Dear Editor:

On Tuesday Congressional leaders and President Obama reached a deal to avoid defaulting to our nation’s creditors; what Americans had been told all summer to be an impending economic disaster.  While these leaders champion themselves as heroes for passing such legislation, they fail to realize that average American families have been in the midst of our own debt crisis for years.  Unlike that for our elected officials, there will be no ticker-tape parade for the countless middle-class and growing number working poor who manage to scrape by and avoid default daily. 

While Boehner, Obama, and others were taking to the airwaves to debate their plans, my wife and I were sitting around the kitchen table discussing ours.  The four years we have been married both of us have been in school.  We have worked through college and financed what we were unable to pay.  Like many, we managed to stay afloat by working hard.  When our 2005 Chevy, made overseas, broke due to poor manufacturing we were left over-under.  We had little savings and could get no financing.  Fortunately, our families rallied around us and we were able to get by.

An incompetent and anemic Washington has failed to create jobs and spur the economy.   Our leaders are so inept that they celebrate what has become a common occurrence in this country—rallying together to avoid impending economic disasters.  Instead of working to lift us out of this mess, they work to score points in a losing game.  The real heroes are those Americans who have been scraping by to pay off their debts, avoid foreclosure, those who are over-under on their cars and homes waiting for relief.  They are neither celebrated nor appreciated for doing what is expected of them.   Why is it that we have come to expect so much less of our leaders than we expect of ourselves?

Sincerely,

Zachary H. Smith

Two millenium ago, a child was born in Bethlehem who taught us how to live.  We have yet to heed his message of love, compassion and peace, but during this holiday season we should renew ourselves to that higher calling; to love one another as we want to be loved.  The following conversation is composed of statements regarding peace from President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture (2009) and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (1964).  I was moved to write this because it was apparent to me from President Obama’s lecture that the simple concepts of peace and justice are made complex and exhausting.  While he praised Dr. King’s non-violent movement, he alluded to the fact that he was a statesman and had to view the world as such; however, spreading peace and love knows no titles, positions, race, gender, sexual orientation, creed or class.  We should be reminded this season that the only means of bringing  peace is to live it.  In Dr. King’s first book, Stride Toward Freedom, he wrote, “Contructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.”  This holiday season let us reflect on the peace we seek to bring to the world and act in accordance.  Happy Holidays.

A conversation on peace between 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient President Barack H. Obama and 1964 recipient Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr..

Obama: “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.”

King: “After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.”

Obama: “There will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

King: “Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.”

Obama: “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.  For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.”

King: “I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.”

Obama: “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.” 

King: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.” 

Obama: “To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” 

King: “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.”

Obama: “So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.  And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy.” 

King:  “Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.”

Obama: “But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.”

King:  “If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation.  The foundation of such a method is love.”

Obama: “So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings.” 

King: “I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him.”

Obama: “Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. ‘Let us focus,’ he said, ‘on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.’” 

King:  “I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him.” 

Obama: “This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek.  For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict.  Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.” 

King:  “I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.” 

Obama: “Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity.  For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.”

King:  “I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.”

Obama:  “As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.  And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict.”

King:  “I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeking to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation.”

Obama:  “Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.  But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place.”

King:  “When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.”

Obama: “So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.”

King:  “I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land.” And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.”  I still believe that We Shall overcome!”

Obama: “We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.”

King: “This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom.”

President George W. Bush is joined by school children and political leaders as he signs No Child Left Behind into law.

On October 1, 1991, President George H.W. Bush told students at Alice Deal Junior High School and millions of students watching live from their classrooms across the country that, “Education matters, and what you do today, and what you don’t do can change your future.”  He went on to add, “Progress starts when we ask more of ourselves, our schools and, yes, you, our students.”  Apparently, this message no longer resonates with the Republican Party George H.W. Bush once knew as there is much consternation amongst conservatives who are demanding that their schools do not tune in for President Barack Obama’s national address to students next week.  The American educational system can now include “common sense,” “patriotism,” and “civics” with “sexual education” and “evolution” in the folder stamped OPTIONAL.  What is the basis of accusations that Obama will brainwash America’s youth with socialist ideology?  Or that his speech will be a platform by which he will justify healthcare reform, the stimulus package, or government intervention in the auto industry?  How has the extreme rightwing lost its mind?    

Currently, six states including Illinois will not be airing the President’s message.  In an effort to assuage concerned parents the White House will be posting the speech the day prior online for review, and the Department of Education has already issued revised lesson plan suggestions that no longer encourage students to write a letter to themselves about how they can help the President but a letter in which they create short and long term goals.   Despite these efforts, the controversy continues to consume school districts across the country and the evening news.  The motivation for this reaction is similar to that of healthcare reform.  There is a growing irrational conservative ideology that is spreading like wildfire across all parts of this country, which is motivated by fear: fear of change, fear of a Democratic President, fear of a black President, fear of globalization and fear of fear itself. 

