Benjamin Todd Jealous2013-06-19T17:34:20-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=benjamin-todd-jealousCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Benjamin Todd JealousGood old fashioned elbow grease.Moral Mondays: A Model Grassroots Movementtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.34416952013-06-14T10:12:21-04:002013-06-14T18:02:13-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
On April 29, 17 dedicated activists were arrested for civil disobedience at the North Carolina General Assembly as they protested attacks on education, health care, voting rights and the poor. Six weeks and six "Moral Mondays" later, nearly 400 people have been locked up, and the nation is watching.
The peaceful protests were started by Reverend Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina NAACP State Conference. Rev. Barber has spent decades fighting for the poor and working class in his home state, building diverse coalitions like the Historic Thousands on Jones Street People's Coalition and the Forward Together Movement. Despite name-calling and threats of violence, he has continued to build his grassroots movement to fight poverty, racism and the discriminatory policies of the "Old South".
Those coalitions were put to the test when North Carolina lawmakers decided to embrace one of the most radical agendas in the nation. In the space of a few months, lawmakers rejected $700 million in federal unemployment benefits and passed up federal funds to expand Medicaid for half a million people. At the same time, they voted to raise taxes on 900,000 poor and working class people; slash funding for pre-school and kindergarten; and spend time pursuing wildly unpopular proposals, like a bill that would let legislators receive gifts from lobbyists.
Then, following a pattern we have seen across the country, they tried to cement their agenda by suppressing the vote. Rather than convince the public to vote for them on merit, legislators introduced a voter ID bill that would disenfranchise nearly 500,000 voters, and planned to roll back early voting, same-day registration and Sunday voting.
The community had seen enough. What followed was a textbook example of how grassroots organizing can and should work.
In late April, Rev. Barber and the HKonJ coalition organized the weekly Moral Mondays protests at the State House in Raleigh. Next, Rev. Barber engaged the NAACP's broad network of 100 youth and adult units, organizing 26 local protest events across the state. In Halifax County, where one out of four people live below the federal poverty line, locals packed Mount Hope Baptist Church. In the small city of New Bern, more than 250 people packed a community center and cheered two community members who had been arrested at a Moral Monday. Each event made its own point while reinforcing the larger message.
Rev. Barber also took the advice of Dr. King: "If you are comfortable in your coalition, then your coalition is too small". The protestors getting arrested each week are from all different backgrounds -- veterans and students, schoolteachers and blue collar workers, professors and doctors, labor and environmental leaders, and clergy of different races, classes, faith communities and even physical abilities. They are unified by shared values and a belief in what Rev. Barber calls "a deeply moral and constitutional vision of society" where "the focus of public policy is justice for all and care for the common good."
I was particularly moved by the words of Dr. Charles van der Horst, a white doctor from the UNC School of Medicine who would clearly benefit from the legislature's agenda. He spoke outside the State House last week about the concept of fusion politics:
"This is not a black thing, this is not a white thing. This is not a poor thing, this is not a rich thing. This is not a Christian or Jewish or Muslim thing. What hurts one person, hurts us all."
Dr. van der Horst is absolutely right, and his message should reverberate on a national scale. North Carolina will not thrive if it insists on selling off the rungs on the ladder to the middle and upper class. In the same way, America will not prosper if our leaders refuse to address wealth inequality and the same attacks on education and voting rights.
Luckily, America is listening. The protests have earned growingnationalpress, and last weekend Melissa Harris-Perry devoted a segment of her national Saturday morning television show to the campaign. Moral Mondays have become a catalyst for a broader debate on public policy and the common good.
The question is whether North Carolina will listen to its own people. Only time will tell, but as Rev. Barber and the state's activists have proven time and time again, they will not stop fighting until justice is won.
This column is reprinted from The Trice Edney News Wire]]>Respect for Black Farmerstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32935542013-05-17T12:58:52-04:002013-05-17T15:19:47-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
There is no way to make up for decades of discrimination that crippled the proud history of black farm ownership in this country. But we can do our best to move forward.
In 1999 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) settled the civil rights lawsuit Pigford v Glickman. They agreed to compensate thousands of black farmers who suffered racial discrimination at the hands of the USDA's farm loan program between 1981 and 1996. In the last three years, the federal government has started to provide relief to a second group of black farmers, as well as thousands of Native American, Hispanic, and women farmers who suffered discrimination of their own.
These initiatives have come under recent scrutiny and accusations of fraud. But many critics do not know the full story. The Pigford settlements only just begin to make up for the long and ugly history of discrimination against black farmers and other farmers of color in the United States.
Like so many great ideas in our nation's history, the USDA farm loan program was the product of compromise. In 1935, mired in the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt developed a plan to help struggling farmers pay off their debts and stave off bankruptcy. But the initiative first had to earn the blessing of White southern senators who dominated Congress.
These senators insisted that the federal funds should funnel through southern plantation owners and wealthy white farmers. The white farmers would then distribute the loans to their black tenants and sharecroppers.
In practice, they were often not inclined to pass the funds along.
This dynamic only grew more toxic in the 1960s. As civil rights protests rocked the nation, USDA staff intentionally withheld loans from black farmers who voted, helped register voters, or joined the NAACP. This discrimination continued in the years that followed, and it had a devastating effect on farmers of color. According to the Census of Agriculture, between 1920 and 1992 the number of African American farmers declined from 925,000 to only 18,000.
Despite this history of flagrant discrimination, President Ronald Reagan abolished the USDA Office of Civil Rights in 1981, leaving farmers with no options for legal recourse. The office remained shuttered until 1996, when President Clinton re-opened its doors.
That 16-year period of lax oversight was the basis of Pigford v Glickman. In the eighties and early nineties, thousands of farmers of color were denied access to loans; information on farm programs; technical assistance; and adequate loan servicing from the USDA. Some farmers were denied applications outright, while others were asked to fill out an application only to watch the local USDA supervisor throw it in the trash. At the time, these farmers had nowhere to turn.
