On Barack Obama and Oscar Grant - Listening, Hearing, Responding

By Julianne Malveaux

There was something heady in the air on January 20 2009, so heady, hot and special that I barely felt the bracing cold as I sat outside to watch our President take the oath. Hope was in the air, high energy. There were pronouncements that this was a new, post-racial era. And even as I shared high hopes and high energy, I was skeptical of any post-racialsim. You see, in the same month that the first African American was inaugurated as President of the United States, another African American man, an unarmed Oscar Grant, was executed by a transit police officer Johannes Mehserle says he mistakenly shot his gun instead of his Taser in Oakland, California, and Grant, unarmed, handcuffed, and the father of a baby girl, was pronounced dead on January 2, 2009.

Fast-forward nearly two years. The day after the grim election night, President Obama somberly took responsibility for the whopping that his party took and for the colleagues who lost their jobs in the Republican and Tea Party rout. This was a different Obama than the exuberant President we saw dancing the night away on January 20, 2009. This Obama was chastened, even humbled, by an election that can be interpreted as a repudiation of his two years in office. Or, it can be interpreted as a referendum on an economy that remains sour, despite tiny positive signs. In any case, the photo of our President biting his lip and eating humble pie was troubling. Every post-mortem of the elections says that Democrats didn’t turn out like they could have, that young people didn’t come out the same way they did in 2008, that the Tea Party held sway, even though they told lies, and that, given that Senator Mitch McConnell has prioritized the defeat of President Obama in 2012 as his highest priority (higher than job creation, economic revitalization, world peace) there is a real threat that the Obama presidency will be a one-term presidency.

I didn’t think the week could get any worse. Indeed, I decided that I suffered from post-election stress syndrome and self-prescribed the cure of some non-political reading. As soon as I roared back from my 48-hour virus, there was more bad news.

Oscar Grant, murdered in the same month that President Obama was inaugurated, was a symbol of police brutality and the devaluation of black male life by law enforcement officials. Such anger and controversy swirled around the Grant case that the Johannes Mesherle was tried in Los Angeles, supposedly more neutral territory. Mesherle sobbed on the witness stand that he did not intend to kill Oscar Grant. A sympathetic jury found him guilty of involuntary manslauthter, the least punitive thing they could find him guilty of. No involuntary manslaughter, no second-degree murder charge. No responsibility for not knowing the difference between a Taser and a gun. Involuntary manslaughter. No gun enhancement, which would have added to his sentence. On Friday, a judge sentenced Mr. Mesherle to two years in state prison, with credit for time served. Mesherle may be out of jail in time to go to the beach this summer. Oscar Grant will never enjoy a beach again.

Perhaps the only thing President Barack Obama and Oscar Grant have in common is that they are men of African descent whose causes experienced a setback last week. If President Obama didn’t dance election night away, though, he was dancing by the time he got to India, shrugging off the election results for the business at hand. And John Burris, the talented Oakland lawyer who represents Oscar Grant’s family, is weighing his next steps as he continues to fight for some justice for his dead client.

On Friday night in Oakland, young folks and some not so young took it to the streets. More than 160 were arrested. Some of these same folk turned out to vote in 2008, but their taking it to the streets suggests that they don’t always trust electoral results to result in right outcomes. They don’t feel heard, and they feel a need to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with a justice system that too often produces unjust results where African Americans are concerned. The Tea Party people said they didn’t feel heard either, and thanks to our latest election, we will certainly hear from them now. Already their leaders are selling wolf tickets and offering rhetorical smackdowns. What can the young people protesting in the streets of Oakland learn from the Tea Party? What can President Obama learn? It is this learning that will shape the next two years and the outcome of the 2012 election.

_______________________________________________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dr. Julianne Malveaux is an economist, author and commentator and the fifteenth President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina. She can be reached at presbennett@bennett.edu.