This fear consumes people into a state where they are obviously not thinking rationally.  American Presidents have spoken with school children throughout our nation’s history.  These children cannot vote.  They would not even understand the complexities of healthcare reform and will not become effective advocates for the President.  Most adults in this country cannot even debate the merits of the Congressional healthcare bill or even explain the theoretical framework of American capitalism.  Further, these right extremists need to take a civics lesson for their own benefit.  Barack Obama is President of the United States of America, not the President of the Democratic Party.  Republican President George W. Bush signed off on TARP that bailed out banks and insurance companies as well as made an $18 billion investment in the auto industry; both parties have spent public money much the same way.  Further, this country has a system of checks and balances so intricate that one could spend their entire life devoted to its study and all of this expressed in a document that is twelve pages.  A speech to the children of this nation is not going to create a mindless army of young people, eyes blurred, marching on Washington for a public option. 

The President’s address to the school children of this nation is nothing more than telling the children of this country that they matter.  A message that gets drowned out by endless bickering at town halls, mindless political pundits chattering at American dinner tables, the familiar sounds of video games, or by the deafening silence some kids hear when they are completely ignored by their parents.  Values voters talk incessantly about values, but cannot stand it when someone lives up to them.  Let President Obama address the youth of this nation and challenge them as all Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have done before.  Our youth deserve and need the attention.

When I was six years old, George H.W. Bush was elected President.  I remember running down the stairs in our house cheering and my brother who was seven crying because Dukakis lost.  I did not know who either man was much less their platforms.  Four years later I wrote in my school journal that I wanted Bill Clinton elected President in 1992 because he built homes for people after hurricane Andrew hit Florida and a month or two after that I wrote that I thought Ross Perot the best candidate because my father liked him.  The point is that we as adults are entrusted with the development of the next generation of Americans.  The current inflammatory partisanship is not healthy for us and is something that we cannot pass on; this cannot be our legacy.

“Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don’t do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you’re at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you’re doing. Write me a letter — and I’m serious about this one — write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.” –President George H.W. Bush’s concluding remarks to school children across America, October 1991.

Please keep revisiting as I appreciate your readership.

In 1896 Justice Henry Billings Brown, after hearing Plessy v. Ferguson, authored the Court’s majority opinion effectively establishing the “separate but equal” doctrine.  This decision ushered in the era of Jim Crow, relegating people of color to second class citizenship while putting the burden of disadvantage squarely on their shoulders.  In his opinion, Brown found that, “…the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”  Henry Billings Brown’s identity as an affluent white man influenced his decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and because of it generations of Americans of color endured discrimination and injustice to an extent white Americans will never know.  Brown’s story is an example about how our highest court has institutionalized racism and white privilege.  Today, white conservatives are on the attack of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.  Her story and potential appointment to the land’s highest court threatens to further deconstruct that privilege and continue moving the court towards racial justice. 

Unlike Brown, whose ancestry could almost completely be traced back to the Pilgrims, Sonia Sotomayor’s parents moved to the Bronx from Puerto Rico during the second World War where she was born—making her a first generation Puerto Rican American.  Brown’s father owned a mill and was a wealthy Massachusetts merchant.  This made it possible for him to attend prestigious New England prep schools and eventually study at Yale. Conversely, Sotomayor’s father, who was a tool and die maker, died when she was nine years old.  Her mother worked to send her and her brother to a Catholic School and she later attended Princeton.  There the soon to be summa cum laude grad demanded the school admit more Latino/a students and faculty; she eventually filed a federal complaint against the administration for its systemic discrimination.

While it may be unfair to compare these two judges with respect to their legal education because of the rapid change in American formal legal training during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, it could still provide some insight into how white privilege is manifesting itself in this current debate.  Both Brown and Sotomayor found themselves at Yale Law a little more than 120 years apart.  Brown spent his time studying between Yale and Harvard but did not have a formal degree until the University of Michigan and Yale presented him with honorary Doctors of Law in 1887 and 1891 respectively—six and two years before his appointment to the Supreme Court.  Sotomayo attended Yale Law where she served in an editorial capacity for two law journals.

Before his appointment in1875 to the federal bench, Brown served as a deputy US Marshal, US State Attorney, and interim Circuit Court Judge.  His career was not interrupted by the Civil War as he paid a substitute to take his place, and while a supporter of Lincoln, he was not a proponent of emancipation.  On the other hand, Judge Sotomayor has always been an advocate for people of color—particularly of Hispanic descent.  She served on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund when it sued New York City over discriminatory practices used when hiring police officers and drawing voting districts.  She practiced law as a prosecutor and corporate lawyer before being appointed to the federal bench.  As a testament to her expertise and commitment to the law she has more judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in 100 years. With regards to judicial experience, if Sonia Sotomayor can edge out every justice in nearly the second half of US history, if not every justice ever, then what problem do her opponents have with her?  The answer is simple.  They have the same problem with her that they do not have with Henry Billings Brown—she is not white.  However, as with Brown, her identity and experiences influence her views and decisions, but Sotomayor’s identity and experiences challenge the status quo, and what is the most effective way to protect institutionalized racism and white privilege?  Again, the answer is simple: more racism and white privilege. 