In recent weeks the Pigford settlement program has been attacked with accusations of widespread fraud. These attacks are simply unfair and untrue. Since the first settlement in 1999, a careful process has been in place to weed out potential fraud. All farmers who claimed discrimination were obligated to sign a form under penalty of perjury attesting to the veracity of their claim. Out of 22,000 claims filed, only 60 of them were investigated for fraud by the FBI -- less than one percent of the total.
Moreover, many farmers of color suffered discrimination but were left out of both settlements. As Judge Paul L. Friedman wrote in his 1999 opinion, Pigford v. Glickman was a "significant first step" in addressing the USDA's broken promises and history of discrimination. But it should not be the last. One promising solution is the farm bill that will soon be debated in Congress, which will ensure funding for programs to further assist farmers of color.
I spoke about this issue with Ralph Paige, Executive Director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, one of the oldest and most respected black farmer coalitions in the country. He told me, "When we overcome racial injustices like this, we benefit society as a whole."
This is certainly true. The Pigford settlement has helped the USDA begin to move past its ugly history. We encourage the Department to continue to welcome farmers of color as partners and clients, and to offer them the respect they deserve and the services they still so greatly need.
This column is reprinted from The Trice Edney News Wire]]>No Second-Class Familiestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32537132013-05-10T12:47:20-04:002013-05-10T13:27:44-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/This column is reprinted from The Trice Edney News Wire
African Americans have spent much of our history fighting for equal treatment. Just two generations ago, our parents and our grandparents were banned from eating at certain restaurants, attending certain schools, and working in certain professions.
So it is not difficult to empathize with the struggle of immigrants in our country. Like our ancestors who migrated from the former slave states of the Deep South, millions of undocumented immigrants move to the United States each year to find work and a decent education for their children. But when they arrive, they are confronted with blatant discrimination and racial profiling -- with hardly any legal recourse and little public outrage.
As people of color, we have a responsibility to stand up for social justice whenever it is violated. That is why the NAACP has joined other civil rights and human rights organizations, including the Rights Working Group and the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights, to support comprehensive immigration reform.
Across the country, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants live in a permanent second-class status. Many immigrants come to the U.S. to find a better life, but find themselves living in the shadows, in constant fear of arrest and deportation. This segregation has a cost.
Undocumented workers are exploited on a regular basis. Many business owners pay low wages and provide dangerous working conditions for their undocumented workers, with little fear of retaliation. They know that their employees have too much at stake to risk contacting the proper authorities.
Undocumented immigrants are also targeted by police. Racial profiling has been legalized in states like Alabama and Arizona under the guise of immigration enforcement. Our national immigration laws, in conjunction with these state laws, encourage local police to stop people of color, whether they are undocumented or not.
Right now Congress is debating a comprehensive immigration bill that will offer a roadmap to citizenship and also deal directly with workplace discrimination and racial profiling. One proposed provision allows undocumented immigrants to have the full protection of American labor laws. Another one explicitly prohibits racial profiling by Homeland Security agents -- which would make it the first federal law to do so.
The bill in its draft form is not perfect. The racial profiling provision needs adjustments that are being debated at the time of this writing. The draft bill also contains provisions that would eliminate the diversity visa program -- which helps many African and Caribbean immigrants come to America -- and dramatically expand the guest worker program. The NAACP and our allies will continue to make our voice heard as Congress debates the bill.
In August 1963 a sea of diverse activists stormed the National Mall to demand social justice and an end to segregation. In April 2013 a similarly diverse wave of legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and activists of all backgrounds gathered at the United States Capitol to call an end to second-class citizenship. The March on Washington pressured Congress to pass the Civil Rights Acts. This year, we need to show Congress once again that American of all stripes care about progressive reform.
As Dr. King said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. African Americans have spent much of our history fighting for fair treatment and equal opportunity. We must also offer support to our immigrant brothers and sisters. If we want to escape the sins of our past, we must ensure there are no second class families today.]]>Felony Disenfranchisement: A Holdover from the Jim Crow Eratag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31633512013-04-26T11:23:56-04:002013-04-26T12:10:41-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/This column is reprinted from The Trice Edney News Wire
Last week, the Delaware State legislature approved a constitutional amendment to all but remove the last Jim Crow-era voter suppression law from its books.
The amendment, passed at the urging of the Delaware NAACP, allows people with nonviolent felony convictions to vote after their release from prison. This is a major victory for voting rights and a strike against the practice of "felony disenfranchisement." But it is also a major step forward for a nation still struggling to heal old racial wounds.
Felony disenfranchisement has direct roots in the Jim Crow Era. In the late 19th century, states above and below the Mason-Dixon Line began to find new and creative ways to keep black voters away from the polls. Banning people with felony convictions was one of the solutions.
For example, in 1901 the Commonwealth of Virginia had 147,000 black voters on the rolls. But many lawmakers saw this growing political block as a threat. At that year's Constitutional Convention, they hatched a plan to disenfranchise African Americans through a combination of black codes and felony disenfranchisement. One legislator said on the record that the plan would "eliminate the darkey as a political factor."
Ninety years later, Kemba Smith-Pradia was an undergraduate student at Hampton University. She got involved with the wrong crowd and found herself behind bars as an accessory to a nonviolent drug offense. President Clinton granted Kemba executive clemency in 2000, six years into her 24-year sentence. She went on to become a college graduate, law student, mother and foundation president -- but until 2012, when her rights were finally restored, not a voter.
Kemba's story is just one example of how the legacy of the 1901 Convention lives on. In today's Virginia, 350,000 people are still disenfranchised by the 1901 law, and many of them are African Americans. Nationwide, 48 states allow some form of felony disenfranchisement, and one out of every 13 voting-age African Americans is affected. In four states -- Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, and Florida -- disenfranchisement can be permanent.
