyond challenge. If that
were true, the regents constituted a very strange court, indeed, since
they had collectively denounced Churchill before even formally
examining his case.
The
District Court also dismissed the fact that a real, legally constituted
jury had agreed with Churchill, that he had been fired for political
reasons. But, since the jurors only awarded him $1 in damages, the
court believed it could get away with giving Churchill nothing.
The
law can’t get any flimsier than that. Which shows that academic freedom
isn’t just a fragile thing, in America – it’s broken.
|
Wed, 8 July 2009
In part 3 of this hour-long interview with Dr. Jared Ball, Street completes his exploration of the phenomenon of Barack Obama and what it means to black and progressive politics. |
Black Agenda Radio Commentaries
News, analysis and commentary on the human condition from an African American point of view.
Categories
politicsgeneral
podcasts
Vidcast
nukes, environmental racism
hip-hop, black nationalism, corporate media, May Day
immigration, blacks and immigration, blacks and browns
cuba
black history
US Empire
Archives
MayApril
March
February
January
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Syndication
powered by