Thanks To Those Who Helped Me Celebrate My Birthday With a Gift to the Southern Regional Council

The Southern Regional Council’s recent work has followed a progressive path that was charted long ago by leading Southern progressives, including my grandfather Charles S. Johnson. I am honored to be among those continuing along that path in a new century.

That's why I celebrated my birthday with a gift in support of the Council's work. I'm grateful to those who joined me in this effort including:

• Friends who contributed by check, including Julianne Malveaux, Katherine Bowman, Rosamond Johnson and Glenn Washington.

• Friends who contributed through Causes on Facebook, including Muriel Mitchell Lawrence, Thomas Cox, Tom Willingham, Cory Buckner, Bernadine Layne, Pamela Harris, Martha Rachel Grogan and Brian Poe. For more on these contributors, click here.

• Friends who made pledges, including Belinda Stinson-Head.

The support of these friends enabled to us exceed our goal of $1,000 from this campaign. It's not too late for you to join this effort by clicking here.


Charles S. Johnson

Why I'm Celebrating My Birthday With a Gift to the Southern Regional Council

I was drawn to the work of the Southern Regional Council because of its distinguished progressive history, and because of a strong family connection to this history.

The Council traces its origins to 1919. In that year, the Commission on Interracial Cooperation was founded in Atlanta in response to the epidemic of racial violence that swept the country in that year. This epidemic included the landmark Chicago race riot, which was the occasion for Charles S. Johnson’s first major publication, The Negro in Chicago.

Throughout the 1920’s, the Commission mediated and organized concerned citizens willing to work to improve race relations in the South. This work included a campaign to reshape the coverage of African Americans in the media. In the 1930’s, the Commission initiated the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching. Notable Commission publications during the period included The Tragedy of Lynching by Arthur Raper, as well as two works that are widely credited as having helped to shape rural policy during the Roosevelt Administration: Sharecroppers All, by Ira Reid and Arthur Raper, and The Collapse of Cotton Tenancy by Charles S. Johnson.

Toward the end of the Second World War, Southern progressives felt the need "to attain through research and action the ideals and practices of equal opportunity for all peoples of the region." In 1944, following a series of meetings of Black and White leaders, the Commission was transformed into the Southern Regional Council. The Council’s first President was Howard Odum, Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina. The first Chair of the Council’s Executive Committee was Charles S. Johnson, who then served as President of Fisk University. Some of the Council’s early funding came from Dr. Johnson’s contacts in the philanthropic community.

In the ensuing years, the Council worked in the courts and in local communities to encourage speedy desegregation of public schools; formed a Task Force on Hunger which helped to shape the Food Stamp Program; supported rural economic development through the Federation of Southern Cooperatives; began the registration of two million voters through the Voter Education Project; worked to implement the Voting Rights Act through the development of redistricting plans and by encouraging the election of African Americans to public office; chronicled the Civil Rights Movement through its award-winning audio series “Will the Circle Be Unbroken"; celebrated progressive writing about the South through the Lillian Smith Book Awards; and exposed barriers to civic participation throughout the South.

The Council’s recent work has followed a progressive path that was charted long ago by leading Southern progressives, including my grandfather Charles S. Johnson. I am honored to be among those continuing along that path in a new century.

That's why I'm celebrating my birthday with a gift to the Council. You can join me by going to http://birthdays.causes.com/wishes/48662?bws=fb_stream_wish.

Ninth Circuit, in Flawed Decision, Upholds Washington State's Ban on Inmate Voting

By Leland Ware

In Farrakhan v. Gregoire, federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 7, 2010 issued a decision that upheld the State of Washington’s ban on voting by prison inmates. The Court ruled that a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requires proof of intentional discrimination. Evidence of racial disparities in the criminal justice system was not, in the Court's view, sufficient to establish a violation.

The Farrakhan decision is a flawed interpretation of the VRA. It will hamper efforts to reform felon disenfranchisement laws that disproportionately affect the voting rights of African American and other minority communities.

Washington’s state constitution denies the right to vote to “[a]ll persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights.” An “infamous crime” is one that is “punishable by death . . . or imprisonment in a state correctional facility.” This law was challenged under Section 2 of the VRA.