When Virginia introduced felony disenfranchisement in 1901, they also expanded the list of felony crimes. By raising the penalty for a number of minor offenses, they planned to lock African Americans in the prison system -- and out of the political system. A century later, our drug laws have the same amplifying effect. African Americans are far more likely to be arrested for minor drug crimes, and therefore more likely to have their vote taken away.
The good news is that Delaware and other states are beginning to turn the tide. In Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell has sped up the review process for those who have finished the terms of their sentence. So far he has restored the votes of more than 4,000 citizens. And Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who callously eliminated automatic restoration of voting rights early in his term, is now taking steps toward restoring those rights.
These are certainly steps in the right direction, but there is more work to do. Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, and Florida still allow permanent disenfranchisement, and 44 other states permit some level of felony disenfranchisement.
You can learn about the law in your state at www.restorethevotes.org. If you or someone in your community is affected, you can use that information to educate your family, your community and your elected officials about why this is an important issue.
Felony disenfranchisement is an affront to our democracy. Millions of people like Kemba Smith-Pradia -- parents, workers, and community leaders -- pay taxes, raise families and contribute to society. But they cannot fully participate in our democracy.
If poll taxes, literacy tests, and gumball-counting tests could be outlawed because of their racist intent, then felony disenfranchisement laws from the same era should be overturned today.]]>You Can't Survive on $7.25tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30849762013-04-15T10:52:36-04:002013-06-15T05:12:02-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
Dr. King was in Memphis as part of his Poor People's Campaign. He spoke to striking sanitation workers who, like the fast-food workers in New York City today, said, "We can't do it; we can't give our children access to the great dream of this nation while being so disrespected and so poorly paid.'
As we have moved from a post-industrial economy to a service economy, it is increasingly clear that the only way to rebuild the middle class is to do what we did in the past: organize and build the strength of the labor movement.
When I was a young organizer on those same Harlem streets 20 years ago, making $10 per hour, I thought I had it hard. The notion that in 2013 parents should be forced to raise families on $7.25 is simply outrageous.
Sadly, we are approaching the day when half the workers in this country will be making minimum wage. For the first time, the U.S. economy has shifted in the direction of a part-time, low-wage workforce. This explosion of low-wage jobs is widening the already-large gap between the rich and the working poor, making it harder for Americans to move up the economic ladder.
No person can maximize the American Dream on the minimum wage. The fast-food workers' newfound willingness to organize a union and strike -- at tremendous personal and economic risk -- shows just how bad the economy has become for low-wage workers.
One striker told a reporter he eats Instant Ramen noodles every day in an effort to make ends meet. Another said he lives with six extended family members packed into a one-bedroom apartment. Several indicated they walk miles and miles to get to work because train fare is too expensive. Their backs are firmly against the wall.
Forty-five years after Dr. King said that it is a crime for workers in the world's richest country to receive starvation wages, we remain in the midst of an economic crisis. The NAACP stands behind all the workers across the country struggling on a $7.25 minimum wage. We need a living wage so all families and children have access to the great dream of this country.
Dr. King died standing up for workers who were being exploited and underpaid because he understood that the only way we get to be One Nation is to eradicate poverty. We must get to a place where all of our children have access to the American Dream.]]>No Country for 'Black Teens'tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30212592013-04-05T11:49:43-04:002013-06-05T05:12:01-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/tweet comparing Trayvon Martin to De'Marquis Elkins, a 17-year-old black teenager charged with fatally shooting a one-year-old baby.
The tweet showed a photo of Elkins side by side with a photo of Martin, both making inappropriate gestures, with the caption "A picture speaks a thousand words. Any questions?"
Zimmerman's follow-up tweet read "Lib[eral] media [should] ask if what these [two] black teens did [to] a [woman and her baby] is the reason [people] think blacks might [be] risky." The implication was that Trayvon Martin's actions on the night he was murdered were equivalent to the killing of an innocent child.
This would be worrisome enough if it were just the opportunistic cry of a family embroiled in racial controversy. But this belief -- that male "black teens" are inherently more likely to be criminals -- is ingrained in our society. It has seeped into our institutions in the form of racial profiling, and too often it poisons the judgment of those who are supposed to protect us.
Last year I visited Sanford, Florida in the wake of the Trayvon Martin case. The NAACP hosted a forum where residents could report incidents of police abuse. A number of African-American mothers alleged that their teenage sons had been profiled, abused or even assaulted by the police. I found that the attitude of the local police department toward "black teens" was uncomfortably similar to that of Robert Zimmerman.
But the fact is that 50 years after the Civil Rights Act, racial bias still runs rampant among law enforcement in this country. And Zimmerman's attitude infects an institution much more influential than the Sanford Police Department: the NYPD.
The New York Police Department is currently fighting a class-action lawsuit against their racially biased practice of "stop-and-frisk" policing. Stop-and-frisk allows officers to stop, question and physically search any individual they consider suspicious. In 2011 NYPD officers stopped nearly 800,000 people for alleged "suspicious activity." Nine out of ten were innocent, 99 percent did not have a gun -- and nine out of ten were black or Latino.
The most revealing tidbit to come out of the class-action trial is a secretly recorded conversation between a deputy inspector and a police officer. The inspector is discussing a high-crime neighborhood, and he can be heard telling his patrolman: "The problem was, what, male blacks... And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, male blacks 14 to 20, 21." In other words: stop more young black boys.
Other evidence indicates that patrolmen may be encouraged to meet arrest quotas. A tape played at the trial reveals a supervising officer asking for "more 250s" - or more stop-and-frisk forms. One plaintiff, a police officer, testified about the pressure he felt from supervisors -- "they were very clear, it's non-negotiable, you're gonna do it, or you're gonna become a Pizza Hut delivery man."