Sonia Sotomayor’s identity is forcing news analysts, pundits, and politicians to make observations or raise questions that they did not make during the recent appointments of Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts.  The fact that these questions, stemming from issues of race and ethnicity, were not asked of those two white males means that these questions are racist.  For example, Fox News’s Bill Hemmer and Shannon Bream discussed anonymous reports that Sotomayor “…is supposedly domineering in oral arguments….”  This is interesting in that they intended this information to be some sort of negative character flaw.  She has spent her life as an attorney and judge and has been educated by of our nation’s top law schools to be “domineering in oral arguments.”  Why would anyone want to hire a timid lawyer? The nerve these people were trying to strike was much more subtle.  They wanted to play on the racial and sexist stereotypes that say all women, particularly women of color, are loud and emotional.  They wanted to make sure that after that comment was uttered their majority white, conservative audience associated Sotomayor with a fiery, emotional Puerto Rican woman; qualities that would lead them to question her intellect and capability of sitting on our nation’s highest court.    

Numerous men have questioned her intellectual capacity.  On March 28, Glenn Beck stated, “I think the woman is not so bright.” CNN reported that the President’s nominee, while intelligent, did not have the same intellectual prowess as other candidates on the shortlist to compete with the arguments of Scalia or Alito.  Pat Buchanan declared her an “affirmative action pick,” while Lou Dobbs claimed her nomination as just a strategy the Democrats are employing to pander to Hispanic voters.  This begs the question, were Roberts and Alito nominated because they are white?  That despite their previous educational and professional credentials they were selected to serve because they will preserve the status quo and side with white court petitioners and in favor of preserving white privilege?  Were their nominations only to court white, conservative voters?  No one would ever nor did anyone pose these questions during Robert’s or Alito’s confirmations because they benefit from white privilege.  They and all but four other Supreme Court Justices have benefitted from the privilege to be taken at their word with no need for proof.  This privilege assumes they went to good law schools and were ranked in the top of their classes as well as that they are competent professionals and completely independent in their decision-making.  It is the same privilege that allows the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions to claim on Meet the Press that Sonia has the ideal background for the Supreme Court, but question her nomination because her being a Latina female might bias her judicial independence. 

Session and others question Sotomayor’s judicial independence by pointing to remarks she made at the Berkley School of Law’s Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture in 2002.  She spoke about the necessity for judicial diversity when hearing cases regarding sexual and racial discrimination.  “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  In discrimination cases that affect people of color, women, and other minority groups it is much more difficult to have an independent judiciary if everyone hearing the case and its appeals are members of the dominate social group whose authority is being challenged.  No reasonable person would disagree with that statement.  In fact, conservative whites do agree with that statement because they know that the court system has always been partial to them; that is why Sotomayor is a threat.    That is why they are opposing this nomination so vehemently.  It is a fear that is predicated on the belief that if too many minorities get into positions of power than the tables will be turned on them.  So this comment, completely out of context, came across to Fox News viewers by Megyn Kelly, “…that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges.”  While this racist comment was made by Fox News, it has been attributed to Sotomayor making her a “reverse racist.”  

Almost immediately after her nomination, the extreme right labeled Sotomayor a “reverse racist.”  On his blog former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote, “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism.  A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”  While there are numerous issues with his comments, two are of particular importance.  First, until Sotomayor’s nomination, white male Supreme Court nominees never had to say that they were better than any potential minority nominees because our society and government said that for them.  That is why there have only been four non-white men who have ever served on the court—all of those nominees serving in the past forty years.  It is the same reason more than half of this country is comprised by females, but our court currently has only one female Justice. 

The second most disturbing comment by Gingrich is this pitting of “new racism” against “old racism.”  While at least he acknowledges racism exists, he seems to be viewing “new racism” as being minority groups discriminating against non-minority groups.  Racism is racism, but most importantly this idea of “reverse racism” does not exist. Gingrich’s admittance reveals, not surprisingly, that he possesses a limited understanding of racism.  Racism is a system of advantage for a particular race of people, which is supported by societal and cultural institutions that reinforce such privilege while systemically subordinating others.  Racism is neither a person of color saying they are better than a white, nor is it a non-white hiring or promoting another non-white.  Because regardless of individual motives of people of color, white people in the United States can rest easily knowing that at the end of the day the system benefits them.  That is why Gingrich and these other white demagogues are so quick to attack Sotomayor as a “reverse racist.”  White people feel that they have the most to lose if too many non-whites obtain positions of power; this is not to say however that only whites are against Sotomayor’s nomination.