A violation of Section 2 of the VRA occurs when, “based on the totality of circumstances . . . the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a [racial or language minority].” To prevail on a claim under Section 2, a plaintiff only has to prove that minority voters “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”

In 2003 the Ninth Circuit held in Farrakhan v. Gregoire (Farrakhan I) that Washington’s felon disenfranchisement laws could be challenged under the VRA using statistical evidence. When Frarrakhan I was sent back to the trial court, the plaintiffs argued that Washington's disenfranchisement law interacted with racial bias in Washington’s criminal justice system in a manner that denied racial minorities an equal opportunity to participate in the state's political process.

The plaintiffs' evidence showed significant racial disparities in the criminal justice system including searches, charging and bail, length of confinement and incarceration. These practices combined with the disenfranchisement law operated to exclude a significant percentage of African Americans from the voting population and diluted that community's voting strength in the state's elections.

The trial court ruled that while there was evidence of discrimination in the state's criminal justice system, this was only one of the factors in Section 2’s “totality of circumstances” test. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' did not present enough evidence of the other factors to establish a violation of Section 2.*

The trial court's decision was appealed and on January 5, 2010, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. In a 2-1 decision, the panel ruled that the plaintiffs' evidence of statistical disparities among racial groups in Washington's criminal justice system was adequate proof of discrimination. The disparate impact on minorities was sufficient to show that the African American community's voting strength was being diluted by felon disenfranchisement.

The case was reheard en banc (by the full court). This time the Ninth Circuit observed that the First, Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits had disagreed with its ruling in Farrakhan I and upheld state laws that prohibited felons from voting. Those Courts ruled that such laws are categorically exempt from challenges under Section 2. The Ninth Circuit concluded, in light of these developments, that "the rule announced in Farrakhan I sweeps too broadly."

The Court went on to hold that a Section 2 challenge requires proof of intentional discrimination or proof that the legislature enacted the law with an intent to disenfranchise racial minorities. Since the plaintiffs did not present any evidence of intentional discrimination they did not establish a violation of the VRA.

The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Farrakhan is reductive and analytically flawed. The Court's imposition of a discriminatory intent requirement is at odds with the 1982 amendments to the VRA. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), the Supreme Court held a plaintiff had to prove that a voting practice was enacted or maintained with discriminatory purpose.

In 1982, Congress overruled Mobile v. Bolden and amended Section 2 to allow a plaintiff to establish a violation if the evidence established that the procedure being challenged results in the denial of denial of a minority community's opportunity to participate equally in the political process. Congress rejected Mobile's discriminatory intent requirement in 1982 and it should not have been imposed in this case.

The Farrakhan decision did not address the crux of the plaintiffs' vote dilution claim. The question was whether the exclusion of felons from the electoral process adversely affected the ability of minority communities to participate equally in Washington's elections. That there was no evidence of an intent to exclude minorities does not preclude liability. The VRA allows courts to consider the discriminatory effects of a state's laws and practices. The disenfranchisement law's adverse impact on the voting strength of minority communities coupled with the racial disparities in Washington's criminal justice system provided enough evidence to prevail on a Section 2 claim.

The Farrakhan decision not only departs from Section 2 precedent, it is a significant setback to efforts to challenge felon disenfranchisement laws that disproportionately affect African American communities.

_____________________________________________________

*The Senate Judiciary Committee's1982 report on the amendments to the VRA suggested several factors for courts to consider in a Section 2 challenge. These factors include: the history of official voting-related discrimination; the extent to which voting in elections is racially polarized; the extent to which the jurisdiction has used voting practices that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group; the exclusion of members of a minority group from candidate slating processes; the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; the use of racial appeals in political campaigns; and the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

_____________________________________

A recent report by the Southern Regional Council on Trends in Voting Policy includes a survey of felon disenfranchisement laws in six southern states. To view a complete copy of the SRC report, click here or on the image of the report (which appears to the right).