A picture may speak a thousand words, but leaked recordings speak volumes about an institution's priorities. These tapes reveal that the NYPD has effectively placed a bounty on "black teens." By profiling young teens of color, they are using the same grisly logic as Robert Zimmerman. And the result is apparent: in 2011, black and Latino men between the ages of 14 and 24 made up 42 percent of those targeted by stop-and-frisk. That group makes up less than 5 percent of the city's population.
The crime attributed to De'Marquis Elkins' was truly horrific and despicable. But Elkins does not represent an entire demographic, just like Adam Lanza did not act on behalf of all young white men. Racial profiling punishes innocent individuals for the past actions of those who look and sound like them. It misdirects crucial resources and undercuts the trust needed between law enforcement and the communities they serve. It has no place in our national discourse, and no place in our nation's police departments.]]>Celebrating Black History Monthtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27340232013-02-21T12:19:37-05:002013-04-23T05:12:01-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
Bayard Rustin, an often unsung hero of the civil rights movement, spent his entire life exposing injustice in our nation. Even before he served as lead organizer of the 1963 March on Washington where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. declared his dream, Rustin was labeled a Communist and a radical by the government. When he traveled to the segregated South during the first-ever Freedom Rides, he experienced a barrage of racial slurs and violence.
But in America, in the 1950s and 60s, no label stuck to Bayard Rustin quite like "homosexual." As an openly gay man, Rustin was attacked by everyone -- Congressmen and activists, black and white -- simply for living openly. Yet, at a time when few others would, Rustin proudly wore that label.
To Bayard Rustin, fighting for his equality as a black man, while leaving his identity as a gay man unspoken, would have been an unthinkable betrayal. It was his firm belief that silence about either identity meant he accepted the system of discrimination that allowed hatred about both to persist.
Long before it was easy or safe, Rustin was motivated to live openly. He could have hidden the fact that he was gay. When confronted about it, he could have lied -- that's what everyone did in those days. But Bayard Rustin was exceptional. He lived openly because to do otherwise would be a missed opportunity in exposing the injustice and intolerance he, along with other members of the LGBT community, experienced.
Despite a lifetime lived in service to justice and nonviolence, Rustin's legacy was marginalized by his sexuality. His 1987 New York Timesobituary demonstrated the evasive language about LGBT people that was all too common in the media just a few short years ago. The obituary skirted the topic of his being gay and referred to his longtime partner by euphemism only. Even today, his name is not nearly as well known as the other greats of the Civil Rights movement.
This Black History Month, we should not forget trailblazers like Rustin. Out of dedication to his life and legacy, let us uplift the stories of LGBT African-Americans who felt and still feel the burdens of discrimination -- those whose very lives illustrate the insistent fact that the fight to treat all people equally is both this country's greatest accomplishment and its greatest unfinished obligation.
Today, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the nation's oldest civil rights organization, and the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, are proud to work together toward equality. And we're proud that President Barack Obama used his second inaugural address to link the Civil Rights movement and the LGBT Equality movement just last month. But long before a president like Barack Obama was even possible, Bayard Rustin was preaching an equal future. We shouldn't forget his sacrifice, and the greatest tribute to his legacy would be to finish his work.
Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP President & CEO
Chad Griffin, HRC President]]>Toward a Smarter Drug Policytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26870042013-02-14T11:53:48-05:002013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/Michael Banyard ran afoul of California's "three strikes" law. After bouts of homelessness, unemployment, suicidal thoughts, and a criminal record driven by an underlying substance use disorder, Michael faced a mandatory 25-year prison sentence.
Fortunately for Michael, Federal District Court Judge Spencer Letts was put in charge of his final sentence appeal. Judge Letts saw Michael not as a hopeless, drug-using criminal, but as an individual with a disease in need of help. The judge then did something highly unusual. He not only reversed Michael's sentence, he invited him into his chambers to talk.
Here were two men who could not be more different - a white, Yale- and Harvard-educated judge and former corporate vice president, and a shy African American who had spent most of his adult life in prison. And yet, the men found they had more in common than either could have imagined. Judge Letts knew that repeatedly incarcerating Michael wasn't accomplishing much.
Over the years, Judge Letts became, in Michael's words, the father he never had. The Judge gained something extraordinary too. Michael, he said, "showed me that my gut feeling was right - that people are basically the same, with the same basic goodness, if you just give them the chance." Today, Michael Banyard has received his GED degree and spends his time volunteering at the Los Angeles Dream Center, where he graduated from a faith-based program that he credits for his transition away from substance abuse.
Stories like this illustrate the kind of thinking needed to reform our nation's criminal justice and drug control policies. In 2011, about seven million people were under the supervision of the criminal justice system in the United States. Of these, about two million were behind bars. And nearly one quarter - 500,000 - of those behind bars are there for drug related offenses. America's incarceration rate - 756 per 100,000 population - is the highest in the world. High rates of incarceration have resulted in prison overcrowding and state governments facing the costs of a rapidly expanding penal system.
In addition, our nation's historical emphasis on incarceration has significantly affected communities of color. African Americans are disproportionately incarcerated for drug offenses, accounting for almost half (45 percent) of all drug offenders in state prison in 2010. (Whites accounted for 29 percent.) Among prisoners age 18 to 19, African American males are imprisoned at more than 9 times the rate of white males, and African American females are imprisoned at between 2 and 3 times the rate of white females.
It is clear that we cannot simply arrest our way out of the drug problem. Instead, we need smarter, results-based criminal justice policies to keep our communities safe, including treatment for people with substance use disorders and mental health issues.
To bring about real, meaningful change, we need a fundamental shift in how our Nation discusses drug policy. This begins with the acknowledgement that our drug problem is a public health issue, not just a law enforcement issue. It means acknowledging that an ever-growing body of scientific research clearly demonstrates that addiction - the underlying cause of too much crime in this country - is a disease that can be prevented and treated successfully.
Armed with the indisputable fact that preventing and treating addiction is an effective strategy for reducing substance abuse and crime, the Obama Administration and the NAACP are committed to pursuing evidence-based policies that strengthen families and communities across America.