Interestingly enough the first African American RNC Chairman Michael Steele set the tone of this debate prior to the nomination by getting on television and criticizing the President’s want for a Justice with “empathy”—a Justice with a sense of how the law affects people in their daily lives.  On Meet the Press, Steele made it clear that when before the court he does not want judges to consider his life situation or circumstances; he wants them to make decisions based on the letter of the law.  Unfortunately, it seems that Steele is unaware that when most people of color walk into a courtroom in this country their “life situation” is already under consideration.  According to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice one out of every three young African American men is on parole, is on probation or is in prison.  Although youth of color only comprise one-third of our nation’s youth population, two-thirds of youth in prison are non-white.  Human Rights Watch has found that while blacks constitute just over 12% of the population, almost 44% of all people held in state and federal prisons are black.  Perhaps these statistics justify Sotomayor’s comment for a more diverse judiciary and reinforces that the system is stacked against people of color.  If Steele continues to doubt this, he should ask himself if he were arrested for prescription drug fraud, whether or not the charges against him would be dropped without a guilty plea if he simply agreed to continue treatment to get off OxyCotin.

Furthermore, the same racism and white privilege that is afflicting Sotomayor is also plaguing Chairman Steele’s ability to effectively run his party.  After the nomination Steele appealed to Republicans to reserve judgment until her record could be reviewed; however, they ignored his plea and went on the attack.  Coincidentally, Steele became party chair after the election of our first President who happens to be black.  This is to not infer that Steele does not possess the experience or intellect to run such a party, but that his leadership is purely symbolic.  If this were not true he would not have had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for publicly reprimanding the shock jock over comments made regarding his hope that Obama will fail.  Also, if his leadership were respected by the largely white party, judgment on Sotomayor would have been reserved until the RNC could devise a rational strategy to challenge her nomination.  Instead the white privilege that is attacking Sotomayor is isolating Steele because they view Sotomayor as a threat and Steele as a token.

No one denies that a person’s experience influences the decisions they make, but the real question is how those decisions affect others.  Do they support or undermine the status quo? Henry Billings Brown could not divorce himself from his affluence, his masculinity or his whiteness as Judge Sotomayor cannot check her Puerto Rican identity or femininity at the door.  Even Samuel Alito acknowledged this fact during his 2006 confirmation when he said he remembers his family when in the midst of a discrimination case and he thinks about how they endured ethnic and religious persecution.  However, conservatives excuse Alito for two reasons; first, he was a Republican nominee and second, they can relate to him as a white man.  Judicial independence is a false pretense.  One can hardly be expected to forget who they are or where they come from when sitting on the bench and delivering opinions.  The way to achieve a more just and equitable judiciary is to diversify those who make decisions because whites have had the monopoly on “judicial independence” for too long.  It makes sense to have a government whose composition is more reflective of the nation that it serves.

For an authentic dialogue regarding what our nation is looking for from judicial nominees to occur, white Americans must recognize that they have benefited from the system since its inception.  We must stop accusing people of being “reverse racists” and consider the meaning of our own words.  We should educate ourselves on what racism is and how it manifests itself in our lives and institutions.  We must find ways to dismantle our own privilege and that begins by overcoming the fear of what a more equal system looks like.  This fear that is propagated by conservative demagogues must be turned into hope that we can collectively move closer towards the promises set forth in our Constitution.  In fact, that is the ultimate consideration when we confirm a Supreme Court nominee.  Who has the depth, intellect, and character to continue interpreting our supreme law towards freedom and ensuring democracy within our own national borders?  Who can further make efforts to reflect our growing national heritage in our highest court? 

 The most revealing analysis of this event was made on MSNBC by Joe Scarborough. When reviewing footage of President Obama standing with Judge Sotomayor he said, “…that is an inspiring picture to 80%–85% of Americans right there.  That picture makes America feel good about itself.”  Scarborough points out the obvious—that “old racism” still exists in America.  He is optimistic in that he feels the minority of Americans object to such diversity on our courts and within our government; however, if this is true why is the 85% so quiet and 15% so loud?  Furthermore, he is only recognizing the blatantly racist minority but ignoring those who will claim other reasons not to support Sotomayor that are not overtly racist or sexist but based on the same right-wing ideology. If the picture of our nation’s first President who happens to be black and his Supreme Court nominee who happens to be Latina makes this country feel so good about itself, then why is this debate so negative?

Few Americans remember who wrote the majority opinion arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was not infringed by Louisiana’s segregated railcars; however, most Americans would agree that Henry Billings Brown was born in a time and place when people of color were viewed as inferior and that his opinions and experiences influenced his decision in Plessy v Ferguson.  The circumstances in which Brown lived do not excuse his racial views or class privileges, but they are also not questioned.  Today, we find ourselves debating if a Hispanic female, Sonia Sotomayor, can participate in a “colorblind” legal system.  Did Henry Billings Brown?

The state of Georgia is going to kill an innocent man.  The state of Georgia has killed innocent men before.  Troy Davis has been sitting on death row since 1991 when he was convicted of murdering a police officer in Savannah.  There was no physical evidence linking him to the murder and the case against him relied on the testimony of nine witnesses. To date, seven of those witnesses have recanted their testimony; three claimed to have been intimidated by the police and two admit that they never even saw the crime.  Despite this fact, the Georgia Supreme Court, US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court have all failed to review new evidence and the recanted testimony that may prove Troy’s innocence.  Troy Davis is one of many blacks, in America, who have fallen victim to false witness, coerced testimony, rushed judgment and justice denied.  The time for us to bare witness for Troy is now.  The time to end this brand of southern justice, which threatens his life and that took the life of Sam Hose during the spring of 1899, is now.