_____________________________________
About the Author

Leland Ware, a member of the Board of the Southern Regional Council, is Louis B. Redding Chair and Professor for the Study of Law and Public Policy at the University of Delaware.He is the author of numerous publications, and he served as co-editor of the recently-published volume, Choosing Equality: Essays and Narratives on the Desegregation Experience.

Charles Eagles Accepts Lillian Smith Book Award for 2010

The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss

From the time that the Southern Regional Council initiated the Lillian Smith Book Awards in 1968 until this year, only two have won the award twice. The first was acclaimed author and poet Alice Walker in 1973 and 1984. The second was civil rights activist and writer Constance Curry in 1996 and again last year for her work on Bob Zellner’s memoir. This year Dr. Charles Eagles becomes the third.

Dr. Eagles is the William F. Winter Professor of History at the University of Mississiippi. He first won the Lillian Smith Book Award in 1993 for Outside Agitator; John Daniels and the Civil Rights Movement in Alabama. This year we lift up a new scholarly accomplishment, The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss.

Most with a basic familiarity with the events of the Civil Rights Movement know something of James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi and the violence that followed, but never before has the story been recounted with such detail and in a manner that is as thoroughly grounded in its historical context. In reviewing the book, Gary Lavergne wrote that, to the extent that an institution can be an actor in a drama, Charles Eagles’ character development of Ole Miss is first rate. Dr. Eagles provides the most insightful characterization that we have of the controversial and enigmatic James Meredith. His coverage of Ross Barnett is so even-handed and so credible as to have the effect of making Governor Barnett seem even less sympathetic than if he had used hyperbole in describing him. Dr. Eagles has written a remarkable and unflinching history of the institution for which he works.

Charles Eagles on the Haley Barbour Controversy

In the summer of 2010, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour was considered a serious contender for the Republican Presidential Nomination. He gave several interviews at that time as part of an effort to re-introduce himself to a national audience. In the course of those interviews, Governor Barbour attempted to distance himself from his State's segregationist past, noting among other things that he had even gone to "an integrated college."

As part of her effort to fact-check Governor Barbour, Rachel Maddow spoke with Charles Eagles, Professor of History at the University of Mississippi and, in one of her nightly broadcasts, she reported on her conversation with Professor Eagles.

Those who attended the 2010 Lillian Smith Book Awards Ceremony got a chance to hear directly from Professor Eagles. After accepting an award for his recent book "The Price of Defiance," Professor Eagles was asked to share his thoughts about Governor Barbour's recent comments.

After noting that "he is my employer," Professor Eagles observed that Governor Barbour's view of his generation is "not the view of many people of that generation" and that he didn't think it would sell.

Amy Louise Wood Accepts Lillian Smith Book Award for 2010

Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890 - 1940

The Southern Regional Council, the University of Georgia Libraries and the Georgia Center for the Book presented a 2010 Lillian Smith Book Award to Amy Louise Wood, author of Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890 - 1940.

Between 1880 and 1940, more than 3,000 African Americans were lynched in the U.S., often in very public displays of torture and suffering. Amy Louise Wood is not the first to document these atrocities, but in her book, "Lynching and Spectacle," she gives us an entirely new perspective on this difficult and horrific subject.

Dr. Wood places lynching within the “larger culture of spectacle” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which arose out of other highly public events such as executions and religious gatherings. Depictions of lynching in the emerging medium of the motion picture and via widely distributed still photography made it an intensely public activity. These popular visual representations of lynching initially promoted the crime, but ultimately contributed to its decline. The overall effect of Lynching and Spectacle is to portray a region and a nation engaged in a painful and often brutal transition to modernity.

In his review of Lynching and Spectacle, Guy Lancaster calls the book “phenomenal.” Michael Pfeifer asserts that it should be read by “all who are interested in the cultural relations of lynching.” For J. Vincent Lowry, Wood “helps us better understand why the freedom struggle took so long.”