Already, the Administration has worked to expand specialized courts that divert roughly 120,000 non-violent offenders into treatment instead of prison each year. The President has requested that Congress increase its commitment for drug treatment programs for 2013. And in 2010, President Obama signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which made progress in reducing the 100-to-1 disparity between sentences for powder and crack cocaine that disproportionately affected minorities and also eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine.
Significant accomplishments all, yet more must be done, particularly at the state level.
Demonstrating how criminal justice reform can be a bipartisan issue, the NAACP has worked tirelessly with elected officials from both parties to achieve sensible reform. With the support of the NAACP, Republican Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia signed into law the most sweeping criminal justice reform legislation in the country. The NAACP also worked to find common ground with Republican Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia, who shut down prisons and called for more money to be sent to universities. In Texas, the NAACP helped push Republican Governor Rick Perry to sign 12 progressive reforms that led to Texas scheduling the first prison closure in the state's history.
Actions by the Obama Administration, the NAACP, and others are vital steps toward reshaping and redirecting our nation's criminal justice system. These are only the first steps, however, and the road ahead is long. It will take still more action, more time, more work, and more innovative thinking to bring about the reforms that are so urgently needed.
The challenge is immense, but America is up to it. Working together, we can reduce the heavy toll of substance use in our cities, neighborhoods, and families. Combining proven public health and public safety strategies will help break the vicious cycle of drug abuse, crime, and incarceration. This, in turn, will save countless lives and taxpayer dollars, make America stronger and safer, and ensure a more perfect union.
It's not only the right thing to do--it's the smart thing to do.
Gil Kerlikowske is Director of ONDCP and Benjamin Todd Jealous is President and CEO of the NAACP. This post also appears on the ONDCP blog and the NAACP blog. ]]>No President Can Change the World Alonetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26789122013-02-13T12:34:21-05:002013-04-15T05:12:01-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
2013 is a year filled with symbolism. On New Year's Day, we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we witnessed the second inauguration of our nation's first African-American president. And tonight, on the 104th anniversary of the meeting when a handful of great leaders like Mary White Ovington and W.E.B. Du Bois came together to found the NAACP, we witnessed President Obama give his fourth State of the Union, outlining bold plans to address many of our nation's toughest challenges.
Yet let us each internalize what NAACP history has taught us: No president has ever changed the world alone.
If we are going to increase jobs and justice in America, we must stay on the battlefield and bring the fight to any politician who obstructs us or seeks to turn back the clock.
Why? Because millions of Americans are struggling every day to find work, millions of our undocumented brown and black brothers and sisters live in fear of having their families torn apart, millions are pushing for the healthcare law to be enacted in their states, and millions of our children live in terror of gun violence in their neighborhood and even in the sanctuary that is their classroom. Moreover, we are facing a new wave of voter suppression legislation in states across this country.
Last night President Obama set out an agenda that responds to many of the calls made by the movements that have twice made his presidency a reality. Now we must come together to ensure legislators from Capitol Hill to your state capitol have the courage to answer our call as well.
In this year of years, let us draw strength from remembering great leaders like our own Medgar Evers, who was assassinated 50 years ago while leading the NAACP in Mississippi. Referring to obstructionist legislators, he once said that if we do not like what our leaders are doing, we need to "get in there and change it."
Changing it means taking action today. It means calling up your state legislator, congressman or senator and pushing them to do the right thing. It means marching in a rally, writing a letter to the newspaper, and volunteering for the cause you believe in.
We are living through a historic moment of great peril and opportunity. One hundred and four years ago today, the NAACP was founded by brave Americans who felt compelled to fight for an America in which every person living in our great nation could enjoy freedom, justice, and democracy. Since then, the NAACP has continued the fight -- and increased opportunity for all our children.
When we work together for change, America benefits. Let us make this a better country for generations to come.]]>Let Me Be Clear: Congress is the Problemtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26159832013-02-04T11:40:22-05:002013-04-06T05:12:01-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
Over the past week, dozens of outlets have run headlines along the lines of: "NAACP Leader: Blacks 'Doing Far Worse' Under Obama."
But here's the problem: those aren't my words.
I may be old fashioned, but the former newspaper editor in me still believes that quotes should reflect what someone actually said. And, more importantly, the organizer in me is concerned that the misquotation - Freudian or forced - is encouraging some to miss the point.
Here is what I actually said about the economy, on Meet the Press last Sunday:
"Look, we know how to get out of tough times. We got out of the Great Depression by investing in what we wanted to be as a country, by investing in jobs rather than focusing on our fears.
I would push back and say that the big issues of this day also include marriage equality. They include comprehensive immigration reform. They include making sure that we lift all boats.
Right now when you look at joblessness in this country, you know, the country is back to pretty much where it was when this president started. White people in this country are doing a bit better. Black folks are doing a full point worse when it comes to [unemployment]. And so with this president having said to us we need to invest in strategies to lift all boats, now that some boats are clearly more stuck, the question is: Will Congress join him in getting those boats unstuck too?"
Here are the facts behind my statement:
When President Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8% nationally, 7.1% for whites and 12.7% for blacks. Last December, unemployment was once again 7.8% nationally, but it stood at 6.9% for whites and 14% for blacks.
This increase in black unemployment is partly due to major cuts in public employment at the state and local level in recent years.
At the national level, this trend has been driven by a Congress that has for the past two years repeatedly refused to pass reforms that promised to spur job growth in the public and private sector, including the President's American Jobs Act and the Congressional Black Caucus' "10-20-30 Plan".
The failure of the 112th Congress to act is truly one for the history books. Even the famous "Do Nothing Congress" (the 80th Congress of 1947-1948) passed 906 bills into law. In contrast, the 2011-2012 Congress passed only 219 laws - and six of those dealt with commemorative coins.
If Congress can get its act together this year, our country can increase job creation right now and ensure that every community's needs are addressed.