On April 23, 1899 Sam Hose was lynched outside of Newnan, Georgia.  He was chained to a tree; his body was mutilated by a knife, rubbed down with oil, and set on fire.  Reports indicate that 2,000 Georgians watched in amazement.  What was left of Hose was fought over by the crowd.  People took pieces of burned flesh and bones as souvenirs.  About a week before, Hose killed his boss, Alfred Cranford a white Georgia planter, in self-defense.  Based on findings from the investigation, which occurred after Hose had been murdered, it was found he requested time-off and pay in advance to visit his ailing mother.  He was denied this and on the following day Cranford pointed a pistol at him and threatened his life.  Hose pitched an axe at Cranford and killed him.  He went on the run as reports circulated that he allegedly raped Cranford’s wife and severely beat his children.  Sam Hose killed in self-defense and was then lynched.  He was not allowed to address trumped charges or his day in court, nor was he spared cruel and unusual punishment.  That spring day, with 2,000 witnesses, Sam Hose had fallen victim to justice denied.

Today, there are new rules but the game Troy Davis is forced to play is essentially the same.  Troy has always maintained his innocence, no physical evidence ties him to the crime, a murder weapon was never found, seven of the nine witnesses that made the prosecution’s case have recanted and one of the other two have been implicated as the real perpetrator.  While he was granted his day in court, new evidence that has surfaced during his nineteen years on death row is not being heard.  This is a direct violation of his right to due process granted in the Constitution.  His fate currently lies in the hands of the US Supreme Court who will review his petition for this new evidence to finally be reviewed beginning on Wednesday, June 25 and who are expected to deliver an order on June 29.  If our nation’s highest court does not grant his petition, a date for Troy Davis’s execution will be set; a date that has been set for Troy four times already.  This is his last appeal to the US Supreme Court; this is my appeal to you to take action and bare witness for Troy Davis because we have all been witness to justice denied.

Sign Amnesty International’s and the NAACP’s Petition to grant Troy clemency.

Contact Larry Chisolm, Chatham County District Attorney, and urge him to reopen Troy’s case.

Attend/sponsor an event during the Week of Witness for Troy Davis, June 18-June 26.

Click Here to learn more about the truth and brutality of lynching in American History.

CNN’s “Black in America” series seeks to educate viewers on issues facing blacks, breakdown stereotypes, and expose truths; while the program’s effectiveness at accomplishing these goals is for debate, the fact that it is perpetuating the stigma that black Americans are troublesome is not.  Cornel West describes this common phenomenon that occurs when individuals talk about race in his Race Matters.  He advances previous observations that arguments made by conservatives who call for black responsibility and liberals who solely blame systemic discrimination for the problems of black people are both based on the assumption that blacks are a problem people.  Instead of Americans with problems, these views see two Americas—one black and one white.  West profoundly concludes, “…we confine discussions about race in America to the ‘problems’ black people pose for whites rather than consider what this way of viewing black people reveals about us as a nation.” 

So, what does CNN inviting people to give their “solutions for black America” reveal about us collectively?  First, it reveals that white Americans are largely exempt from being held accountable for the role they play and/or have played in creating a system of racial subordination.  Second, it demonstrates the current inability of Americans (mostly white) to have an open, honest dialogue on racism, which begins by addressing the past and making amends.   Third, it reveals an instinct to skip problems and move directly to solutions; this mistake will be fatal to the movement for racial justice.  Fourth, the burden of problems that black Americans are dealing with is unfairly put on their shoulders for the entire nation to watch.  Fifth, it reveals that we are still unable to transcend race on certain issues (classism, sexism, etc.) and work in common cause to address mounting challenges.  Lastly, and perhaps worst of all, it reveals how our nation continues to isolate black Americans, perpetuates an “us” versus “them” mentality, and ignores a history of systemic racial inequality.

Upon investigation into Kock’s background, the contract Lincoln signed was voided, but not too long after the president signed a similar contract with two New York businessmen to colonize the same land.  They hired Bernard Kock to organize and lead the project and during May 1863 he and 453 blacks landed at the Ile à Vache.  It was discovered shortly thereafter that Kock had ran off with the colonizers’ money and provided them with little to survive; as a result, 100 black Americans died.  During spring 1864, Lincoln’s administration sent a vessel to pick up the survivors.  Despite courageous voices, the Great Emancipator chose to view blacks as a problem people and at the time slaves were liberating themselves because a proclamation he signed, he spent time pursuing colonization projects to move them out of the country.  That was one of Lincoln’s solutions for black America and now CNN wants “your solutions for black America.”  The time to discuss what this reveals about us as a nation is now.