Last year President Obama introduced the American Jobs Act, a multi-billion dollar plan to create hundreds of thousands of jobs while investing in our future. The plan would modernize schools, make critical improvements to our roads and bridges, and fix up foreclosed homes and businesses.
Moreover, Congressional Black Caucus Chairman James Clyburn has promoted his "10-20-30 Plan" for future government spending that would help make sure that we truly "lift all boats". Under his plan, 10 percent of all federal resources would go to communities where 20 percent of the population has lived under the federal poverty line for 30 years or more.
The 113th Congress has just started. As I said on Meet the Press, "We know how to get out of tough times...now that some boats are clearly more stuck, the question is: Will Congress join [President Obama] in getting those boats unstuck too?"
If I were a betting man, I would say "Probably not."
But I am not a betting man.
I, like hundreds of thousands of others in the NAACP and other great organizations, am an organizer. And as an organizer I believe that the American people are capable of making our own odds.
Our nation is a democracy, and fundamentally that means that Congress works for us - We, the People. As their bosses, as citizens, our job right now is clear: to ensure that Congressional leaders do their jobs and lead our nation out of economic trouble rather than continuing to stall and force us back into a crisis.
To be clear, President Obama works for us too and we must be equally prepared to hold him fully accountable. But when it comes to job creation, Congressional obstructionists are the problem. Now it is time for We, the People, to rise up, raise our voices, and make them get out of the way.
We have done it before. The ultimate question is whether we will come together and ensure that it happens again.]]>'Employment Discrimination 2.0' and What President Obama Can Do About It in His Second Termtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25013982013-01-18T10:48:04-05:002013-03-20T05:12:01-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
Just like Dr. King, President Obama will speak at a time of great inequality. He will speak at a time when the racial wealth divide is increasing and black unemployment is epidemic. Though he may tout America's slow recovery from a five-year recession, the truth is that black America is still mired in a decades-long recession. And black Americans expect the president to do something about it.
Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Barack Obama in November, and in many states that was enough to put him over the top. They voted on more than identity politics. In early November the NAACP took a poll of African-American voters in key swing states. When asked for their number-one concern at the ballot box, nearly two out of three respondents answered "jobs."
As a candidate Obama promised to focus on jobs. In direct contrast to his opponent, he pledged to lift all boats -- especially those boats that had gotten stuck in the mud. Now that he is about to begin his second term, the black community is watching to see how he will follow through.
At the beginning of his second term, President Obama should offer a politically viable program to create jobs where they are most needed. If he needs a place to start, his proposal can follow the "10-20-30" plan devised by Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus: Ten percent of all federal resources should go to communities where 20 percent of the population has lived under the federal poverty line for 30 years or more.
President Obama has offered a similar initiative in the past. In September 2011 he convened a joint session of Congress to unveil the American Jobs Act. The plan provided, among other things, $30 billion to modernize public schools, $15 billion to fix up foreclosed homes and businesses and $10 billion to create a National Infrastructure Bank. Though it was rejected by a gridlocked Congress, the initiative invested in our future while helping our country's most vulnerable communities.
A broad jobs plan is an important step, but President Obama needs to go further. He needs to talk about that 20 percent in the "10-20-30" plan who live in persistent poverty. He needs to ask why there are so many communities of the chronically unemployed and underemployed -- and why these disparities continue to fall along racial lines. In order to do that, he should address what can be called "employment discrimination 2.0."
We all know that employers cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of race or gender when they apply to a job, but in many states employers can discriminate against applicants who are currently unemployed, who have a low credit score or who have a criminal conviction on their record. This feeds the vicious circle of unemployment by hitting people when they are already down.
If President Obama wants to fulfill has campaign promise to lift all boats, he can start by challenging "employment discrimination 2.0." The American Jobs Act called for a ban on discrimination against the unemployed. President Obama should use his bully pulpit to bring this idea back, and to speak more broadly about all three forms of discrimination. Moreover, he should ask for a review of the various agencies of the federal government to ensure that their personnel practices are as inclusive as possible.
When it comes to job creation, the president can get little done without a willing Congress, but when it comes to fighting discrimination, his administration has far more leeway. In the 50 years since the March on Washington, one sad fact hasn't changed: If you are black in America, ending discrimination is just as important as investing in jobs.
This blog post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post that closely examines the most pressing challenges facing President Obama in his second term. To read the companion article by HuffPost's Janell Ross, click here. To read the companion blog post by Gregory D. Squires of the George Washington University, click here. To read all the other posts in the series, click here.]]>Eggs, Legs and the Chained CPItag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23473122012-12-21T14:02:51-05:002013-02-20T05:12:02-05:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
As the story goes, one day a farmer asks all the animals to contribute to help him make breakfast. The animals agree that they want to do their part. With basket in hand, the farmer goes to the chickens, who roll off their nests to offer an egg. With bucket in hand, the farmer goes to the cows, who share their milk. Finally, with blade in tow, the farmer approaches the lambs, who turn around only to see the farmer intends to cut their leg off.
At this point the otherwise docile lamb kicks the farmer and asks, "How is this fair? That chicken just has to give up an egg, but I am supposed to give you one of my legs?"
As we talk about the fiscal cliff, we have to pay close attention to the "eggs" and the "legs" and to who is being asked to sacrifice what.
President Obama has done an admirable job negotiating with House Speaker John Boehner, remaining open to compromise and forcing conservatives to back tax increases for the very rich. But recent reports show that he has dialed back on a campaign promise by offering to raise taxes only on those making $400,000 a year or more -- higher than his original cut-off point of $250,000.
This concession could mean $400 billion less in tax revenue from the rich. Combined with other agreements, like a higher earned-income tax credit refund for those under the poverty line, the two sides will still need to find $1.2 trillion in cuts in order to avoid the fiscal cliff.
Unfortunately, it appears that President Obama is ready to trade the "eggs" of the well-off for the "legs" of some of the poor. His proposed relief for the extreme poor -- those living below 50 percent of the poverty line -- does go a ways toward helping the most vulnerable Americans. However, the working poor -- those whose incomes fall just below or just above the poverty line -- would under his proposal see their Social Security benefits shrink over time.
Specifically, President Obama has proposed a change in the way we calculate inflation for social security benefits, using an alternate version of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) called the chained CPI.
Chained CPI is meant to account for human reaction when measuring the price levels of consumer goods. In theory, when prices rise, the average consumer will substitute cheaper products for more expensive ones. When government economists calculate inflation using chained CPI, Social Security benefits will reflect the price of those cheaper products. In short, they will be lower -- up to three percent lower each year.
The main issue with chained CPI is that although seniors spend less on luxury products, they spend a lot more on health care which has been going up much faster than CPI for years. Thus, CPI already appears to be too low to keep many of these recipients heads above water financially.
But the problem runs deeper than many realize. It has to do with the full community of Social Security recipients. And it raises concerns about whose "legs" are on the line.
Social Security is not just for retired workers. The full community of social security recipients -- 56 million people, or one in six Americans -- also includes widows, widowers, children of deceased workers and the disabled. Many of these people also have higher than normal health care costs and thus CPI already underestimates how costs rise for their budgets each year too.
Moreover, nearly 6.3 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits are survivors of deceased workers -- including four million widows and widowers and 1.9 million surviving children. The average benefit payment for a widow or widower over 60 years old is $1,190, while the average payment for a surviving child is $786.
And that's not to mention the nearly nine million disabled workers receiving Social Security benefits, and the 2.1 million relatives of disabled workers.
Just look at Alisha Simms. Alisha's father died when she was still a child. Her father always wanted her to get a good education, but her mother's salary was not enough for college. Her father's Social Security survivor benefits helped Alisha pay for college. Without those benefits, Alisha would not be a practicing attorney today.
There are millions of Americans like Alisha. Too many of them are African American, thanks to poor access to health care in our communities. Some of them are the "extreme poor" and they will be somewhat protected by President Obama's proposed plan. But too many of them are struggling right below the poverty line or just above it. These would be the true victims of the chained-CPI proposal.
The solution is simple. If we want to update the Consumer Price Index in a responsible way, we should ask the Bureau of Labor Statistics to study the entire Social Security recipient population. We need to find out how flexible people with health issues can really be. And we need to account for beneficiaries like Alisha who depend on these cost-of-living increases for their livelihoods.
President Obama has promised this deal would protect the very old and the very poor. But we cannot balance the budget on the back of the poor and the middle class. Simply put, we should not tell people making $250,000 or $350,000 they can keep their "eggs" if the alternative is to ask people who rely on social security for survival to give up their "legs."]]>The Voter Suppression We Ignore at Democracy's Periltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20790172012-11-05T16:37:21-05:002013-01-05T05:12:01-05:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
Tomorrow millions of Americans will engage in one of our most treasured traditions -- voting for the leadership of our nation.
However, this constitutionally-protected right, the very cornerstone of our democracy, has come under attack though a concerted effort to suppress the vote and silence the voices of millions. While we have had great successes this year battling many efforts to block the vote, we know hundreds of thousands of voters in two battleground states will be newly blocked from voting.
This year the media discussion has put the spotlight on photo ID legislation and cutbacks to early voting, yet new laws that block the formerly incarcerated from the franchise have largely escaped notice. And the sheer number of people affected is so large it could determine who will be our next president.
To date, nearly six million formerly-incarcerated Americans are disenfranchised -- they have served their debt to society, yet are denied this basic Constitutional right.
This is a massive injustice, to be sure, but the real story is that these felony disenfranchisement laws that target former offenders are being enforced in 2012 in key states where they were not in 2008.
Last year, the Governors of Iowa and Florida suddenly reinstated felony disenfranchisement laws that had previously been suspended. This eliminated the voting power for what are likely hundreds of thousands of citizens who would have been voting eligible in 2011 and 2012.
In a closely-contested presidential election, either Iowa or Florida could decide the outcome of the presidential election. A third, Virginia, is one of only four states (along with Iowa, Florida, and Kentucky) in the country where a lifetime ban is imposed on anyone who was once convicted of a felony, the same Jim Crow voting laws of more than a century ago. Their rights can only be restored by the mercy of the Governor. Since 2011, only 12 of the estimated 8,000 released have had their rights restored in Iowa.
Back when Virginia instituted its ban in 1901, delegates to the state constitutional convention where it was adopted as part of a larger voter suppression strategy stated their motives plainly. This plan will "eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years," explained one delegate.
This year, the Governors of Iowa and Florida have been more guarded about stating their motives for reinstating these bans. Many have concluded that these Governors' reasons are partisan because their party lost their state in the last presidential election and the voters who will be impacted are believed to be disproportionately likely to support the president's bid for reelection.
If the Governors of Florida and Iowa reinstated these bans with an eye towards influencing the outcome of tomorrow's election, it is truly shameful.
Instead, they should have followed the path cut by former Florida Governors Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist who both embraced the cause of re-enfranchising formerly incarcerated people simply because it is the right thing to do for our democracy.
Each of these three battleground states have turned on a razor thin margin in recent election cycles -- far smaller than the number of voters erased from the registration rolls this year.
In short, this election may be determined by the denial of a basic right to men and women who have long since paid their debt to society, but remain excluded from the democratic process.
These Americans include taxpayers, employers, employees, parents, caregivers, students, and a growing number of would-be first-time voters -- all people who have paid their debt to society and deserve to have their voices heard on Election Day.
In America, we believe voting is a right. In America, we believe in second chances. In America, we believe candidates -- and parties -- should win on the sheer force of their ideas, not the brute force of voter suppression.
This continued, and now expanding, practice of barring people who have served their time from exercising their right to vote is un-American.