Today, William Seward is celebrated annually in upstate New York. This past Saturday former Republican Vice Presidential Nominee and Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin delivered the keynote in which she attacked bailouts, big government, and Obama.  Her praise for Seward’s achievements was mired by her lack of understanding about the history of the Alaskan purchase and his legacy.

While the governor castigated big government bailouts for companies and people who were “imprudent” with their money, she failed to realize the man she praised bailed out a Russian empire in dire financial straits.   After decades upon decades of war, the territory’s meager sale to the US injected cash into the Russian government.  The Russians were glad to receive compensation for the land because they feared it might have been taken at some point by the British or US.  While this may hardly equate to the modern day bailout of AIG or GM, it was in the best interest of the US to pay the money and take the territory.  Because of this investment the nation benefitted from various resources, including gold and oil.  If Palin was in Seward’s position, she would have refused the best interest of the nation, rebuked the Russians and tried to give them a lesson in fiscal responsibility. 

Regarding “big government,” Palin denounced current efforts by the Obama administration to standardize educational outcomes, universalize healthcare, and regulate the Alaskan pipeline.  After each denunciation she proclaimed, “I don’t think that’s what Seward had in mind.”  Those exact ideas may not have been what Seward had in mind; nevertheless he was a big government guy.  As New York governor he funded the construction of canals, bridges, libraries and schools.  He was Secretary of State for President Lincoln in 1860 and was part of the administration that fought to hold this Union together.  If Seward were not a proponent of big government he would have advocated that Lincoln let the South go.  He helped write the Emancipation Proclamation; a document that freed the slaves in the Southern States and at the time interfered with the property rights of white Southerners.  If Palin were in Seward’s position, she would have refused to advocate for the construction of public accommodations and infrastructure and possibly been one of the many voices urging Lincoln to let the South divest itself.

Palin celebrated the contributions Seward made to American race relations by discussing his involvement in the Underground Railroad.  In fact, Seward became an abolitionist after he taught in Georgia and witnessed the cruelties of slavery.  His house was a stop on the Underground Railroad where he broke the law and assisted fugitive slaves cross into Canada.  Seward helped to author the Emancipation Proclamation and signed the document as Secretary of State.  Palin’s own contribution to furthering race relations in the US is decidedly different than that of the subject of her remarks.  In the previous Presidential campaign, she made inflammatory, racially pointed comments questioning Obama’s loyalty to the US.  “This is not a man who sees America as you and I see America. We see America as a force for good in this world. We see America as a force for exceptionalism … Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.”  During the final days of the campaign, at a Palin rally in Clearwater, Florida, the Alaskan Governor was silent when a man in the crowd shouted about Obama, “Kill him!”  If Palin were in Seward’s position, her house would have been her own; she would have collected the reward for returning fugitives and opposed the big government idea of Emancipation.  

“Seward’s Folly” is a fascinating tidbit of American history; even inconsequential until now.  His supposed gaffe cemented his legacy as a knowledgeable statesman, racial progressive, and risk-taker.  If Governor Palin were aware of his record and contribution to this nation, she would think him a wide-eyed, big government, bailout spending liberal—that is her folly.  Without Seward’s acquisition of Alaska in 1867, Palin would not likely have a stage on which to grace us with her presence and likely Presidential bid in 2012—perhaps that is his folly.

Unlike Brown, whose ancestry could almost completely be traced back to the Pilgrims, Sonia Sotomayor’s parents moved to the Bronx from Puerto Rico during the second World War where she was born—making her a first generation Puerto Rican American.  Brown’s father owned a mill and was a wealthy Massachusetts merchant.  This made it possible for him to attend prestigious New England prep schools and eventually study at Yale. Conversely, Sotomayor’s father, who was a tool and die maker, died when she was nine years old.  Her mother worked to send her and her brother to a Catholic School and she later attended Princeton.  There the soon to be summa cum laude grad demanded the school admit more Latino/a students and faculty; she eventually filed a federal complaint against the administration for its systemic discrimination.

While it may be unfair to compare these two judges with respect to their legal education because of the rapid change in American formal legal training during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, it could still provide some insight into how white privilege is manifesting itself in this current debate.  Both Brown and Sotomayor found themselves at Yale Law a little more than 120 years apart.  Brown spent his time studying between Yale and Harvard but did not have a formal degree until the University of Michigan and Yale presented him with honorary Doctors of Law in 1887 and 1891 respectively—six and two years before his appointment to the Supreme Court.  Sotomayo attended Yale Law where she served in an editorial capacity for two law journals.