That it may decide the outcome of tomorrow's presidential election in unconscionable.]]>Voter Suppression Efforts Beat the Odds: Fraud Doesn'ttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18620742012-09-06T15:24:29-04:002012-11-06T05:12:01-05:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
The same logic, tearing at the seams of our democracy, is behind new laws and unlawful actions that could disenfranchise more than 23 million voters because there is a one out of 2.3 million chance that a person would commit voter fraud. The ends do not justify the means.
In conjunction with Brave New Films Foundation, the NAACP has launched a short film exposing the impact of rare events versus the impact that false claims of mass voter fraud have on the voting age population.
Watch the video here:
In August, News21 found only 10 cases related to alleged cases of voter impersonation fraud in more than 10 years--the kind that voter ID legislation would address. Additionally, News21 analyzed the oft-cited 375 cases of voter impersonation fraud and found no evidence of voter impersonation fraud.
This evidence does suggest that there is a need for voter registration modernization that has largely been neglected on the state level. The evidence also suggests that states extend efforts to educate voters on their election rules and procedures--reaching marginalized voters across the state.
Fortunately, these are mandates provided in HAVA, the Help America Vote Act. Unfortunately however, the lack of federal and state funding for HAVA has further delayed full enactment.
Circumstances and evidence aside, unnecessary and disenfranchising voter ID laws are just the tip of the voter suppression iceberg. Reducing or cutting early voting days, placing unnecessary burdens on voter registration, and instituting proof of citizenship on top of unlawful voter purges, felony disenfranchisement, voter deception and intimidation are all suppressive measures that impact the American right to vote.
These efforts stray far from helping Americans vote. Following the historic voter turnout in the 2008 Presidential election, which helped elect the Nation's first black president, a string of states began introducing laws that actively suppress the vote. Consequentially, these laws target voting blocs that showed a marked increase in turnout--minorities and youth in the 18 to 24 year old age group.
To paint a picture, cuts to early voting could have an adverse impact for populations who rely on those hours to vote when they are unable to take off from work--a luxury for those who have access to paid leave and other exceptions. In 2008, about 30 percent of Ohio's voters casted ballots before Election Day according to the Associated Press. For populations that have statistically been harder to mobilize and turnout on Election Day, the attack has been mounted on third-party registration efforts and community efforts like "Souls to the Polls" that were overwhelmingly successful in Florida.
The video exposes shear numbers, and if you dig deeper and divide the more than 23 million voters further the impact is still startling. Felony disenfranchisement laws alone, referring to laws that strip the rights of voters who have been convicted of a felony offense, disenfranchise more than 6 million otherwise eligible voters.
The video asks if we should stop going outside, stop taking baths, kill the bees, and prepare our family and friends for impending death in response to freak incidents. The most important question, however, is should we stop the vote of those wholly eligible to vote in the face of nearly non-existent voter fraud? If the bedrock of this nation's democracy is the right to vote, then the answer has to be no.]]>The State of Pennsylvania, Voter Suppression and the American Peopletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18214452012-08-22T11:21:46-04:002012-10-22T05:12:07-04:00Benjamin Todd Jealoushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-todd-jealous/
In 1852, Frederick Douglas spoke these words to express the sentiments of the American Slave to an audience observing Independence Day. Now, 170 years later, these same words could reflect the feelings of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania residents on Election Day who will have their rights suppressed because of new voter suppression laws.
Nationally, strict photo ID laws will have the harshest impact on already marginalized populations. Studies have shown that 25 percent of African-Americans, 16 percent of Hispanics, and 18 percent of individuals over 65 do not even have the documents required to gain the proper photo identification mandated in new voter ID laws.
In Philadelphia alone, over 186,000 registered voters -- or 18 percent of people registered in the city -- do not have the necessary ID to exercise their right to vote. Coincidentally, Philadelphia's minority population is the highest in Pennsylvania.
In states like Texas and Pennsylvania, the law takes it a step further, targeting students who are a part of the fastest growing voting bloc. While Texas eliminates student IDs from the list, the PA voter ID law eliminates student IDs without expiration dates. Coincidentally, the majority of Pennsylvania college and university IDs lack an expiration date. In the 14-school PASSHE system alone, which has agreed to issue compliant student IDs to incoming students but only market the option to continuing students, an estimated 120,000 students could be disenfranchised.
Unfortunately, the consequences felt by certain factions of the population in Pennsylvania are shared across the country. Suppressive tactics launched in the U.S. take advantage of the same racial, age, and economic disparities.
Proponents of such tactics continue to proclaim the protection of Election Integrity against voter fraud. In states, including Pennsylvania, these same proponents have unearthed little to no evidence of voter impersonation fraud. Instead, states have uncovered inconsistencies in their voter rolls and flaws in Election Day recording due to outdated registrar systems and election official errors.
As these technological inconsistencies continue to throw voters and election boards under the bus, states have launched an attack on a nonexistent problem, sometimes fighting against financial support set aside for improving registrars through the Help American Vote Act.
Suppressing the vote diminishes election integrity by nurturing a political environment that ignores democracy and sustains social, economic, and ethnic disparities in today's society.
And, as the war is being fought through litigation in Texas, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania combating those restrictive voter ID laws, the vote is being suppressed by unlawful purges, cuts to early voting, and harsh registration regulations. The onus is on this country to expand the electorate rather than to restrict and shrink it.
Speaking to the crux of the attack on democracy, Harold Meyerson opined that "a presidency premised on a racist restriction of the franchise creates a political and constitutional crisis."
If we want to ensure the integrity of our elections, we must ensure the integrity of the vote, promising that every voting-age citizen is able to cast a ballot and have it counted on Election Day. Election integrity cannot come in the form of voter suppression.
In 1852, Frederick Douglas asked "What, to an American Slave is your Fourth of July?" In 2012, the current climate forces each of us to ask: What to a proud citizen of our democracy would be a presidency "won" by the suppression of votes?]]>