Before his appointment in1875 to the federal bench, Brown served as a deputy US Marshal, US State Attorney, and interim Circuit Court Judge.  His career was not interrupted by the Civil War as he paid a substitute to take his place, and while a supporter of Lincoln, he was not a proponent of emancipation.  On the other hand, Judge Sotomayor has always been an advocate for people of color—particularly of Hispanic descent.  She served on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund when it sued New York City over discriminatory practices used when hiring police officers and drawing voting districts.  She practiced law as a prosecutor and corporate lawyer before being appointed to the federal bench.  As a testament to her expertise and commitment to the law she has more judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in 100 years. With regards to judicial experience, if Sonia Sotomayor can edge out every justice in nearly the second half of US history, if not every justice ever, then what problem do her opponents have with her?  The answer is simple.  They have the same problem with her that they do not have with Henry Billings Brown—she is not white.  However, as with Brown, her identity and experiences influence her views and decisions, but Sotomayor’s identity and experiences challenge the status quo, and what is the most effective way to protect institutionalized racism and white privilege?  Again, the answer is simple: more racism and white privilege. 

Sonia Sotomayor’s identity is forcing news analysts, pundits, and politicians to make observations or raise questions that they did not make during the recent appointments of Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts.  The fact that these questions, stemming from issues of race and ethnicity, were not asked of those two white males means that these questions are racist.  For example, Fox News’s Bill Hemmer and Shannon Bream discussed anonymous reports that Sotomayor “…is supposedly domineering in oral arguments….”  This is interesting in that they intended this information to be some sort of negative character flaw.  She has spent her life as an attorney and judge and has been educated by of our nation’s top law schools to be “domineering in oral arguments.”  Why would anyone want to hire a timid lawyer? The nerve these people were trying to strike was much more subtle.  They wanted to play on the racial and sexist stereotypes that say all women, particularly women of color, are loud and emotional.  They wanted to make sure that after that comment was uttered their majority white, conservative audience associated Sotomayor with a fiery, emotional Puerto Rican woman; qualities that would lead them to question her intellect and capability of sitting on our nation’s highest court.    

Numerous men have questioned her intellectual capacity.  On March 28, Glenn Beck stated, “I think the woman is not so bright.” CNN reported that the President’s nominee, while intelligent, did not have the same intellectual prowess as other candidates on the shortlist to compete with the arguments of Scalia or Alito.  Pat Buchanan declared her an “affirmative action pick,” while Lou Dobbs claimed her nomination as just a strategy the Democrats are employing to pander to Hispanic voters.  This begs the question, were Roberts and Alito nominated because they are white?  That despite their previous educational and professional credentials they were selected to serve because they will preserve the status quo and side with white court petitioners and in favor of preserving white privilege?  Were their nominations only to court white, conservative voters?  No one would ever nor did anyone pose these questions during Robert’s or Alito’s confirmations because they benefit from white privilege.  They and all but four other Supreme Court Justices have benefitted from the privilege to be taken at their word with no need for proof.  This privilege assumes they went to good law schools and were ranked in the top of their classes as well as that they are competent professionals and completely independent in their decision-making.  It is the same privilege that allows the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions to claim on Meet the Press that Sonia has the ideal background for the Supreme Court, but question her nomination because her being a Latina female might bias her judicial independence. 

Session and others question Sotomayor’s judicial independence by pointing to remarks she made at the Berkley School of Law’s Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture in 2002.  She spoke about the necessity for judicial diversity when hearing cases regarding sexual and racial discrimination.  “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  In discrimination cases that affect people of color, women, and other minority groups it is much more difficult to have an independent judiciary if everyone hearing the case and its appeals are members of the dominate social group whose authority is being challenged.  No reasonable person would disagree with that statement.  In fact, conservative whites do agree with that statement because they know that the court system has always been partial to them; that is why Sotomayor is a threat.    That is why they are opposing this nomination so vehemently.  It is a fear that is predicated on the belief that if too many minorities get into positions of power than the tables will be turned on them.  So this comment, completely out of context, came across to Fox News viewers by Megyn Kelly, “…that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges.”  While this racist comment was made by Fox News, it has been attributed to Sotomayor making her a “reverse racist.”  

Almost immediately after her nomination, the extreme right labeled Sotomayor a “reverse racist.”  On his blog former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote, “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism.  A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”  While there are numerous issues with his comments, two are of particular importance.  First, until Sotomayor’s nomination, white male Supreme Court nominees never had to say that they were better than any potential minority nominees because our society and government said that for them.  That is why there have only been four non-white men who have ever served on the court—all of those nominees serving in the past forty years.  It is the same reason more than half of this country is comprised by females, but our court currently has only one female Justice. 

The second most disturbing comment by Gingrich is this pitting of “new racism” against “old racism.”  While at least he acknowledges racism exists, he seems to be viewing “new racism” as being minority groups discriminating against non-minority groups.  Racism is racism, but most importantly this idea of “reverse racism” does not exist. Gingrich’s admittance reveals, not surprisingly, that he possesses a limited understanding of racism.  Racism is a system of advantage for a particular race of people, which is supported by societal and cultural institutions that reinforce such privilege while systemically subordinating others.  Racism is neither a person of color saying they are better than a white, nor is it a non-white hiring or promoting another non-white.  Because regardless of individual motives of people of color, white people in the United States can rest easily knowing that at the end of the day the system benefits them.  That is why Gingrich and these other white demagogues are so quick to attack Sotomayor as a “reverse racist.”  White people feel that they have the most to lose if too many non-whites obtain positions of power; this is not to say however that only whites are against Sotomayor’s nomination.

Interestingly enough the first African American RNC Chairman Michael Steele set the tone of this debate prior to the nomination by getting on television and criticizing the President’s want for a Justice with “empathy”—a Justice with a sense of how the law affects people in their daily lives.  On Meet the Press, Steele made it clear that when before the court he does not want judges to consider his life situation or circumstances; he wants them to make decisions based on the letter of the law.  Unfortunately, it seems that Steele is unaware that when most people of color walk into a courtroom in this country their “life situation” is already under consideration.  According to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice one out of every three young African American men is on parole, is on probation or is in prison.  Although youth of color only comprise one-third of our nation’s youth population, two-thirds of youth in prison are non-white.  Human Rights Watch has found that while blacks constitute just over 12% of the population, almost 44% of all people held in state and federal prisons are black.  Perhaps these statistics justify Sotomayor’s comment for a more diverse judiciary and reinforces that the system is stacked against people of color.  If Steele continues to doubt this, he should ask himself if he were arrested for prescription drug fraud, whether or not the charges against him would be dropped without a guilty plea if he simply agreed to continue treatment to get off OxyCotin.

Furthermore, the same racism and white privilege that is afflicting Sotomayor is also plaguing Chairman Steele’s ability to effectively run his party.  After the nomination Steele appealed to Republicans to reserve judgment until her record could be reviewed; however, they ignored his plea and went on the attack.  Coincidentally, Steele became party chair after the election of our first President who happens to be black.  This is to not infer that Steele does not possess the experience or intellect to run such a party, but that his leadership is purely symbolic.  If this were not true he would not have had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for publicly reprimanding the shock jock over comments made regarding his hope that Obama will fail.  Also, if his leadership were respected by the largely white party, judgment on Sotomayor would have been reserved until the RNC could devise a rational strategy to challenge her nomination.  Instead the white privilege that is attacking Sotomayor is isolating Steele because they view Sotomayor as a threat and Steele as a token.

No one denies that a person’s experience influences the decisions they make, but the real question is how those decisions affect others.  Do they support or undermine the status quo? Henry Billings Brown could not divorce himself from his affluence, his masculinity or his whiteness as Judge Sotomayor cannot check her Puerto Rican identity or femininity at the door.  Even Samuel Alito acknowledged this fact during his 2006 confirmation when he said he remembers his family when in the midst of a discrimination case and he thinks about how they endured ethnic and religious persecution.  However, conservatives excuse Alito for two reasons; first, he was a Republican nominee and second, they can relate to him as a white man.  Judicial independence is a false pretense.  One can hardly be expected to forget who they are or where they come from when sitting on the bench and delivering opinions.  The way to achieve a more just and equitable judiciary is to diversify those who make decisions because whites have had the monopoly on “judicial independence” for too long.  It makes sense to have a government whose composition is more reflective of the nation that it serves.

For an authentic dialogue regarding what our nation is looking for from judicial nominees to occur, white Americans must recognize that they have benefited from the system since its inception.  We must stop accusing people of being “reverse racists” and consider the meaning of our own words.  We should educate ourselves on what racism is and how it manifests itself in our lives and institutions.  We must find ways to dismantle our own privilege and that begins by overcoming the fear of what a more equal system looks like.  This fear that is propagated by conservative demagogues must be turned into hope that we can collectively move closer towards the promises set forth in our Constitution.  In fact, that is the ultimate consideration when we confirm a Supreme Court nominee.  Who has the depth, intellect, and character to continue interpreting our supreme law towards freedom and ensuring democracy within our own national borders?  Who can further make efforts to reflect our growing national heritage in our highest court? 

 The most revealing analysis of this event was made on MSNBC by Joe Scarborough. When reviewing footage of President Obama standing with Judge Sotomayor he said, “…that is an inspiring picture to 80%–85% of Americans right there.  That picture makes America feel good about itself.”  Scarborough points out the obvious—that “old racism” still exists in America.  He is optimistic in that he feels the minority of Americans object to such diversity on our courts and within our government; however, if this is true why is the 85% so quiet and 15% so loud?  Furthermore, he is only recognizing the blatantly racist minority but ignoring those who will claim other reasons not to support Sotomayor that are not overtly racist or sexist but based on the same right-wing ideology. If the picture of our nation’s first President who happens to be black and his Supreme Court nominee who happens to be Latina makes this country feel so good about itself, then why is this debate so negative?

Few Americans remember who wrote the majority opinion arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was not infringed by Louisiana’s segregated railcars; however, most Americans would agree that Henry Billings Brown was born in a time and place when people of color were viewed as inferior and that his opinions and experiences influenced his decision in Plessy v Ferguson.  The circumstances in which Brown lived do not excuse his racial views or class privileges, but they are also not questioned.  Today, we find ourselves debating if a Hispanic female, Sonia Sotomayor, can participate in a “colorblind” legal system.  Did Henry Billings Brown?